THE debate about a second independence referendum and the Brexit issue seems to be getting somewhat overheated (“Tories question ‘fairness’ of new poll on independence”, The Herald, March 2). Perhaps it would be sensible to look at some basics.

First, there has been no referendum for Scotland to remain in the EU. Last year, 62 per cent of Scottish voters voted for the UK to remain in the EU. We haven’t yet been asked if Scotland should be in the EU, single market or any other arrangement outwith the rest of the UK. Those politicians who are so free with their comments on what the people of Scotland want or don’t want on this issue should maybe bear this in mind.

Secondly, the Brexit terms are not in the gift of Theresa May. They will be hammered out over the next two years in talks with the EU negotiators and then ratified by the other member states. Until that time, we have no idea of what the Brexit terms will be and how favourable or unfavourable to Scotland and the UK they might be. And neither does Theresa May.

Thirdly, there is no constitutional route within the EU for Scotland to “remain” in the EU if the UK leaves. That would require a major constitutional change using Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty and at least four years. Such a change can be initiated by an MEP. The SNP has two MEPs, so why have they made no move in the last 10 years to do so? An amendment specifying that any part of a state separating from a member state would automatically become a new member state is not complex to draft. Could it be that they know that such a proposal would gain near to zero support within the EU? Those arguing that we should have a new referendum in 2018 so that we can “remain” in the EU should bear in mind that it isn’t so. Scotland, sadly in my view, is leaving the EU with the UK for good or ill. What we do thereafter is another issue.

Fourthly, in 2014 while there was much disagreement about the potential effects of independence, we at least had a body of information we could debate and make a judgement on. Here, we would have no idea until the Brexit terms are finalised. Assuming, for example, we have an independent Scotland in the EU and an rUK with a so-called “hard” Brexit, it would not be for us to determine trading links with rUK. We might not have to implement the euro and Schengen but we would have to implement the EU’s tariff rules. This is exactly the worrying problem Ireland has at present and Scotland’s economy is much more integrated with that of the rest of the UK.

In this debate, though, might we restrain our use of descriptive words? Nicola Sturgeon is not being “petulant”. Theresa May is not being “arrogant”. Nobody is “desperate” or “panicking”. Being “intransigent” doesn’t mean “not doing what I want”.

Did anyone notice the visit of the Premier of Gibraltar recently? His people voted 92 per cent Remain and he was in London to discuss Gibraltar’s special needs in the forthcoming talks. No megaphone diplomacy in front of the news cameras. I wonder whether his input or our First Minister’s input will be more effective?

Russell Vallance,

4 West Douglas Drive, Helensburgh.

THE war of words between the Scottish National Party and the Westminster Government over Brexit and a second independence referendum is beginning to overwhelm the ordinary voter. It seems eminently sensible to question the fairness of a new independence referendum at this stage.

A confident Theresa May has a firm hand on the tiller and is steering the United Kingdom (hopefully) into a new era. Nicola Sturgeon conversely is unable to make up her mind and has navigated herself into a dilemma.

Without knowing exactly where the UK stands, how can the Scottish voter know whether to stay or go? If there is another independence referendum soon Scotland is in great danger of being frozen out not only from the UK but from the European Union too. This will leave the SNP cast adrift in cold and choppy waters. The icebergs are waiting in the form of the euro, EU quick membership and EU political stability. This could be a “Tartanic” moment as we hit one and whilst the SNP band on deck plays on regardless, the ship founders beneath them.

Dr Gerald Edwards,

Broom Road, Glasgow.

OF course another independence referendum before we have a clearer idea of what post-Brexit UK looks like would be unfair. And pointless.

Nicola Sturgeon's argument that we must vote before the UK leaves the EU has been undermined by Brussels and many European leaders repeatedly stating that Scotland leaves the EU along with the rest of the UK.

If we vote next year, we won't be in an informed position to decide where to place our cross on the ballot paper.

Westminster will assure us negotiations with the EU are progressing satisfactorily and the prospect of trade deals with elsewhere in the world are promising. The SNP will continue its Project Fear tactics, informing us the only route to prosperity is to leave the UK as well as the EU, with the distant prospect of an independent Scotland joining the EU.

By 2018, both positions will merely be work in progress. There'll be little concrete evidence to support either claim. Yet by late 2019, once we have exited the EU, the position will be much clearer.

Let's assume Ms Sturgeon does secure a 2018 vote and loses again. Once the Brexit terms become clear in 2019, the SNP will simply claim that they're unsatisfactory for Scotland and demand yet another referendum. And I think few on either side of the debate have much appetite for that.

Martin Redfern,

Royal Circus, Edinburgh.

You quote a UK Government source as questioning whether it would be fair to have a referendum on Scottish independence before the exact details of the Brexit negotiations are known.

Surely precisely the same question can be asked about the fairness of the referendum last June on whether or not the UK should leave the European Union. The logic of that position is that we should have another deciding referendum on Brexit once the final details are known – and that does not seem to be the position of the Westminster Government.

(The Rev) David Mumford,

10, Temple Mains Steading, Innerwick, Dunbar.

KEITH Howell (Letters, March 2) claims that “the UK’s Brexit White Paper made clear more powers would be devolved to Scotland when they are returned from Brussels”. It did not. What the White Paper does say (at paragraph 3-5) is that “no decisions currently taken by the devolved administrations will be removed from them”.

In fact, as much as is promised (para 3-5 again) in regard to further devolution, is that as powers are repatriated, the UK “has an opportunity to determine the level best placed to make new laws and policies on these issues, ensuring power sits closer to the people of the UK than ever before.” At first reading that sounds fine, but of course retaining these powers at Westminster, rather than devolving them to Holyrood, would still be “closer to the people of the UK” than if they were retained in Brussels.

An example of EU powers which might be devolved, cited in the White Paper, is Agriculture (at paragraph 3-4), but on February 6 it was reported that the possibility of giving “MSPs the power to create an entirely separate Scottish replacement for the EU’s controversial Common Agricultural Policy after Brexit” was described as “foolhardy” by none other than the Leader of the Opposition at Holyrood, Ruth Davidson.

Mr Howell may be content to go along with the ambiguous reassurances in the White Paper, but to assert it has “made clear more powers would be devolved” is quite simply an unwarranted exaggeration of what is actually there.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

IT is not surprising that voters are confused about the purpose of elections and indeed about the meaning of the word “democracy” itself. We have no less a person than the Prime Minister urging Scots to use the forthcoming local elections to “send a message to the SNP that they do not want another (independence) poll”.

As far as I am aware, elected local government councillors are not in a position to promote a view on independence polls in any relevant forum. Assuming the Prime Minister means that we should vote for Conservative councillors, how therefore is that going to counter the pressures for an independence poll?

One wonders also if she realises that preference voting is used in the local elections. So, should voters “plump” for Conservative candidates, as the Irish put it, that is, refrain from marking any other preferences on the ballot paper? We should be told.

Thomas G F Gray,

4A Auchinloch Road, Lenzie.

COUNCILLOR Anne Kegg (Letters, March 2) seems to equate the control exercised by London over the Scottish Government to that which could be exercised by Brussels. Westminster has total control over the Scottish Government at any time it chooses to exercise it, Brussels would have no such total control in dealing with a sovereign state.

There is still a veto available to members of the EU in a number of areas, and as Brexit has regrettably shown, the right to levant at any time.

R Mill Irving,

Station House, Station Road, Gifford, East Lothian.