HEARING Boris Johnston declare that the choice is between no-deal or his deal reminded me of when, in 1964, I was driving a bus on delivery from a factory in Ontario to Alberta.

Late on the first afternoon I turned off the highway onto a minor road looking for somewhere to park for the night. The road got narrower until I reached a fork and the tarmac ended. I had the choice of continuing into a forest or turning onto a steep ramp leading into a lake. I chose neither, reversing the bus for over a mile until I reached a spot where I could turn and get back to the highway.

There is a third option Boris - the military strategy of retreat.

Ah, but what about “the will of the people”, whatever that is? In the 2014 referendum I voted Yes; as a home-rule supporter ofor nearly 60 years, the answer was obvious. The opposite of independence is not union but dependence. I was content with the result as I am a democrat and had no wish to see a major constitutional change implemented without mass support.

I have since realised that the simple question was not simple at all, as the No camp seemed to be thinking of two other I-words: insularity and isolation.

I did not think that the SNP thought that way, as the statement was made that Scotland could be independent in Europe. Why not within the UK as well? So having found that my simplistic view was naïve, I approached the 2016 referendum paying more attention to both sides’ declarations.

Again the question seemed simplistic, with only two possible responses: Leave and Remain. I had trouble deciding on my answer as I dislike aspects of the EU. It became clear however that there were many interpretations of both answers.

The Remain side did not produce much material that persuaded me of the advantages of their case. I do remember that they predicted disaster if we left without negotiating a deal for continuing trade.

The Leave side told us what turned out to be lies in response. There were no plans to leave without a deal; in fact, the deal would be the easiest one in history to make. Also, the proposal was to leave the EU, not the Common market. We would still be in the free trade area and the customs union. I could see no great advantage in leaving and voted to remain.

But for a major change I think that the “will of the people” is only indicated by a majority of the electorate actively voting for it. We did not get that. From the electorate, 37.4 per cent voted to leave and 34.7 per cent to remain. What of the other 29 per cent? There were a lot of spoilt papers, of which mine was nearly one.

Undoubtedly, many people did not know which way to vote. In short, the will of the people is a myth. And of the 37.4%, it is now obvious that they were split between the several possible meanings of Brexit, which is why there has been no possibility of getting a majority for any specific plan in Parliament.

Parliament has reflected the view of the people very well. They don’t know what to do or where they stand. Anyway, they are there, provided with more information than the public, to make the decision in the best interests of the country.

It is now time to call an end to this divisive process, withdraw Article 50 and go back to the people. But next time, please do not ask simplistic questions with only two forced answers, and set ground rules beforehand on how to handle the result.

Ken Johnson,

Lochwinnoch.

WITH Angela Merkel now telling Boris Johnson that Northern Ireland must stay in the customs union, his new deal would appear to be on the road out.

The EU will always back its member state - in this case, Ireland - and will only change its view if Leo Varadkar gives it the all-clear. And of course the Good Friday agreement is also enshrined in EU Law.

As October 31 - Hallowe’en - draws closer, it would appear that Boris Johnson may die in a ditch. Unfortunately it looks increasingly likely that Michel Barnier, Jean-Claude Juncker and Varadkar will dig it for him, with Guy Verhofstadt giving the eulogy. Three years on from the referendum and the electorate are left in this sorry state. Now remind me - who voted to become poorer?

Robert McCaw,

Renfrew.

NICOLA Sturgeon, with her usual diplomacy, wires into Johnson after his phone call from Mrs Merkel by saying this was an “attempt to shift the blame for the Brexit fiasco.” Sturgeon is no shrinking violet when it comes to shifting the blame for Scotland’s ills from her own party onto Westminster, the Tories or even Brexit itself. It takes one to know one.

Dr Gerald Edwards,

Glasgow.

JOHNSON asserts the UK will leave the EU on October 31with or without a deal and that he will abide by the law and ask for an extension, if no deal has been agreed.

In quantum mechanics, it is believed that objects exist in a haze of probability. They might be at point A, but have an equal chance of being at point B. This theory supports the Prime Minister’s position on Brexit. However, to quote theoretical physicist, the late Richard Feynman, “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

Bob Scott, Drymen