I HAVE recently noted a growing tendency among more extreme members of the Leave camp to say that “the people voted to leave on March 29, 2019”.

Such statements seem to have increased in frequency with the discussion of a possible postponement of the date concerned. Their assertion is complete nonsense, since the actual date of leaving did not feature in the referendum and indeed was not officially announced until November 10, 2017.

Voters have therefore not at any time been able to record their preference. The quotation given above may be occasionally a slip of the tongue, but I am more inclined to suspect that it is a deliberate addition to the list of grievances that Leavers cherish and is being repeated at every opportunity in the expectation that it will gradually assume the status of a fact.

In my experience, the estimate of the actual date of leaving has varied widely on every side of the debate. I have heard a range from a very optimistic “It’ll a’ be ower in three weeks” to a more reasonable two years. What all voters have in common is astonishment that, after almost three years, it is still not clear exactly when and how we will leave, or indeed if we will leave at all.

Many in 2016 paid David Cameron the compliment of assuming that he had a well-researched and well-constructed plan B, either to implement himself or to pass on to a successor. No-one could have foreseen his total lack of foresight or the chaos that has ensued. Perhaps those speaking on behalf of Leavers will now be more careful not to add to that chaos by making incorrect statements in interviews.

Brian Patton
Foulden

CAN anyone please explain how holding a People’s Vote to affirm the “will” of the people about Theresa May’s bad Brexit deal is a negation of democracy, yet the Prime Minister asking MPs to vote for a third, and possibly even a fourth time, thereby ignoring the will of elected representatives, is somehow not equally a democratic deficit?

Aren’t double standards being applied here?

And doesn’t May’s rerunning of the laughably “meaningful” vote give legitimacy to Scotland’s imperative to seek another independence referendum through a Section 30 order, so as to not only test the will of the people to determine their own future, but also preserve our EU membership that Scots overwhelmingly voted for?

Legally or morally, how can the UK Government, whoever that becomes, possibly refuse we Scots our referendum?

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

PHILIP Hammond’s recent comment that “Scotland gets its fair share, and precious little thanks we get for it” was trenchantly addressed and excoriated by Councillor Kenny MacLaren (Letters, March 15).

READ MORE: Philip Hammond tells Scots they get 'fair share' from Westminster

MacLaren refers to the chicanery of the suppressed McCrone report, hidden for 30 years and largely ignored by the mainstream media in Scotland.

The report was published in full by The National but large swathes of Scotland are completely unaware of the political dynamite contained within because much of the media refuses to tell them. May I suggest that the SNP should lay it out in a party political broadcast – then everyone would know what they should have been told 45 years ago.

Bob Harper
Ayr

I READ with incredulity Gavin Williamson’s quote that “the welfare of our former service personnel is of the utmost importance” to his government.

If there was even a smidgen of truth in what he said, we would not need all of the armed forces charities that are there to pick up the pieces when these men and women come home damaged, either in body, mind or both.

George McKnight
West Calder

I WAS surprised to read the article, “BBC edit indyref show following Robinson row” (March, 14).

READ MORE: BBC removes criticism of reporter in last minute edit to indyref documentary

Having worked in television most of my life as a director cameraman, none of my films have ever been released to the press without being signed off by the producer, executive producer or in the case of one of a series, the series editor.

For the BBC to say it is “not unusual for preview versions to differ from the final edit” is nonsense. There is no such thing as a preview edit. Indeed the idea that there are several edits floating around would be editorially irresponsible.

My view is that BBC Scotland was got at by someone most likely outside of Scotland, someone important enough to view the final edit just before its release who had the power to insist on changes.

Considering the sensitivity of the subject covered, it’s only natural that London would be very interested in seeing it prior to transmission.

This could potentially set a dangerous precedent, especially during any future Scottish independence referendum.

Mike Herd
Highlands