I MAY be in favour of another referendum on whether or not to stay within the UK following our exit from the EU - but not if that means we immediately apply to get back into Europe.

I am one of those whom Jeremy Vine dubbed “double ooters” on his Radio 2 show today (March 22). I voted for Independence two and a half years ago and voted to leave the EU last year. If the SNP is telling us that it wants independence in order to stay in the EU, I will be voting to remain part of the UK, as will, I believe, more than a million other voters. So what is the solution?

I believe we can have a referendum on independence with the legal obligation to hold a second referendum on membership of the EU. This, I am sure, would satisfy every faction once and for all. There are those who argue Theresa May has no mandate from Scotland to conduct negotiations on our behalf. Conversely, Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t have a mandate either to conduct negotiations for EU membership based on a flawed assumption that a majority of those entitled to vote last year voted to stay in the EU. Let’s face it, only 40 per cent of those entitled to vote actually voted to stay in the EU and not the 60 per cent claimed by the SNP.

Nick McGranahan,

18 Inchmurrin Crescent, Balloch.

IN his 1835 work Democracy in America, John Adams coined the phrase “tyranny of the majority” in which the majority enforces its will on a disadvantaged minority by application of the democratic process.

That the SNP, with the opportunistic aid of the Greens, eventually wins the debate on demanding the right to hold another independence referendum is a foregone conclusion.

And Nicola Sturgeon, having secured the votes of 69 of the 129 MSPs, will then be perfectly entitled to claim that this majority vote is democratic.

In reality, however, what we are witnessing is an abuse of our democratic process to enable a tyranny of the minority.

In pressing this issue Ms Sturgeon is playing only to the 45 per cent who voted Yes in 2014 and is wilfully ignoring the democratic voice of the 55 per cent who voted No. This is nothing new. Ms Sturgeon ignores everything that is not to her liking.

As justification Ms Sturgeon repeatedly cites the 2016 manifesto pledge to hold another referendum if circumstances changed materially, for example, Brexit. That attracted only 46.5 per cent of the total votes cast.

The Greens’ 2016 manifesto said that there should be no second referendum unless the “will of the people”, by which is meant a majority of the electorate, demanded it. So far as I am aware every opinion poll recently has indicated a majority to be against holding a second referendum.

So we have a situation in which the SNP and the Greens, representing 47.1 per cent of the 2016 votes cast will be able to impose their will on the 52.9 per cent.

Can someone tell me what is democratic about that?

Alasdair Sampson,

The Pines, 7A Loudoun Street, Stewarton.

THE Brexit notification breaches the terms of the Treaty of Union 1707, argues Adrian Ward (Letters, March 22), in that it might be taken as an alteration to the laws of private right without demonstrating “the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland”. An interesting, if thin, argument. Perhaps he should read a little more of the Treaty. Article VI provides as follows:-

“That all Parts of the united Kingdom, for ever, from and after the Union, shall have the same Allowances, Encouragements, and Draw-backs, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Regulations of Trade, and liable to the same Customs and Duties and Import and Export.”

In proposing a separate arrangement for Scotland after Brexit, it would appear that it is the First Minister who is seeking to breach the terms of the 1707 Treaty and the Prime Minister who is seeking to uphold them.

Russell Vallance,

4 West Douglas Drive, Helensburgh.

IAN Lakin (Letters, March 21), continues to use Scotland’s past and present situation as part of the United Kingdom to extrapolate how Scotland would fare in the future citing “our Greek-style debt”; although he does not explain how a country with no borrowing powers can run up a debt. However in using these arguments surely all he is doing is showing how poorly Scotland “benefits” from the Union. Whilst it is impossible to have a crystal ball or say with absolute certainty how the economics of Scotland will look like when Scotland is independent, we will not have the same economics as currently exist within the Union. The one big difference is that Scotland will be an Independent country.

It is, therefore, worth looking at what current successful independent countries look like and see how they compare, relatively, with Scotland. GDP per capita is a reasonably objective way of making that comparison. The International Monetary Fund in 2015 showed that the top 10 earning countries in the world, in terms of GDP per capita, were as follows: Luxembourg, Switzerland, Qatar, Norway, the USA, Singapore, Denmark, Ireland, Australia and Iceland. Eight of these top 10 countries are of a comparable size to Scotland. In 2016 the league table changed slightly with the order being Qatar, Luxembourg, Macao, Singapore, Brunei, Kuwait, Ireland, Norway, UAE and San Marino. All of these countries are of a comparable size to Scotland or smaller.

It is nice to see that in both these years our nearest independent neighbours, Norway and Ireland, both featured strongly. If independent, why could Scotland not perform similarly? Perhaps I am missing something.

Andrew J Beck,

5.01 Condominium, 7 Uthant, Jalan U-Thant, 55000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

I AM about as passionate about the Union of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland as it is possible to be. The benefits of a shared heritage, a shared history, a shared language and a shared culture would seem incalculable. And Scottish independence would mean that Scots who live in England would feel cut off from their families and friends who live in Scotland – and vice versa. These factors matter as much as the (compelling) economic arguments.

Which is why I was very disappointed by the recent Scotland in Union banner, “Referendumb”. I don’t think posters like this are going to persuade our nationalist friends to change horses. On the contrary, we Unionists would do well to remember how companies thrive. In business, if you want to sell a product or a service, you get better results if you speak nicely to your customers; insulting your customers is counter-productive. (Hats off to the SNP – I have watched their activists canvassing for support during elections and referendums – and admired them; they are very good “businessmen”).

Andrew Hamilton,

Forbes Lodge, Gifford, East Lothian.