AS a Brexiter, I voted with millions of others to exit the EU, not to remain half in and half out for two years beyond March 2019. It was quite wrong of Theresa May to suggest this “implementation period” ("May accused of betrayal on Brexit olive branch gamble”, The Herald, September 22) as it should be taking place now – before we exit.

President Emmanuel Macron of France, being the first leader to respond to the “inch”, wants his mile (or 1.6km) by stating that the issues of EU citizens’ rights, the exit bill and the Irish border question must be settled before talks could be held on trade.

The answer is quite simple: those EU citizens living here should be allowed to stay here provided our citizens living in the EU are allowed to stay there. This has been the Government’s position for months. Future immigration should be controlled for the benefit of the UK.

We should pay what we owe up to March 2019 and what we have already pledged beyond that date but not a penny more. Reciprocally, any money due to the UK should be subtracted and a net amount agreed.

We should tell the EU that if it agrees to free trade with the UK, the Irish border would only require to be subject to control of people entering Northern Ireland at approved crossing points. Regular travellers in both directions could be issued with cross-border passes. Those crossing at non-approved points without a pass would be in breach of the agreement and could be detained and charged with illegal immigration or law-breaking.

Otherwise there should be “no deal” and we should be approaching individual European countries directly for trade and citizenship deals, ignoring the European Commission’s jurisdiction and let the undemocratic and costly EU sink – as it should have years ago.

We should have the courage to stand up to these EU bureaucrats and get on with exiting by March 2019.

Angus Macmillan,

Meikle Boturich , near Balloch, Dunbartonshire.

I VOTED Remain but a more honest Leave campaign may have persuaded me otherwise. I just want the thing settled so we can move on, but it seems, predictably, we will have a humongous fudge and the arguments over terms will now be spread over four years instead of two.

And all for more "control" over immigration which might actually lead to more immigrants unless we get our own workforce educated, skilled and motivated to do the work, and employers to pay the right level of wages. And to supposedly save, according to Nigel Farage, £10 billion a year of "nett" payments – peanuts in terms of the total UK Government spend of £670bn a year, equal to one month's spend on the NHS.

Neither will it make us a global trading giant unless we up our game. Germany sells three times more cars to China than the UK despite being in the EU, and because it makes better stuff and works harder and smarter.

Allan Sutherland,

1 Willow Row, Sutherland.

FOLLOWING the speech by Theresa May in Florence to break the deadlock in the Brexit negotiations it has become clear that that the UK's preferred option would be to leave the single market and the customs union and seek some form of bespoke free trade agreement with the EU similar to Canada (the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) and the Swiss model, albeit much more dynamic due to the size of the UK economy and because we already conform with EU regulations and directives.

However, regardless of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations the SNP has been caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, if Scotland remains in the Union, Holyrood will get more devolved powers which many Scots would support, making independence even more unlikely. On the other, if Scotland became independent the SNP would be forced to apply for full EU membership or attempt to join the European Economic Area (EEA), otherwise a Scotland outside the EU and the UK internal market (even for a short time) would face a fiscal cliff edge not seen since the Darien Venture.

With regard to the EEA option, the Scottish Government would first require an agreement with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA; Norway, Switzerland, Greenland and Liechtenstein) to join and then be endorsed by all the 27 countries within the EU. A tall order when one considers that the EEA, which is outside the customs union, was supposed to be a temporary arrangement before all the EFTA countries became full members – a concession now regretted by the EU and unlikely to be extended. Regardless of either option, we would automatically become part of Schengen which would mean a hard border between Scotland and rUK unless we agreed to a similar immigration policy (unlikely) and negotiated a common travel area (CTA) with rUK.

Unable to support devo-max which a significant majority of Scots desire and play its full part in an United Kingdom with global deals and shared risks in this uncertain world, the SNP is now left with the hard sell to persuade Scots to leave the UK internal market (where we conduct 65 per cent of our business) and join a federated Europe where we would become a minor player (1.2 per cent of GDP and population) and accountable to the European Court of Justice. No chance.

Ian Lakin,

Pinelands, Murtle Den Road, Milltimber.

WHILE the current European and UK Brexit panjandrums play Power Rangers in Brussels, and Theresa May's vacuous, platitudinous Florence rhetoric would embarrass even Brian, Dougal and Zebedee, the rest of us are left to ponder the thought that perhaps, just perhaps, a winner-takes-all, first-past-the-post, 50/50, In or Out, Yes Or No referendum was not quite the answer for a nation riven along such a clearly disparate range of opinions. Then again, who among us can claim that they voted in full knowledge of the equally disparate range of "obstacles" the protagonists would have to overcome in bringing to fruition the "will of the people"? Few, if any, I would suggest.

That being the case, is there not some merit in the idea, at some point, of asking the nation once again to consider its verdict; this time more, if not fully, cognisant, of exactly what's at stake? Short of that, and whilst acknowledging the well-made point of voter fatigue, before total ratification, the proposed leaving settlement should be fully debated, and voted on, by our elected representatives in Parliament.

Anything less, to my mind, simply makes a mockery of democracy.

Gerard McCulloch,

47 Moffat Wynd, Saltcoats.