IT was always predictable that when Brian Cox uttered the words “leaving England is a different thing" that the Unionist side of the independence debate would be all over it like a rash. And so, it has proved, with comments such as “the truth at last”, and Peter A Russell’s letter (March 17) offers another example.

What Cox said immediately beforehand, in response to a question from the audience that “if unity is so important, why are you so for a Scottish referendum and Scottish independence?” is ignored in Mr Russell’s letter. Cox replies that “we wanted to stay in Europe, we didn’t want to leave Europe”, which of course is true as 62 per cent of the EU referendum vote in Scotland was Remain. It is only after this Cox makes the “leaving England is a different thing” comment, drawing protests from some members of the audience. Even then, Cox is willing to respond, but David Dimbleby cuts him off from saying more to move to another panel member.

Had Dimbleby not done so, then some of the comment on social media would have been forestalled, because it is clear leaving the United Kingdom and leaving the European Union are quite different things because each is a different kind of union.

The European Union is an economic Union whose powers are limited to matters of trade (so the customs union, internal market, commercial policy, consumer protection, and transport, and monetary policy for euro countries), as well as fishing and agriculture. Other than this, the EU can only “support, coordinate or complement the action of EU countries” in areas such as tourism, sport, culture, education and health, but are explicitly not allowed to require harmonisation of any member state’s laws or regulations.

The UK, on the other hand, can be considered an example of an “incorporating political union”, where two states – for instance England and Scotland – are entirely dissolved into a new state. This means that the powers of the state created by the political Union of 1707 are those of a normal sovereign state, and thus certainly not restricted to trade, agriculture or fishing.

Of course, in 1999, some powers – on health and education and the like – were returned to Scotland by devolution. However, recent experience shows that it is always possible for Westminster to take these powers back or attenuate them. As the Supreme Court reminded us in the case brought by Gina Miller last year, “Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution”, and “Parliament has “the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever; and further, no person or body is recognised by the law as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”.

Therefore, to compare the EU, an economic union, mainly limited to matters of trade, to the incorporating and comprehensive political Union that is the UK is therefore not only unreasonable, but wrong, and even worse, utterly misleading. Cox was correct. “Leaving England is a different thing”.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue,

Dumbarton.

ASK yourself where in Europe there is a democratically elected parliament, which has no genuine autonomy, which has zero sovereignty and which, even though it has its own thousand-year-old legal system, has no legally enforceable constitutional rights? That would be Scotland. Promised during a referendum, equality of status and a parliament with autonomous rights, it turns out we are more like Jacob Rees-Mogg’s “vassal state”. There are any number of gloating commentaries in the media on Scotland’s lack of status during this Brexit debacle.

There is no comparable country within the EU, as all member states in that union retain much of their sovereignty, unlike Scotland in its Union with England (now including Wales and Northern Ireland).

Peter A Russell asserts that people who wish Scotland to be a self-governing country are driven by something he calls “nationalism” –which is defined as “an extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries”. I don’t think that applies to anyone I know, though I feel revulsion at jingoistic Anglo-British nationalism, exhibited for all to see in George Square after the referendum result was announced. Superiority with big sticks.

I would like Scotland to be self-governing. Independence is the only way on offer to achieve that. And yes, I have English friends, have lived and worked in that great country. My eldest daughter lives and works there now, but I don’t want Scotland to be ruled from there any more than I would like us to be ruled from Canada, even though my brother has lived there for most of his life. It really has nothing to do with Englishness.

GR Weir,

17 Mill Street,

Ochiltree.

IN his eagerness to attack the SNP Peter A Russell attempted to raise the discredited ghost of nasty nationalism. As an internationalist, European and independist I have always referred to the "people of Scotland", and made it clear, in my opinion, that if people choose to make their lives here then they are welcome, as they currently are as citizens of the EU. This cannot be judged to imply hostility to anyone. Mr Russell's willingness to jump to wrong conclusions diminishes his case.

Colin Campbell,

Braeside,

Shuttle Street,

Kilbarchan.

PETER A Russell fails to appreciate the difference between sovereign nations like France, Bulgaria or Malta entering into a union with the UK as equals and an incorporating Union whereby Brexit is imposed on Scotland against our democratic wishes.

Westminster's EU Withdrawal Bill amply illustrates the fiction that there are four equal partners in the United Kingdom. Would Mr Russell allow his next-door neighbour to control the bulk of his household budget or decide which golf or bowling club to join?

Mary Thomas,

Watson Crescent,

Edinburgh.

ANENT the front-page lead headline of Saturday's Herald (“Scotland can punish Russia with secret cash crackdown”, The Herald, March 17), if Scotland really wants to punish Russia we need only send them Alex Salmond.

John Elder,

Howden Hall Road,

Edinburgh.