INSTEAD of "no deal is better than a bad deal" we need to face up to the fact that not exiting at all from the EU is an even better deal. No deal is worth the break-up of the United Kingdom, which is where we are headed. No deal is worth completely dismantling complex supply chains and bank "passporting" arrangements connecting us to the EU, and thus throwing many thousands of people out of work when we are only just emerging from austerity.

The long-term social impact is completely unpredictable. We are in the position of having entered into a long and complex divorce negotiation only to realise that the so-called freedom gained is not worth the true cost. Sensible couples at this point decide that it's worth continuing with the marriage.

At the time of the referendum we were suckered by Boris Johnson into believing there would be some huge dividend. This has now been proved worthless. Above the enormous one-off payments agreed, we would certainly have to make large annual payments, as Norway does, or face tariffs. No one told us how the complexity of cross-border deals and the intransigence of the Northern Irish and the Nationalists could lead to the break-up of the UK. That is why referendums are unsatisfactory, unless they have an overwhelming majority. Instead we should rely on the decision of the House of Commons. If a motion to suspend the Article 50 process commands a majority in the Lords and the Commons then we should do so. We should work within the EU on new ways to deal with large migrations of immigrants not born in the EU, who do not wish to learn our language or adopt our culture. I think this would now command support from many other EU states who have had first-hand experience of the dangers.

Peter MD Gray,

165 Countesswells Road, Aberdeen.

IN her Royal Society of Arts speech, Nicola Sturgeon claims she's demonstrating reasonableness over Brexit ("Sturgeon: Staying in single market is only real option", The Herald, October 16). Yet she knowingly proposes the impossible – the UK remaining in the single market and customs union. That's what the majority voted against in June 2016, plus she knows UK ministers have long since rejected this option.

A very soft Brexit isn't her real endgame – that would mean Brexit can't deliver as effectively for her as an anti-UK grievance. Only the naive would deny Ms Sturgeon's ceaseless objective is to use Brexit to agitate for another Scottish independence referendum. She talks of her "willingness to compromise" – yet we all realise what Ms Sturgeon will never compromise on are her UK break-up dreams.

Martin Redfern,

Woodcroft Road, Edinburgh.

I WAS astounded by the letter from Dr Gerald Edwards (October 16), in which he states "by not supporting Theresa May, The SNP has opened up the field for a victory by Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg" and goes on to talk of "all this chaos".

I think if Dr Edwards took a step back he might realise that the current "chaos" is a result of the huge, long-standing split in the Tories and their inability to put the country's needs before their own party interests.

He also ought to bear in mind that it was not SNP voters who inflicted Mr Johnson and Mr Rees-Mogg on us.

David Hay,

12 Victoria Park, Minard.

JENNA Jones (Letters, October 16) asks why the SNP is not being criticised for wishing to join the EU when our deficit of eight per cent (she claims) would require a period of austerity. May I respond with a couple of questions to her?

Why, after 300 years of union with England is Scotland's economy in such a parlous state, in spite of hundreds of billions of pounds of oil revenues being taken from our shores? And can she think of any action which would redress the situation?

John Jamieson,

60 Craigie Road, Ayr.

MARY Rolls (Letters, October 15) mentions the often-repeated mantra of the Brexiters that ”more of the electorate voted to leave the EU than have ever voted for anything”.

If this is factually true, I assume that, with such a narrow victory, the number of the electorate who voted to remain is probably the highest number of people who have ever lost a vote.

What we do know is that result of this hastily arranged and ill-informed referendum is legal but morally bankrupt.

Such an important political, economic and social issue which will affect the country for generations to come should never have been decided on a first-past-the-post system.

All options should now be on the table to get the best solution to this mess.

Hugh Phillips,

16 Old Bothwell Road, Bothwell.

AS the Prime Minister faces divisions in the Cabinet, her party and the Commons over the Irish border issue, it surprises me that she has not agreed with the EU the same solution as she apparently has over the Gibraltar/Spain border issue. There has been no word said about the latter, and one can only assume that the negotiations on that issue have been resolved amicably. As the controlling influences at Westminster have raised no questions about the Gibraltar/Spain border, Mrs May should have no difficulty in rallying the Cabinet, party and the DUP behind her in applying the same to the Irish issue.

Heaven forfend that they have forgotten or ignored the Spanish border issue.

T J Dowds,

6q Fleming Road, Cumbernauld.

AS I understand it, the solution to the Irish border problem suggested by the EU is to shift it to midway down the Irish Sea instead of along the land border. How and by whom is it proposed that could be monitored? I cannot see how it could be done by ships bobbing about on the sea, which only leaves the monitoring to be done somehow electronically. If that is the suggestion, why could that sort of electronic monitoring not work equally well on land at the existing land border?

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon’s View, Dunlop.

THERE is one answer to Mrs May's dilemma over Brexit and the Irish border; a united Ireland.

I wonder why no one has thought of this before.

Richard McLellan,

4 Stag Park, Lochgilphead, Argyll.