First Minister is in no position to berate Theresa May for alleged lies over Brexit

The First Minister berates Theresa May for the “lies” included in her “letter to the nation’’. Could the lies to which Nicola Sturgeon alludes be in any way related to, for example, “this referendum is a once in a lifetime opportunity’’ or the oil price, or cutting class sizes, or not increasing taxes; the list of SNP untruths is virtually endless.

Then we have the First Minister’s chief of staff berating the BBC for inviting the US far-right’s Steve Bannon to a media event at which the FM was due to speak (in fact the invitation had been made by the European Broadcasting Union). Ironically, the unfounded SNP attack on the BBC was identical to many made by Steve Bannon and others in Donald Trump’s team.

Irony is indeed a precious commodity at the SNP. We all know what people in glass houses should not do but the First Minister seems incapable of stopping herself.

ALEXANDER MCKAY New Cut Rigg, Edinburgh

This week the Scottish Government will publish its own analysis of the impact that a Brexit deal might have on Scotland. Perhapstheymight produce a parallel publication showing what effects independence might have, as this would give us something to compare. Given Nicola Sturgeon’s proclamation that Theresa May’s open Brexit letter contains nothing of truth, then we could expect the Scottish Government to produce purely factual and objective analysis? Aye, right!

KEN CURRIE Liberton Drive, Edinburgh

The odds against Prime Minister Theresa May getting the Brexit deal through parliament may seem insuperable (your report, 26 November). It is still mistaken to assume that a rejection should mean her automatic resignation and that of her government.

By the time of the vote in the House of Commons (after, I understand, five days of debate) the public will at least know just about everything that is on the table. Despite the “take it or leave it” noises from senior European Union figures, it is inconceivable that it would refuse to talk to the British government and its negotiators after parliament had thrown out the deal, even if it was initially through back door channels. There is a possibility still that enough changes could be made to convince a weary public and their representatives to accept a revision.

It seems likely that revision would involve minor changes. But there are some lessons from history that can give a pointer to what might happen. After his October 1974 election victory,primeministerharold Wilson attempted to renegotiate the terms on which the UK had joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973.

He would then put the deal to the people in a referendum. A Dublin summit in the spring of 1975 produced changes so vacuous that few historians or economists could now describe them.

They were nevertheless enough to persuade the voters to reaffirm membership in a plebiscite in June of that year. Theresa May may have to decide whether another referendum on a revised deal would be appropriate. She can in good conscience try to get a revision of terms if parliament rejects the deal first time round.

BOB TAYLOR Shiel Court, Glenrothes

Brian Monteith has argued that “the Spanish PM Has taught us a valuable lesson” (Perspective, 26 November). I disagree with the convenient word “us”. Remainers had pointed out that Britain’s international standing would be diminished by Brexit.

This was called Project Fear and was simply ridiculed by Brexiteers, who said we would easily get a deal. Predictably there are no easy deals in the modern world – and no excuse for raising the hopes of fishermen when it was always going to be difficult to get them a good deal.

I take exception to Brian’s emotive language when he writes about “the usual suspects of fifth columnists on our own side actively working to fix us a bad deal”. If Theresa May is a fifth columnist, why are some of the leading Brexiteers still supporting her? Why did those who left the government not vigorously oppose her earlier? Why do they admire her if she is a quisling? Did they put party unity before country?

And what of Remainers? Are we the fifth columnists? We support a new referendum because we all have a duty to consider if a “no deal is better than the bad deal” which Brexiteers have predictably come back with. If the public chooses no deal after careful consideration of the risks, then let’s go for it!

A close friend who is an Snpsupporting Leave voter told me he was willing to vote Yes if Nicola Sturgeon called a new independence referendum. Yet he thinks it’s legitimate to vigorously oppose another EU referendum at a time when that is the only way to avoid Theresa May’s lousy deal.

Perhaps Brexiteers prefer their emotive barbs to facing the possibility that sanctimoniousness is unworthy of them at a time of real crisis.

ANDREW VASS Corbiehill Place, Edinburgh

The Scotsman letters pages are open to all. If referring to an article, include date and page. No attachments – letters must be in body of e-mail. Keep letters to under 300 words. We reserve the right to edit letters. Send submissions, which must have a full address and phone number, to:

❚ The Editor, The Scotsman, Orchard Brae House, 30 Queensferry Road, Edinburgh EH4 2HS;

❚ lettersts@scotsman.com