Letters: It is now clear there is no good Brexit deal to be had for Scotland

The promises of more powers after Brexit have also turned to straw as there seems a deliberate attempt to delay the transfer of EU-held powers to the devolved parliaments until after the UK Government has had free rein to agree on trade deals that run roughshod over the devolution agreements.

Many now suspect that powers will go to the Scotland Office to administer rather than to the democratically elected Scottish Parliament.

As all economic analysis show, there is no good deal to be had for Scotland following Brexit, replacing Theresa May by other Brexit supporters like Jacob Rees-Mogg or Jeremy Corbyn will not change this outcome so it is clear our best hope is to forge our own destiny in Europe through self-government.

Mary Thomas,

Watson Crescent, Edinburgh.

SURELY it is time for Ruth Davidson to become a principled leader of her party in Scotland and declare the Scottish Conservatives' opposition to the Prime Minister’s current hard-Brexit position. Ms Davidson was vociferous in her Remain argument and now, in a quite dreadful display of pusillanimous political posturing, is covering her conscious under the carapace of “party loyalty”. She knows that Theresa May’s own principles have been compromised by the several threats to her power and indeed her job emanating from a cadre of right-wing ideologues which has, for the moment, acquired hegemony over the parliamentary Conservative Party. Ms Davidson and her team of 13 MPs have considerable leverage within Westminster at this critical juncture and must use that power to protect the entire Scottish economy from imminent and certain decline. Ms Davidson must listen to her farmers, small and medium business leaders, her professionals, her NHS doctors indeed her voters.

Richard Leonard too must examine his political conscious. As a career member of the “Left” – that small but highly influential group of labour activists (and some Labour ones too) – he has a different challenge. From the earliest days of the 1972/73 European Common Market debates the Left (led ideologically by the Communists like Professor John Foster) has opposed the European idea (a “capitalist club”) and Mr Leonard was very much a fellow traveller on that anti- EU journey. The question he must ask himself is "should I retain my personal ideological principles or in the full knowledge of the severe damage to Scottish jobs and indeed the entire Scottish economy do I change my political stance on the EU?”

I have deliberately focussed on the two main Unionist parties in Scotland for, in a no-majority Parliament, they have considerable leverage and now must act in the national interest and oppose Brexit.

Thom Cross,

18 Needle Green, Carluke.

I NOTE that the SNP administration's External Affairs Secretary, Fiona Hyslop, is putting forward proposals for a separate Scottish immigration policy.

Immigration is of course a reserved power and so beyond Ms Hyslop's remit – of which she will be well aware. But let's imagine the opposite scenario if Westminster interfered in devolved legislation. We would be told by the SNP in no uncertain terms that it was an attack on Holyrood's authority and an insult to the people of Scotland. But the other way around is seemingly just fine.

The usual SNP double standards?

Martin Redfern,

Woodcroft Road, Edinburgh.

YOU report that the “UK Cabinet war committee” has been discussing Brexit ("Sturgeon call for urgent talks with PM on direction of Brexit deal", The Herald, February 7). I had not realised that the Government regarded the Brexit negotiations as the equivalent of a war. Was that what people voted for in 2016?

Kenneth Fraser,

24 Winram Place, St Andrews.

SCOTLAND is represented at Westminster by 59 MPs: 35 SNP, 13 Conservative and Unionist, seven Labour and four Liberal Democrats. They have been elected to serve at the seat of government to enhance the interests of Scotland and of course of their constituencies.

It will be evident to any dispassionate, regular viewer of Prime Minister's Questions and other media recorded proceedings in Parliament that the primary purpose and responsibilities of all but the 35 SNP members have been regrettably overlooked or subordinated to the interests of their parties. It cannot have escaped notice that on no single occasion of importance has any proposal or statement made by the SNP been supported by any of the 24 others, including during Scottish Questions. The contributions to those proceedings made by the 24 others, given their choice between support or rejection, are patently determined by a desire not to enhance Scotland's interests, but to grovel in the opposite direction in a way which can be described only as sycophantic, much to the liking no doubt of their senior colleagues. This is particularly characteristic of the 13 supporters of the Government. The worth of those 13 has not been recognised by the award of even the most junior position in the Government, with the exception of the office of Scottish Secretary.

These circumstances compromise the dedication to the equitable government promised by the Prime Minister, and are far from satisfactory.

John Hamilton,

1 Jackson Place, Bearsden.

ALLOW me to congratulate Keith Howell for his perceptive statement that "even letters pages are not immune as some chose to primarily focus not so much on the real issues but instead in trying to mock and deride those who do not agree with them" (Letters February 8).

This is as far as I can remember Mr Howell's first contribution to these pages which does not blame the Scottish Government and Nicola Sturgeon in particular for every perceived problem whether real or imaginary from snowfall on the roads to Westminster's calamitous handling of Brexit.

Can this be a new enlightenment?

David Stubley,

22 Templeton Crescent, Prestwick.