THE statements coming from EU officials concerning Brexit terms suggest that it is they, and not Theresa May, who are in a parallel universe.

The issue of “free movement”, for example, is one in which there is plenty of room for compromise with a generous light-touch system of work, study and residence permits plus rights under British law for long-term residents. Yet the negotiator, Michel Barnier, at the outset, has stated that there will be no agreement on anything unless the UK consents first to full Maastricht Treaty rights to work, residence, social security, pensions, and right to bring in family members for EU citizens. He went on to say that guaranteeing such rights under British law was worthless and only jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice would be accepted. Well, good luck with that.

With the potential loss of 12 per cent of the EU’s revenue with Brexit and very clear indications that other states will refuse flatly to pay more to make up, one would think Jean-Claude Juncker would be seeking to scale back on spending plans. Not a bit of it. He is pressing ahead with the so-called Juncker Plan to improve EU infrastructure and similar schemes and saying that the UK must pay €17.8 billion for this after we leave, even though these schemes are not yet in place. To put that sum in context, the claim under this item alone could fund the entire NHS for a month and a half.

A third example is the valuation of the EU staff pension scheme. It is a non-fund scheme whereby staff pay their contributions into the EU’s General Fund and pensions are paid out of the same. Pension schemes are notoriously difficult to value and non-fund schemes doubly so. Yet the EU officials have reached a figure they wish the UK to pay. It is €7.7bn as of the end of 2018. Of course the UK has entered into a legal commitment and needs to make an appropriate settlement for future staff pensions. Yet, the proposed sum needs to be looked at in context. There are 13,000 officials in the administrative grades employed by the EU. The sum claimed therefore comes to more than £500,000 for each official. I am sure these officials have served us well in the past but, as to whether we should give them half a million pounds apiece as a parting gift, do they think we paddled down the Clyde in a wheelbarrow?

Unless some of the EU member states’ leaders are prepared to rein in their negotiators’ demands, this is not going to end well. Perhaps, if the fervent Brexiters are in a parallel universe, it is the lost world of 1952. Better that than the EU negotiators’ parallel universe which is clearly located in Fairyland.

Russell Vallance,

4 West Douglas Drive, Helensburgh.

OUR First Minister has an unchallengeable mandate from the Scottish Parliament to seek a referendum on the independence of our country from Westminster. This has been refused by Theresa May as "now is not the time". Our First Minister did not seek the referendum "now", but rather specified when in the future it would be appropriate.

Mrs May’s refusal to countenance the event denies not only the right of those in support of Scottish independence , but also the right of those opposing it, to register a democratic decision.

This is a clear denial of our right and also our obligation to determine the future path of the country in which we live.

John Hamilton,

G/2 1 Jackson Place, Bearsden.

HEAR, hear to Kenneth Cameron (Letters, May 12) in emphasising that the particular problems that need attention here are within Holyrood’s areas of competence, and that there are few differences between Scotland’s concerns and those of the rest of the UK – including inter alia, I would suggest, the defence of the realm and the need to control welfare benefits in order to target more effectively the really deprived (versus for example, relatively well-off pensioners like myself, and yes, those who choose to have many more children than they can afford).

This constant Westminster blame-game by certain Holyrood MSPs would have been avoided (along with the West Lothian Question, English Votes for English Laws, and possibly the different Brexit result) if the right form of devolution had been enacted – down to sensibly-drawn local authorities throughout the UK.

John Birkett,

12 Horseleys Park, St Andrews.

THE General Election campaigns is well and truly up and running with Theresa May intent on obtaining an even larger majority for the Conservative Party. In the midst of all the rhetoric from the various parties making the most of a hard Brexit and strong and stable government there has been barely a mention to the greatest threat facing our planet: climate change". As the economist amd writer Barbara Ward said in 1966: "We depend on a little envelope of soil and a rather larger envelope of atmosphere for life itself".

We have President Donald Trump in total denial that climate change exists and in favour of encouraging more burning of fossil fuels. This gives the major oil companies and multinationals the green light to carry on poisoning the land and polluting the atmosphere in their frantic haste to maximise profits. Environmental author Kenneth Browser wrote: "The notion that science will save us is the chimera that allows the present generation to consume all the resources it wants, as if no generations will follow."

It would be interesting to hear all our leaders debating this potential time bomb. But it doesn't win votes, which means it will never happen.

Wilf O'Malley,

11 Delnies Road, Inverness.