I VOTED Remain in the EU referendum partly because I was in agreement with the better together scenario, but mainly because we were getting no detailed information of what would follow departure. I also voted for Scotland to stay in the UK as there was a similar lack of information there too.

Now that all the pitfalls of leaving are becoming glaringly apparent another second-thoughts referendum should take place. Much as it would pain me, likewise another referendum should be allowed on the independence vote. The independence vote would need far more groundwork to be done to clarify Scotland's position in Europe, in particular membership of the EU, which would need to be almost immediate and seamless and acceptance of the euro. The main spoke in the wheel I envisage would be if England and Northern Ireland were to leave the EU and we remained/rejoined. Scotland would then become an island within an island with all the associated border problems that have now arisen between Northern and Southern Ireland.

George Dale,

21 Oakwood Drive, Beith.

IN just under 200 days the UK is scheduled to leave the EU ("200 days to go: Scots fear Brexit more than the rest of the UK", The Herald, September 10). Since the mendacious referendum in 2016 the two main political parties have been tearing themselves apart with internal strife and wildly differing views. Virtually every journalist and commentator, barring most of the redtops, has expressed anxiety about the outcome of Brexit whether soft or hard. Scotland, London, Northern Ireland and now Wales, apparently, have all opted to remain in the EU. Is this is a United Kingdom?

Those of a certain age will certainly have eerie flashback memories of blackout curtains, stirrup pumps and stockpiling essentials. Although happily no gas masks or sirens are needed this time, there is a recollection of a general atmosphere of battening down and isolation for an unknown extended period of uncertainty and unpleasantness with no foreseeable end. The majority of the population today are spared the horror of this memory.

The critical difference is that the unhappy future envisaged then brought the political parties and the nation together with a sense of common purpose and determination. Today we could not have a more fractured or clueless parliament and the population is sharply divided and antagonistic. The costs incurred and predicted so far for the negotiations and preparations are eye watering. This is a self-inflicted crisis with no particular advantage for the country.

The clamour for an opportunity to vote to withdraw from Article 50, for that is what we need, grows daily and there is a legitimate and democratic way to do this. But this idea has already been vetoed despite overwhelming and increasing support. Theresa May cannot countenance a second referendum for obvious reasons. She would be the one who would have to sanction it if it went ahead, and should it reverse the 2016 result the embarrassment and damage to her and to the Tory Party would be immense.

The referendum was their idea. Though they didn’t get the answer they predicted or wanted they are now discovering that it is impossible to find a sensible or agreeable way forward that can unite the different sections of their party let alone parliament and the wider country. The situation is also revealing only too clearly the deep divisions within the Tory party for all to see.

The Labour opposition is no better, distracted by squabbling over anti-Semitism instead of providing a coherent voice on the critical future outlook for the country. Two hundred days is not a long time to get some sense out of our Government and shockingly we may have to blunder into a Brexit with all its unknown implications.

At least after the last emergency all ended well. The same cannot necessarily be predicted this time.

Nigel Dewar Gibb,

15 Kirklee Road, Glasgow.

I AM reading and hearing so many conflicting reports on Brexit that I am despairing. The politicians leading the process are at permanent loggerheads, with a significant number of them wanting the negotiations to fail, resulting in either a hard Brexit or rejoining the EU, depending on their outlook.

The civil service is similarly divided.

The EU is sitting back and offering us crumbs, making demand after demand, while needing our money to ensure the survival of its core projects, if not the EU itself.

The negotiations are being led by Theresa May and Dominic Raab and involve sums of money reported variously as being between £40 and £80 billion, plus ongoing commitments.

The financial cost to the country of a poor deal, or no deal, will be high.

I feel a far cheaper deal would be for the Government to give Jim Ratcliffe and his team at Ineos £5bn to run the Brexit negotiations. The next step would be to place every civil servant dealing with Brexit under his unquestioning control, then to block any input from politicians other than perhaps a small select committee to advise Mr Ratcliffe on the political implications of his decisions. The final part would be to take the deal he negotiated as being the best we could get. It would certainly be cheaper.

It is, sadly, an absolutely ridiculous suggestion to get the richest man in the UK and the most spectacularly successful businessman of the last 20 years, to negotiate Brexit. I suspect, without exception, everyone in our Brexit negotiating team is out of their depth, doing a multi-billion business deal. Mr Ratcliffe is not.

I wish this were possible, in an ideal world.

John Leonard,

Drossie Road, Falkirk.

INSINCERITY piles upon insincerity in the SNP’s pronouncements on Brexit. The latest merely prove the point.

The simple truth is the consequences of Brexit are only important to the SNP inasmuch as they could possibly lead to the Holy Grail of breaking up the UK. Every action the party takes, every word it says should be seen through this prism. The people of this country could suffer economically, catastrophically so, but it is of little concern to those pursuing relentlessly what to them is a far bigger prize.

Those in the SNP – a fair chunk – who voted to leave are of course ignored.

How I long for honesty from SNP. I did so in 2014 and I do so again. I would never agree, but I could possibly grudgingly admire if it simply told the truth.

Alexander McKay,

8/7 New Cut Rigg, Edinburgh.