WILLIAM Scott (Letters, July 2) could not be further from the truth when he states that “the only people anxious about Brexit are those who care more for the money in their pockets than about anything else”. That is a gross distortion of the complete picture, although there may be a few who subscribe to that philosophy of greed.

The promise of “sunlit uplands” repeated by Mr Scott is as remote as a two-week holiday on the Moon. Why do Leavers keep repeating this bizarre fantasy? We cannot do better than the current trading arrangements as members of the EU. As a direct result of the British side of the Brexit negotiations, we are now seen to be a weak, indecisive nation which caves in to a toxic UK right-wing press and a selfishly ambitious group of extremists in the Tory Party. We are, therefore, hardly in a position to negotiate better trade deals outside the EU, as our desperation is there for all to to see. Better to remain in the EU, eat humble pie and cut our losses.

I spent two years in Germany as an Erasmus exchange student in the 1990s and discovered there the fairness and stability of a social democracy. Freedom to study abroad in the EU was a life-changing experience. For the sake of our children we cannot throw that privilege away in a casual manner as the Brexit supporters would wish us to do. I am horrified that we are contemplating a move which will so obviously encourage right-wing extremism and throw away all the lessons learnt from the two disastrous European wars of the 20th century.

Dave Stewart,

6 Blairatholl Avenue, Glasgow.

I WAS surprised and disappointed at the sentiments expressed in William Scott’s letter. These carry a particular irony given the context of his vision of a free and civilised country post-Brexit, and do little credit, either in rational or democratic terms, to the Leave side of the argument.

The notion, for example, that “any parliamentarian who votes against our leaving should be fired” would be simply ridiculous, were it not that this is actually seriously believed in too many quarters. Such a bid to silence dissenters is dangerous in a democracy. The result of the 2016 referendum, a snapshot of one moment in history, in which we must remember only 37 per cent of the electorate actually asked for Brexit, showed if anything a country that was deeply divided. That is something that our current uninspiring crop of leading politicians need to take on board in their interpretation of what “the people” really were voting for (or against) and what is in the best interests of the country.

The more fundamentalist of the Brexiters are very keen on hurrying on our irrevocable severing from Europe before too many awkward questions are asked. It also comes as no surprise, now that so much more is becoming known about what Brexit entails and how much damage it threatens to the country, that the fundamentalists are also so much against the increasing calls for a “People’s Vote” on its terms.

This indecent haste in closing up the matter looks very like panic among a small but strident minority, who, I think, sense the steadily declining validity and authority of their case, at least in the eyes of the present and any future electorate. If what they believe is, and was all along, truly right, as well as being good for the country, why should they have to fear that the now better-informed consent of “the people” could possibly be different?

Robert Bell,

40 Stewarton Drive, Cambuslang.

AS a European national living in Scotland for 21 years, I would have voted Remain in the European Referendum in 2016. However, I was not allowed to vote. There are many of us in the same position and that is why I take offence with the opinions voiced by William Scott.

There are numerous very valid reasons to be anxious about leaving the EU and they don’t all revolve around money. Many do not believe in the “sunlit uplands” of Brexit; many mourn the fact that young people will not have the same opportunities as our generation had; many fear that protections for people and environment will be severely undermined. People in my situation are anxious about our right to stay in this country and continue our lives as partners, parents and members of the community. We are not reassured by the current proposals and unhappy by the fact that we will lose the right to vote in local elections.

Mr Scott argues that democracy has spoken and that “any parliamentarian who votes against us leaving should be fired” and that is where I really take grave offence. Democracy, true democracy entails protecting the rights of all people. In this case not just the rights of those who have “won”, but also the rights of those who voted Remain. Does he really think that the opinions of the 48.1 per cent who voted Remain should be disregarded? In my eyes that would not be the legal and political system that is the “fount of every other”; in fact, it is as low as you can go.

Trudy Duffy-Wigman,

Devon View, Crook of Devon, Fife.

J HAMILTON’S letter (July 2) saddened me. Far from condemning successive generations to “ more of the same, or worse”, the Union saw Scotland ranked as the best country in the UK for quality of life as recently as 2016 (The Social Progess Imperative). Andrew Wilson, who produced the SNP’s Growth Commission report, is on record as saying that “people are leery of referendums”; how right he is; and the Institute of Fiscal Studies has forecast a continuance of austerity were Scots to vote for independence.

I rest my case.

David Miller,

80 Prestonfield, Milngavie.

PETER A Russell (Letters, July 3) is getting confused.

He is talking about two referendums, one in Scotland by the SNP, acceded by a request from the Scottish Parliament, and one in the UK, the result of a pledge by David Cameron to placate the hard right Tory Party, and the now-defunct Ukip. Mr Cameron did not believe that Leave would be successful.

There is no doubt that Westminster is a rowdy place, with the Labour Party unsure whether to be Yah or Boo – come to think of it the Tories are also in that position, with the Liberal Democrats undecided as yet. In the Scottish Parliament the SNP is sticking to its independence aim, or as Winnie Ewing put it in the 1970s, “full control of the purse and the policies”. This Parliament is not as rowdy as Westminster.

The political situation in the UK is a real bourach, and getting worse – no clarity from Government or official Opposition; trying to make sense of it is impossible. The SNP is trying to look after Scotland’s affairs, while the battleground changes daily, or even hourly. High time Scotland was given the power to solve its own problems, and the rUK the same.

Jim Lynch,

42 Corstorphine Hill Crescent, Edinburgh.