RUTH Davidson is either confused or is deliberately obfuscating on Brexit (“Scottish Tories ready to flex their muscles”, The Herald June 12). Weekend reports had her demanding an "open Brexit" that prioritises free trade over limiting immigration, but, alternatively, having access as now to the single market and staying out of the Common Fisheries Policy (the "Norway model"). These two positions are contradictory because the EU is designed solely to be a protectionist bloc.

There are three clear and mutually exclusive trade positions with the EU. First, there is unilateral free trade by the UK, with no tariffs on imports (regardless of what the EU chooses to do) and with possibly EU tariffs on our exports but observing mutually agreed product standards, trade practices and procedures. The second position is trade in line with the rules (for example, no dumping of subsidised exports abroad) and with the maximum tariffs per product, as agreed by the World Trade Organisation. This is the situation in which the United States, China, Japan and most of the world currently trade with the EU. Third is the “Norway model”, where the UK stays inside the single market, the EU tariff wall and the customs union, accepts the supremacy of the European Court of Justice on all matters, pays slightly less in contributions to the EU budget (but possibly even more than now if our current rebate were to be abolished as a “punishment” by the EU). The “Norway” position also involves no role in EU law-making.

The third model, put forward as a “soft Brexit”, was/is a ploy promoted by the Remainers to restore the status quo ante June 23, 2016. It was rejected by voters in the EU referendum, and, more to the point, was rejected in the recent General Election. The parties which pushed it – the SNP and the Liberal Democrats – were conspicuously rejected by the voters last week. It has no democratic legitimacy at all.

Clearly, there is only one Brexit, and unilateral free trade is the optimal position. Are readers aware that, as participants in the Common Agricultural Policy, we currently have to impose an average tariff of 42 per cent on all dairy produce imported from outside the EU? Depending on the movement of sterling, food prices would fall if we left the EU. And we could choose to support UK farmers, their incomes, employment and output, by re-introducing the pre-1973 Deficiency Payments Scheme, which operated each year on the base of world market prices. Currently, behind the EU Common External Tariff, we have to pay much higher prices in the shops, and, thereby, we have to support all the farmers in the EU. Why should we pay when Germany refuses to fund fiscal transfers to the rest of the EU?

Having triumphantly driven off the SNP last week, Ms Davidson should not be offering the nationalists a lifeline by giving any support to their version of the Norway model.

Richard Mowbray,

14 Ancaster Drive, Glasgow.

A FEW days on it seems very obvious that the result of the General Election provides a worthwhile opportunity to rethink many of the stances taken on Brexit. We do not need a "hard" Brexit where we sever all ties with Europe just to allow the English to have control over immigration. Indeed, in 11 out of the last 20 years the death rate in Scotland has outstripped the birth rate. With an ageing population we need a measure of immigration to support our industries and the tax base.

So let’s draw breath and look at how we can accommodate all aspects of UK industry and commerce, our small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and individual countries within the UK. We should no longer allow the right-wing rump of the Tory Party to dictate how and under what terms we leave. There is certainly a new responsibility on the new Scottish Tory members to represent Scottish needs and not just the party.

Let’s hear what is hoped to be achieved in our negotiated separation. Does it take account of the needs of the above categories and will representatives of these be involved rather than just the usual political figures and civil servants? I certainly hope so, for it would bring a much more balanced view and more realistic chance of achieving a good settlement for the whole of the UK.

Dave Biggart,

Southcroft, Knockbuckle Road, Kilmacolm.