ACCORDING to your report Liam Fox claimed the odds of a no-deal Brexit had risen to a 60-40 due to European "intransigence" ("Fox: No deal most likely and it’s all the EU’S fault", The Herald, August 6) and today we have Nicola Sturgeon jumping on the bandwagon of ardent Remainers flying the white flag of surrender in the hope of gaining political advantage. However Dr Fox's comments should not come as a surprise given the unwillingness of the EU to compromise thus far on the existing multiple membership arrangements within Fortress Europe and the clear intent to punish any country that breaks their fiscal rules (SNP beware) or dares to leave.

For example with regard to the existing "off-the-shelf" options in play (apart from being full members of the EU) we have Norway in the European Economic Area (EEA) as part of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA), but not in the customs union. Then we have Switzerland which has bilateral trade deals with the EU as an EFTA member but outside the EEA and the customs union. All the above are bound by the four freedoms – free movement of goods, people, services and capital to various degrees and pay into the coffers of the EU. Lastly we have Turkey outside the EU, EFTA, EEA but in the customs union.

In my view none of the options above is fit for purpose and would be a "bad deal" in their present form for Britain – especially the customs union because you cannot strike your own bilateral trade deals with other countries. Hence why there is rightly such a focus on a new customs union arrangement with the EU as it would allow for just-in-time procurement (frictionless trade ) for car parts, fresh food and so on –notwithstanding maintaining "open" borders between Ireland and Northern Ireland and Gibraltar with Spain.

However if the UK is forced down a "no-deal" route we will default to WTO rules and hence why it is essential the Government produces a master plan to counter the negative aspects of leaving the EU – not just prepare for temporary shortages and backlogs at the ports. For example, we could boost manufacturing significantly to make more parts for cars and other home produced goods in the UK rather than rely on just-in-time imports, This would have the added benefit of creating thousands of skilled jobs and help to address the unsustainable deficit of £80bn in goods with the EU. Finally, there is no doubt in my mind the EU would be the hardest hit with WTO rules in the longer term due to the double whammy of high tariffs and a strong exchange rate.

Taking the above into account a No Deal would be better than a "bad deal" – provided we have a UK-style "Marshall Plan" at the ready to boost home manufacturing.

Ian Lakin,

Pinelands, Murtle Den Road, Milltimber, Aberdeen.

THERE were two interesting and incisive analyses of the continuing Brexit fiasco in your columns today, unfortunately marred in each case by major errors. Alan Roden ("If UK ends up with No Deal, Corbyn will be to blame", The Herald, August 6) rightly points out that by his failure to challenge the worst excesses of the advocates of Leave, Jeremy Corbyn has probably consigned us all to the chaos of a No Deal outcome. It is actually worse than a failure to challenge; he has consistently whipped his MPs into directly supporting the Tories in their Gadarene rush to disaster. Unfortunately, Mr Roden then allows his visceral prejudices against independence to dissipate his message by largely irrelevant criticism of the SNP.

DH Telford's letter (August 6) has a much more serious example of prejudice wrecking an otherwise sensible analysis. He is right to highlight the disproportionate power of those whose money has come from various shady practices, slavery, slave wages, financial manipulation and the like. Unfortunately, his distorted vision of the EU has blinded him to the fact that dubious characters such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, Rupert Murdoch, Arron Banks, James Dyson and their ilk are the ones most vociferously supporting Brexit. Given that the EU probably offers the last hope of curbing the worst financial, workplace and environmental malpractice, the support for Leave by these characters is hardly surprising.

Dr RM Morris,

Veslehaug, Polesburn, Methlick, Ellon.

IT is amazing how people can look at the same pieces of evidence and come to completely the wrong conclusion, as DH Telford (Letters, August 6) did about the EU referendum, portrayed as a victory for the little man/woman against the "Establishment". A close look at the leading Brexiters shows that, far from being "little people", Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and their ilk are extremely wealthy and look set to increase their wealth once the legislative frameworks protecting ordinary people as workers and consumers are dismantled after Brexit.

A more credible narrative is as follows: the then leadership of the Conservative Party, for its own electoral advantage in the face of the rise of Ukip, launched an ill-thought out referendum on membership of the EU on the back of victory in the Scottish referendum two years earlier. They were careless of the effect of 40 years’ drip-fed hostility to Europe in the largely right-wing press and duly lost the referendum.

The parallels with Germany in the 1920s and 1930s are uncomfortable. The Leave campaign targeted immigrants as the enemy within (rather than Jews), the external enemy was the European Union (rather than the League of Nations), the outflow of funds that was keeping the country poor were not Reparations but the contributions to the EU and the legal framework keeping the country in bondage was not the Treaty of Versailles but the European Court.

We know what choices Germany made then and it did not end well. Neither will Brexit.

Larry Cheyne,

4 Ochil Road, Bishopbriggs.

I EXPECT and indeed, welcome, a mix of opinions from Herald columnists. I do, however, ask one simple thing from them, that when making controversial statements, they provide a modicum of evidence in support. Alan Roden's statement that Alex Salmond is "a puppet for Putin" is given as fact without one shred of supporting evidence.

There's an old saying about walking a mile in another man's shoes before leaping to judgement and I invite Mr Roden to put himself in Mr Salmond's shoes over the broadcasts on Russia Today. There is no doubt that, as a former party leader, MSP, MP and First Minister Alex Salmond's views are worth hearing even if you don't agree with him. Other more controversial figures seem to be granted free rein to state their opinions in the British media but when Mr Salmond floated the idea of his own chat show, none of the mainstream UK stations were willing to give him a platform. Russia Today did and guaranteed him complete editorial freedom.

He is no more Mr Putin's puppet than Andrew Marr is Theresa May's ventriloquist's dummy.

David C Purdie,

12 Mayburn Vale, Loanhead, Midlothian.