It’s dangerous to stoke up hatred against politicians – yes, even Boris Johnson

I was disappointed and rather disgusted when I read your editorial entitled “Letter of defeat proves Boris is not so clever after all” (Scotsman, 21 October).

In this editorial, it is repeated that The Scotsman believes that the only way out the Brexit stalemate is to hold a second EU referendum although, in 2016, a majority of UK citizens voted to leave the EU and, there was a government undertaking to respect and implement the result.

To me, although I voted to remain, this would be an anti-democratic outrage and would set a totally unacceptable precedent justifying the SNP, for instance, to hold repeated referendums if necessary to obtain independence. Worse still, it would be the height of arrogance to suggest that leave voters were stupid. More importantly, a ‘People’ s vote’ would be unlikely to have a different result and merely anger leavers, cause civil unrest, and increase the division in families and the break-up of friendships.

More unacceptable to me than the proposal of a second referendum, is the inflammatory language used to make a character assassination of Boris Johnson, which seems to ape the venomous attacks by politicians such as the SNP’S

Ian Blackford. While admitting that Boris is far from being an unblemished character, I think that a responsible newspaper such as The Scotsman has a duty not to stoke up hatred against a politician.

Having been a loyal reader for many years, I do hope the editorial will return to its previous high standard! SALLY GORDON-WALKER

Caiystane Drive, Edinburgh

Murdo Fraser (Scotsman, 23 October) quotes the recent Comres poll results showing that “48 per cent of Scottish voters say the EU referendum result should be respected with 52 per cent opposed . . . an outcome within the margin of error of showing an equal split”.

On this basis the 2016 referendum, with the same figures, resulted in an equal split. The margin was insignificant. The foolishness of David Cameron’s government in not anticipating a narrow result, and legislating for a clear majority of at least ten per cent, is all too apparent now.

Anyway, I thought the referendum was advisory. What happened to that?

ROSEMARY SHAW Craigerne Drive, Peebles

MPS have just one chance of ending the conflict of Brexit

and they have no right to blunder this chance away.

The only thing that can legitimise either Brexit or Remain is a new referendum. The referendum of 2016 had a marginal result and was contaminated by fake news. It was also three-and-a-half years ago and is out of date.

The shouting and bitterness arise from the facts that both sides nearly won and both still want desperately to win.

The chance to legislate for a new referendum may slip away, because one old joke has come true – Election? No thanks, one of them might win. The two largest Westminster parties are now led by people hostile to Europe. Neither given a majority will want the referendum which Britain now needs.

There has been some sordid bad manners and worse in and out of Parliament. But some MPS have done the finest things in Parliament’s history in the last few months.

MPS fighting against planned havoc need to unite on one plan of action, and the only plan that will help is a referendum. Just swallow hard and do it, with some detail on the ballot paper about the meaning of the choices.

TIM COX Bern 6, Switzerland