READING the article in Monday’s National (Pressure mounts on Corbyn over Brexit, The National, January 29), I find myself asking if Jeremy Corbyn is perhaps living in an alternate dimension.

First, he seems to think that voting with the Conservatives on every issue regarding the Brexit negotiations is the proper thing to do, and it doesn’t matter what damage is caused to the country. That, of course, is ludicrous. Almost everyone except the hardline Brexiteers are beginning to realise that the only way to avoid economic disaster in the UK is to find some way of remaining in the customs union and the economic area.

However, he then suggests that this would not be suitable for the UK as the UK doesn’t have enough oil. How much does he want? He has already derived the benefits in London of the lion’s share of all the Scottish oil revenues that have been spent there. It is also reckoned that there is about the same left in the North Sea as has already been taken out. Besides, what has oil got to do with it? We’ve already had to pay exactly the same charges as would become due if we remained part of the customs union, but outside the market. There’s no difference.

He then goes on to say that Norway’s economy is heavily dependent on oil while ours isn’t. Well then, can he explain how it is that Norway, which is so dependent on oil, has managed to put more than £1 trillion from its oil revenue into its pension pot but Britain, which he maintains isn’t dependent on oil, has spent all its oil revenues plus has run up more than £1tr in national debt? If that’s not indicative of an economy that needs the oil revenue – and can’t even balance the books while it has it – then I don’t know what it represents.

The sad thing is that there is so much more oil available to us than there was in the North Sea. It lies in the Continental Shelf to Scotland’s north-west. It has been estimated that there is as much oil there as there is in Saudi Arabia, which is one of the most oil-rich countries in the world. And the sad part of it is that if we don’t become independent very soon and start our own state oil company to produce our own oil instead of the present situation, then all the revenues will go the same way as North Sea oil did. That is, into the pockets of the multi-national companies and into the Westminster Treasury, where it will be frittered away on the frivolities of the Westminster Government.

An independent Scotland would be one of the richest countries in the world. We could do away with austerity and eliminate the need for food banks within less than one term of government, always provided we elected a Scottish Government that was interested in the people of Scotland and not in lining their own pockets and those of their rich backers and hangers-on, as presently happens in Wastemonster.

CJ Kerr

THERESA May is under pressure from all sections of her party due to a general lack of vision and lack of clear detail over future Brexit intentions beyond “Brexit means Brexit”. It would appear, however, that Theresa May is simply lacking!

Michel Barnier has reiterated that there are issues outstanding from the withdrawal phase of Brexit which have still to be concluded by the UK.

All that is “known” so far about the scope of the future relationship, which has caused anger and outrage among the arch-Brexiteers such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and others, is the Chancellor’s recent comment that there would be a “modest change” in the future relationship after leaving the single market and customs union. No further details emerged other than he was rebuked by the strong and stable PM for saying that. So obviously that is not the intended outcome, but what is?

The No 10 Brexit sub-committee met on Monday and a spokesman did not reveal what was discussed beyond saying the aim is to achieve a “partnership the Prime Minister believes will be in the interests of the UK and the EU, so it will be clear what the UK is seeking to achieve”.

Obviously, it is still not clear in any detail and the spokesman has become affected by the PM’s habitual use of unclear robotic, circulatory paraphrasing which lacks any specific detail.

Contrast this with Michel Barnier’s comments at his press conference in Brussels on same day, when he stated the EU position outlines on a future relationship. He simply laid it out clearly: the EU would not negotiate on the integrity of the single market, the autonomy of the EU decision-making or the integrity of our freedoms.

John Edgar

JACOB Rees-Mogg is using Brexit to further his own personal ambitions. Does he really care if we stay in or leave the European Union? No matter which way it goes, he and his family won’t suffer. However, right now he sees his opportunity to grab power because of Teresa May’s perceived weakness. Can you imagine a Prime Minister whose philosophy is firmly fixed in the 19th century with a Cabinet drawn from the anti-devolution, Euro-sceptic “Bruges Group” of MPs? Surely such an event would have Scottish citizens rushing to the polls to vote for independence.

Mike Underwood

WITH all the stooshie about what colour or style of flag to fly in Scotland concerning some minor royal, surely the question should be who gives a toss? Why would anyone in Sçotland care that the Queen approved or not? We are in the 21st century and it is high time that this antiquated system of privilege was exposed as the insult to democracy it is.

Billy Kerr
Galston, Ayrshire