IN her latest letter (November 10), Lovina Roe reveals all too clearly the fundamental contradiction at the heart of Leaver thinking. A resolute defender of the sovereignty of nation states, she vehemently opposes any thought of an overweening “federal superstate”, yet simultaneously insists that “something must be done” about Spain’s disgraceful treatment of Catalonia by means – ahem – of a direct violation of Spanish sovereignty! Via a European court system that has never been given the basis upon which a legal intervention must depend, as Jim Taylor (Letters, November 10) correctly indicates.

This is not the only contradiction in the Leaver mindset. We see another such absurdity exposed in the continuing Brexit discussions, where the UK Government seems to think that we can both be entirely free of any obligations to the EU and yet continue to obtain all the advantages of “friction-free” trade. Just “because we are worth it”, it seems. The sorry reality is that only one or the other will be available.

This is not a fantasy film for the holiday season, this is real life. There is no happy ending, there is no good Brexit. Whichever version the UK Government forces us into, if we let it, will make us all poorer (as if there has not been enough austerity already). The faster that particular realisation dawns, the more clearly we will all understand that independence is now an absolute necessity, not an optional luxury.
Robert J Sutherland

LOVINA Roe is certainly no lover of the EU as we can see from her various letters on the subject. In many of these letters she makes bold statements but offers no proof for her attacks.

In her latest (Accepting EU inaction might affect our Indy chances, The National, November 11) she is defeated by her own arguments.

In her attempt to rebuke Jim Taylor for his earlier letter she states that an application can be made to the ECHR by an individual, a group of individuals or by one or more of the contracting states.

Perhaps Lovina is aware of an individual, a group of individuals or one or more contracting state that has made an application to the ECHR on any matter concerning Catalonia.

I have not heard of any such applications.

Lovina loses her argument by answering it ... if no application has been lodged then the ECHR has nothing to act upon.

Lovina is correct in that Carles Puigdemont has the right to be heard, but he has first to lodge an application with the ECHR.

Until this happens the ECHR has no powers to intercede.
Stephen Windsor
Kinfauns, Perth

CROWN Estate Scotland manages land and property owned by the Monarch in right of the Crown. It recently launched an appeal for volunteers to work on Glenlivet Estate, “on a range of practical tasks to help keep Glenlivet in tip-top condition, learning from the Crown Estate team as they build, repair and conserve”.

I am all for volunteering, and in fact do a lot of it myself. However, given the revelation that £10 million of the Queen’s money has bypassed the tax system by deliberate action on the part of her financial representatives, would it not be appropriate for her to acknowledge this by paying all volunteers at least a minimum wage?
Dennis White

I COULDN’T help but have a wry smile to myself last week when Gordon Brown said that “Scotland is not stable”. A quick review of the actualité reveals that last Wednesday it was Theresa May who had to deal with the resignation of Priti Patel, a second “emergency” resignation in as many weeks for the UK Government, with a further difficulty arising due to Boris Johnson’s error over the status of a UK national held in Iran.

In simple terms, the situation in London is utterly shambolic.

In sharp contrast, on Thursday Nicola Sturgeon gave her usual strong performance at First Minister’s questions, displaying just how much she is in control of her brief. She and her Government are stability personified.

It does beg the question: is Gordon Brown living in a parallel universe?
David Patrick

SOME of the articles in Saturday’s The National Conversation confused me... Am I to believe that Ruth Davidson and Gordon Brown are people we should take seriously? Surely not?
John Levack

AS the person who successfully proposed making Scottish independence Scottish Green Party policy more than 30 years ago, I am not at odds with the aims of those who seek a second indyref. However, I find myself struggling to see any reason for believing that it might be won simply on the basis of the UK exiting the EU.

Quite apart from the fact that not all who favour independence also favour remaining in the EU, no one has proposed a solution to the issue we are now seeing with regard to Northern Ireland, and which would arise for Scotland in the event of us choosing independence and seeking to rejoin the EU.

Would a majority of Scots really vote for independence premised upon a possible membership of the EU and the almost certainty of a hard border with the rest of the UK? Not, I suggest, a chance.
Michael Collie