KM Campbell (Letters, February 24), asks his Scottish Conservative MP to explain why he signed “the inflammatory Brexit letter to the Prime Minister”, as a hard Brexit “will undermine virtually every economic enterprise in this [Stirlingshire] area”. A more pertinent question is whether his MP favours proportional representation over the first-past-the-post (FPTP) UK voting system. And the debate on October 30, 2017 at Westminster Hall over FPTP v proportional representation (PR) is revealing.

Naturally, the usual patronising and platitudes abounded: “First past the post is clear and easy to understand. Votes are counted and there is a winner” (Steve Double – Conservative); “We sit in the mother of all Parliaments, the home of parliamentary democracy, which has been exported around the world” (Ranil Jayawardena – Conservative); one MP (Craig Mackinlay – Conservative) managed to misquote Churchill, and one MP (Lee Rowley – Conservative) embarked on a pseudo philosophical discourse: “My problem with PR is that it prioritises purity over practicality. My favourite, however, is: “We are one of the greatest democracies on the planet” (Mr Double) – the sub-text being why change anything.

The UK Government’s final position on FPTP was a reiteration of previous illogical statements, but the following is worth noting: “The system [FPTP] … provides a clear link between constituents and their representatives in Parliament”.

Three Scottish Conservative MPs signed “the inflammatory Brexit letter”, and yet all three constituencies voted Remain (the highest return in Stirling) thereby belying the UK Government’s statement that MPs represent their constituents in Parliament. The three MPs of course also ignored their country’s Remain vote – thereby having no qualm in blatantly ignoring their constituents’ and their country’s expressed view on Brexit.

What this tells me is that ideologically-driven Parliamentarians will use the “will of the people” when it suits them but will ignore it when it does not.

P Fabien,

41 Kingsborough Gardens, Glasgow.

THE announcement that the Labour Party wants Britain to join a customs union with the European Union completes its movement from supporting a hard Brexit to supporting a Big Business Brexit. Our politicians need to stop thinking in terms of trade deals and customs unions and start thinking about people.

The people of Scotland voted to remain in the European Union and that should be the starting point and not the needs of big business.

Peter Ryan,

34 Knoweholm, Ayr.

IT is my belief that prominent pro-EU voices in the UK undermine our negotiating position and embolden the EU negotiators to give us a rotten deal. This would be an ideal set of circumstances in which to “welcome” back a chastened UK on even worse terms, because from day one on the EU side, it has been about the money.

Any bad trade deal will be mutually harmful and in no one’s interest. When the EU member states met recently, there was a resistance from contributing states to pay in more to offset the loss of the UK’s contribution and, equally pertinent, there was a reluctance on the part of recipient states to receive less. We are offering money, now and in the future, a good trade deal with us, security of tenure for EU citizens living here and co-operation on crime, security and defence. In contrast, I can’t think of any positive offer from the EU, despite it delivering multiple threats.

I hope that a close trade deal, which would be best for both sides, is delivered, free of unnecessary regulations. I think the UK can deliver this but the EU needs to get out of the mindset of punitive retribution and reparations.

John Leonard,

6 Drossie Road, Falkirk.

THE relentless attempts to overturn the declared will of the people in the EU and UK referendums continue unabated.

On a personal note, in the 2016 plebiscite I voted Remain but accepted the democracy involved in the decision to take the UK out of the EU. I voted for the retention of the UK in 2014. Much the same applies. It seems pointless to have referendums in the first place if the results are to be ignored.

Often I ponder what would have been the reaction if the Remain vote had won and Brexiters continued to campaign to get out. Or if the SNP somehow managed to win the 2014 referendum and those who lost continued campaigning for retention of the UK as if nothing whatsoever had happened.

The only conclusion can be that, demonstrably, referendums do not solve anything, in fact they make things worse, as things stand. Perhaps a two-thirds majority should be required for any referendum resulting in major constitutional change.

Alexander McKay,

8/7 New Cut Rigg,

Edinburgh.

DAVID Torrance ends his piece today (“The SNP don’t really want to make nice with wicked Tories”, The Herald, February 26) with a quote from John P Mackintosh as to “it is not beyond the wit of man to devise the institutions to meet these demands”: these demands being the degree of self-government to satisfy Scots. Mr Torrance states that he is “not sure” these demands can be met. But Westminster hasn’t tried. All polling for many years has a majority of Scots approving of a substantial measure of home rule for Scotland. It wouldn’t be a difficult constitutional fix to establish parliaments for the four constituent countries of the UK with fixed powers and responsibilities to satisfy most people.

Could it happen? I don’t believe so. Westminster (representing the substantial interests of England) is far too fond of its economic and political hegemony over the smaller nations of the UK.

It would seem we are headed for a choice between independence and rule by a parliament in which we have little say, and less influence.

GR Weir,

17 Mill Street,

Ochiltree.

I AM very relieved to read that Nationalist supporters have abandoned their plan to form a human chain in support of independence on Ben Nevis this summer (“Nevis chain is cancelled, The Herald, February 24). I would have thought a human barrier along the Scotland/England border would have been more their style.

Susan McKenzie,

20 Mossfield Drive, Fort William.