I WRITE in response to Alyn Smith (Letters, June 17).

According to Smith the EU doesn’t “impose” things on us. Then what happened to our policy on minimum pricing for alcohol? Why can’t we reduce VAT on energy prices or charge university tuition fees to (non-rUK) EU students? Our hands are bound at every turn.

Regarding powers of the Parliament, Alyn cannot vote on any legislation that is not initiated by the European Commission. The Commission looks pretty dominant to me.

Today the EU entity is replete with anthem, passport, Parliament, all-powerful Commission, Council of Ministers, European Council, Court of Justice, currency, central bank, diplomatic service, budding military, free internal movement of people and much else. Alyn, please don’t duck the key issue. Tell us plainly, is this a country or an empire or what? In your paean to the EU I see that you can’t quite face up to “country” so you use the word “project”. So you serve in the parliament of a “project” and the “project” wants an army?

Let’s look at this from a different angle. Jean-Claude Juncker was confirmed as President of the EU Commission by the European People’s Party in the Parliament. Now let’s think of Mrs MacDougall buying her shopping at the Tesco in Falkirk. Mrs MacDougall well understands her Scottish and UK politics. Does she know who her MEP is and what he/she does? How are the EPP doing in Falkirk? It goes without saying that Mrs MacDougall has no traction with Juncker, the EPP or the impenetrable EU project. Mrs MacDougall will never be able to throw the EU rascals out unless she does it on Thursday.

So only 15 per cent of our laws in the UK come directly from Europe? Well, that raving Brexiteer Jeremy Paxman recently did a study on this very subject for Channel 4. His conclusion: 59 per cent of our laws come from the EU. And the SNP are happy with that!

The EU treaties, which represent fundamental constitutional change, have never been ratified by the British people in a referendum. The EU Constitution was voted down by the Dutch and French electorates but the EU elite wrapped it up as the Lisbon Treaty and just went ahead with it anyway. The Greek, Italian, and Irish people could no doubt express their own views on EU democracy.

Alyn recycles the same old story about us needing a joint EU stance on climate change, tax avoidance, energy integration and so on. He forgets that our Scottish/British emission targets are tougher than those of the EU. Why do we need a super-state to tackle tax avoidance? North America has very substantial energy integration and manages it with NAFTA. The great majority of the progressive legislation which is constantly cited needs no EU co-operation. There is not a chance of this legislation being annulled by a post-Brexit Westminster, as a glance at the parliamentary arithmetic would tell you. The Tories only have a majority of 12.

Alyn cannot honestly address the immigration issue with good reason. He tries to avoid the issue by focusing on the great contribution of immigrants, and how terrible austerity is, and I do not doubt this. But it is all beside the point. Voting Remain means the uncontrollable free movement of people from the EU and Alyn knows it. There is no telling where this policy will take us. It represents our abdication of one of the fundamental elements of sovereignty. Think of this: if it is racist to argue for limits to immigration from the EU, on what grounds can it not be racist to limit immigration from India?

Alyn’s project may be in its last days. Only two things can save it now: the dense ignorance that voters have about how the EU works and Project Fear.

William Ross, SNP Vote Leave

YOUR article (Holyrood snubs call for senior pupils to be able to ‘opt out’ of religious lessons, The National, June 20) may have inadvertently misled some readers about the facts surrounding a recent decision by the Scottish Government, and our reaction to it.

Firstly, the term Holyrood implies that this was a decision of The Scottish Parliament, which it wasn’t. This was a decision laid out in a letter received by us from the Scottish Government.

Secondly, your headline refers to “religious education”. We have tried to be very clear that we were referring only to religious observance. Whilst this is somewhat clarified in the article itself, we believe that some of your readers may be left with the impression that we think children should opt-out of Religious and Moral Education.

For the sake of clarity, we want to see religious observance scrapped and replaced with a more inclusive alternative, but until that time we will continue to argue for pupils in Scotland to have the same legal rights to opt-out of religious observance as they have in England and Wales.

We worked collaboratively with the Scottish Government when they were developing the Religious and Moral Education (RE) curriculum, and it remains one of the more progressive approaches to philosophy and religion in the UK.

We hope this helps to clarify our approach for your readers.

Gordon MacRae, Chief Executive, Humanist Society Scotland

WHAT is the Humanist Society of Scotland so afraid of? They enclose their aversion to religion under the wish for children in Scotland to have the same right to opt out of religious worship as those in England and Wales. It’s yet another case of a minority wishing to force their view of society on the majority. Children are able to evaluate information. It’s important that they are given a view of society as a whole. In the 2011 census 57 per cent declared a recognised religion, only 37 per cent said they had no religion. In these circumstances the Scottish Government’s response to the HSS seems eminently sensible.

Catriona Grigg, Embo

MANY thanks to Carolyn Leckie for her article highlighting the danger that Farage represents (The right have whipped up the poisonous nationalism gripping England, The National, June 20). He is not just a jovial joker who likes a pint; he is, exactly as Carolyn depicts him, a dangerous master of the media. He is accorded far too much respect by the press and the BBC, who should be tearing him down rather than building him up.

The resemblance of his poster to the those of the Nazis was not accidental, neither is the resurgence of ultra-right-wing racist groups. There may be no direct link between Ukip and Britain First etc, but the causal link is undeniable. The BBC et al have made supporting Farage respectable, as a valid political choice. It is not – hatred is never a valid choice.

Tony Williams, Muasdale, Kintyre

THE only reason that right-wing politicians Cameron and Osborne are supporting Remain is to guarantee their positions in Downing Street. Cameron made it clear on the live BBC Question Time debate that he will refuse to step down if Brexit are victorious.

If we leave the EU, Cameron will be reunited with his old band of butchers Duncan Smith, Patel, Grayling etc and the austerity policies will continue, and if we remain in the EU the exact same suffering on the most vulnerable will continue.

When David Cameron stood alongside Jeremy Corbyn in their tribute to MP Jo Cox he stated that we must embrace the values that Jo believed in if we want to create a fairer, more decent and tolerant society? What a load of drivel. David Cameron over the past six years has opposed every value that Jo campaigned for as an MP and charity worker.

The vote on Thursday is a vote for the Tory Party no matter which way you look at it. The undecided voters are in exactly the same position as the undecided voters were in the Scottish Referendum: lies, lies and more lies are being fed to them not for the benefit of the country but for the benefit of the career politicians.

Chas McArdle, Lanarkshire


Letters I: A vote to Leave is the first step to gaining control of our destiny