NICOLA Sturgeon and the SNP are to be congratulated on their attempt to set out strong conditions for accepting withdrawal from the EU (“SNP and Tories on collision course after Brexit demands”, The Herald, July 26). However, I fear that even if these are fulfilled, Scotland will still suffer disproportionately from the idiocy of leaving. While trade links, free movement of labour and protection of workplace rights are essential, they ignore all the other benefits that have accrued from EU membership.

Scotland, and its remoter regions in particular, have benefited enormously from EU support for infrastructure projects; just look at the road network north of the Great Glen. Similarly, support from the EU for researching, protecting and enhancing the wider environment has been a great benefit, both socially and as an underpinning of Scotland's vital tourism industry. As is rapidly becoming clear from Angela Leadsom's statements, sheep farming in Scotland's upland areas is also regarded as dispensible by the Westminster Government. The apparent enthusiasm for Leave shown by much of the farming industry may all too soon return to haunt it. Without the support and pressure that is provided by the political importance of rural areas in the EU, Westminster will be very unlikely to replace these essential props.

European energy policy is much more rational than the fossil-fuel/nuclear obsessions of Westminster that will replace it. The damage already incurred by the UK research base from downgrading our position in Europe risks destroying decently paid jobs in the industries of the future. The race to the bottom in terms of wages headlined today (“Workers hammered by a ‘lost decade’ slump in pay”, The Herald, July 27) may be just the beginning. On a personal level, losing the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) system when travelling in Europe is also to be regretted, having just had to spend the best part of £100 for a single GP appointment in Norway.

All these likely losses suggest that the defeatist attitude promoted by some correspondents and columnists is very wrong; they are all causes for which we should fight. The claim that Brexit is “the will of the people” is a total sham. We supposedly live in a Parliamentary democracy, not under mob rule. It is the duty of Parliament to look after not just wishes of the (slim) majority, but also of those that voted to remain. If, in the end, the deal obtained by the Brexit group is as bad as seems likely, then Parliament should reject it on behalf not only of those who voted Remain, but to save the Leave group from their own stupidity.

Remainers should therefore keep fighting for sanity; the only alternative may have to be Independence, with all its risks.

Dr RM Morris,

Veslehaug, Polesburn, Methlick, Ellon.

IT is good to note that there will be no “hard border” between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (“UK and Irish Republic agree on no ‘hard border’ with the North”, The Herald, July 27) and hopefully that pragmatic decision will provide reassurance to those who feared that a border would be established between Scotland and England post-independence.

Furthermore, the goodwill and willingness to work together on matters of security and shared interests between Dublin and London, as expressed by the Irish Taoiseach and the UK Prime Minister, should just as easily apply to matters of common interest between Edinburgh and London, when the political leaders of their respective countries will meet on a platform of friendship, co-operation and equality.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road, Stirling.

ANNE Kegg (Letters, July 27) is technically correct in pointing out that while 62 per cent of Scots voted to remain in Europe in the recent referendum the fact that only 67.2 per cent of registered electors voted means that only 41.7 per cent of that electorate actually voted to remain in the EU. However, the only votes which count are those which are cast. As there is no information on whether non-voters' are in favour of, or against, Brexit it is therefore incorrect to use them to conclude that the Scottish Government does not have a mandate to support the actions it is taking to protect Scotland's position in Europe.

However if, for a second we accept her argument and extend it to the whole of the UK we find that 51.9 per cent of the 72.2 per cent of the registered electorate who voted chose to vote for Brexit. As this equates to only 37.4 per cent of the total electorate it would bring into question exactly how much of a mandate the UK Government actually has for its stance on Europe. What's sauce for the goose …

Steve Inch,

72 Stirling Drive, Bishopbriggs.

NICOLA Sturgeon has set out some criteria by which she will judge the settlement made between the UK and the EU. Failure is almost guaranteed and thus a second referendum becomes inevitable. She will say she has done her best to protect Scotland’s interests but, unfortunately, it was not possible and so reluctantly she feels obliged to ask the nation to reconsider its emphatic rejection of independence in 2014.

The chief argument for independence will be that Scotland is stifled in the embrace of the UK and once free, would soar. How would she make this happen? How, for example, would our economy be made to accelerate? Indeed, why should the Scottish economy buck the trend of other advanced nations, large or small, which have seen sluggish growth over the last decade or so? Why is Ms Sturgeon so adamant that she can do this? We appear to have a budget deficit of more than £14billion this year but we know that she did not approve of austerity when imposed from Westminster, so could she give us some idea of how she will tackle it? Will taxes rise, expenditure be cut or debt increase year on year?

She is the First Minister of the Scottish Government and now has considerable powers available to her. Could I plead with her to set out her plans in more detail and to implement as many of them as she can using those new powers? Then we may get a better idea of what life would be like in an independent Scotland. If she manages to reduce our budget deficit to less than three per cent of GDP (the level necessary for joining the euro) and if she manages to nurture economic growth above that of the UK, then we would at least have some evidence that her claims for the advantages of independence are reasonable.

After all,we have been in the Union for 309 years and have benefited from it massively. Surely we can spend another five years demonstrating how we might fare economically if independent.

Michael Boulton-Jones,

5 Glassford Street, Milngavie.

YET again we have the spectacle of the First Minister, and previous Health Secretary, grandstanding over Brexit and a second referendum, both of which are years away, while the present NHS in Scotland (NHSiS) fails and fails again. The sorry Shona Robinson can do no more that repeat the tired mantra that the SNP are spending more and more money, yet we hear repeated reports of persistent failures and lack of leadership and change for the better in the NHSiS.

Cancer waiting times missed, hip fracture patients repeatedly starved before surgery (“Operation delays leave hip patients fasting more than once”, The Herald, July 27), huge sums paid to consultants to cover lack of staff and match political waiting time targets, 20 per cent of junior doctors (a full medical school annual output) emigrating and a lack of any strategic planning and many other systemic failings are ignored and untreated.

It is increasingly apparent that the First Minister is a one-trick pony, with only independence as her goal, whatever the cost to the present governance of Scotland. Many more voices then mine have demanded she and her Government get on with running and improving the country as it is, instead of persisting in demanding what George Kerevan has admitted would be a long period of economic hardship and suffering for all.

Gavin R Tait,

37 Fairlie, East Kilbride.