We must learn lessons from Brexit and change way referendums are organised

Martin Redfern (Letters, 10 April) is quite correct in pointing out that if the SNP see a rationale for a People’s Vote on Brexit, then this should equally apply to any future referendum on Scottish independence as well.

We have clearly learned three things about referendums in the past five years.

Firstly, any future referendum must be a two-stage process, with an initial process to achieve the mandate to negotiate, and a final confirmatory referendum on the final agreed settlement.

Only by doing that can the public give proper informed consent for a change. Anything else leaves them vulnerable to clever and manipulative campaigns that utilise the dark arts of marketing and the extraordinary power of social media, which we now know can be abused by the use of computerised ‘bots’ to pump out overwhelming quantities of misleading information.

Secondly, we know that 52 per cent and 55 per cent majorities have not been enough to settle the issues concerned. A much higher mandate is required if these votes are to be decisive.

Finally, the answers to the question have to be Remain/ Leave and not Yes/no, which has been demonstrated to unfairly favour the yes position.

It is hugely important that we learn lessons from all that has been going on, and not repeat the same old arguments and processes with the same disputed results. VICTOR CLEMENTS

Aberfeldy, Perthshire

Who would agree to a house purchase in two stages, committing irrevocably to buy but deferring negotiation of the price until later?

Yet our Brexit negotiators accepted the EU’S insistence that we must first commit to leave the Union before they would entertain any negotiation of a future relationship. Buying a pig in a poke comes to mind.

The EU then decided that the draft Withdrawal Agreement, approved by them but not then considered by the UK, should be regarded as final and could not be changed.

It is difficult to understand how our negotiators accepted the original dynamic and this subsequent unilateral move, which were both clearly prejudicial to the UK’S interests.

Had the EU accepted some revision of the draft in the light of UK representations, then this fiasco could have been avoided.

Andrea Leadsom is right to suggest reopening the so-called agreement, which the UK has rejected so roundly in its present form.

GEOFF MILLER Newtyle, Blairgowrie