THERE is little difference in the definition of a general election and a referendum. Both seek to obtain the views of the electorate. Political parties in an election submit detailed manifestos to the electorate to enable them to choose. In the EU referendum only a simple Yes/No question was given, with no detail whatsoever. However there is one highly significant difference: in an election the elected party has to hold to its manifesto or risk being removed and another election held.

In any event, there will be another election in a given number of years if not before that and the choice of the electorate may be different. (“The people have voted, and the result must be allowed to stand”, Andrew McKie, The Herald, August 21).

The 2016 EU Referendum was stated as advisory, not mandatory. It reflected the ill-informed “will of the people” at the time. There was no manifesto, and no genuine detail. The details given subsequently have turned out to be wishful thinking at best and downright lies at worst.

Efforts to implement the decision have been tortuous with every day turning up fresh difficulties and dangers ahead. All we have heard from the small hard-Right cabal of Leave ministers, which is not very much, could be classed as hot air without substance. Virtually every sector of the country from industry, banking, commerce and farming to the NHS has discovered dangers and disadvantages looming. Even Jacob Rees-Mogg’s hedge fund has opened an office in Dublin.

A narrow result with a majority of only 1.6 million and 72 per cent of the electorate voting can hardly be said to be a resounding decision. In Scotland (62%), Northern Ireland (55%) and Greater London (59%) the votes for Remain were substantially different from the UK result. This advisory referendum result is said to be irreversible so, if the outcome is as disastrous as most people are predicting, Britain will really be in an isolated position as world affairs become ever more unpredictable and dangerous. Christopher H Jones (Letters, August 20) has explained why he would now change from Leave to Remain and it is likely that many more feel the same.

If Remainers along with youngsters who were excluded last time and a proportion of the 28% of the population who did not vote, vote in another referendum the result could well be different and allow Article 50 to be withdrawn. With the present situation there will be no second chance after the dust has settled.

Nigel Dewar Gibb,

15 Kirklee Road, Glasgow.

THOSE of us who believe the UK, and especially Scotland, should remain in the EU can perhaps take heart from the increasing desperation shown by the wild-eyed fellow-travellers on the Brexit bandwagon. This was neatly evidenced by Andrew McKie’s article in which he employs some convoluted analogies with the independence referendum to persuade us that the flawed Brexit decision must be enacted. Then he tries to discredit the campaign to allow a proper vote by mentioning that a millionaire has supported it.

Strange that he forgets the contributions of multimillionaires such as Rupert Murdoch and Arron Banks to promulgating the lies, false promises and barely concealed xenophobia that characterised the Leave campaign. Because the economic situation post-referendum has not been quite as dire as the worst predictions, he claims this means that leaving the EU will be a success. But the final straw is the albeit arithmetically correct claim that the vote to leave was the biggest popular vote ever. Andrew McKie ignored the fact that the vote to Remain was only marginally smaller (and much larger in Scotland) despite the falsities of Leave campaigners and the disenfranchisement of those most affected by the decision: young people and UK citizens abroad.

When desperate arguments are deployed, surely thinking people will realise that leaving the EU is a monumental folly, pushed through by the cabal that can benefit without any concern for the rest of us.

Dr RM Morris,

Veslehaug, Polesburn,

Methlick, Ellon.

MARY Rolls’s letter (August 20) contains a factual inaccuracy that we would like to correct, namely that the European Movement is funded by the EU. This is not the case.

The entire expenses for the European Movement in Scotland throughout the referendum campaign and its aftermath have been covered by membership subscriptions and individual donations. Not one penny came from the EU or associated bodies. We are open and honest about our money and, in this, we could not be more different from the pro-Brexit campaign, which has been mired in accusations and scandal about the source of its funding.

Because our finances are modest, we rely on a dedicated band of volunteers to support our work, unlike the Leave campaign which is propped up by a coterie of wealthy individuals who have channelled their money into dubious data analysis practices and well-remunerated consultants.

Most importantly, the European Movement strives to promote our vision of Europe through facts and honesty, encouraging informed debate. It is clear that those at the forefront of supporting Brexit used a series of lies and falsehoods to hoodwink the nation into voting narrowly for this dangerous and damaging course.

That is why there is a groundswell of opinion across the UK supporting a People’s Vote, so that we can measure whatever Brexit agreement the Government manages to cobble together against the grandiose and fantastical claims made by Leave supporters and the option of staying in the EU. The European Movement in Scotland will support the best interests of Scotland and the wider UK by encouraging us to remain full members of the most successful and prosperous multinational body in history; fortunately for us that argument can be made without resorting to misinformation.

David Clarke, Vice Chairman, European Movement in Scotland,

Bill Rodger,Treasurer,

4 Queen Street Edinburgh.

NIGEL Farage has been an MEP for almost 20 years. In that time it would seem he had no trouble accepting a considerable salary and all of the benefits associated with being an MEP, including a nice pension when the UK quits the EU. Now Mr Farage is back on the Brexit trail as chairman of Leave Means Leave, which will apparently be a vehicle for exposing those Remainers who are attempting to delay Article 50 (“Farage the Brexit stalking horse for Johnson Tory leadership bid”, Iain MacWhirter, The Herald, August 22). He seems to have no qualms of conscience about losing his job as he rushes to the door marked exit. Being independently wealthy helps, of course.

I wonder if the people who may be out of work due to a disastrous Brexit will find it in themselves to feel sorry for Mr Farage when he loses his job.

Anne-Marie Colgan,

10 Castle Wynd, Bothwell.