A FEW years ago when Brexit was new, one of the correspondents to your letters pages surmised or informed us that one of the driving forces of Brexit was the threat of new EU regulations taking measures against hedge funds and tax-avoidance scams. This was very specific and I waited in vain for more information from any source.

I subscribe to the power, sex, money idea of the origins of sin and I was not surprised that money was involved. I have not been aware of any specific information during this time, and I have wondered why. Are people afraid of prosecution, being sued by interests that they could not afford to fight, or is it too normal – too permeated into the fabric of society – to be remarkable? An ill-informed placid acceptance that that is how the financial world works? A normalisation into worldly wise non-naivety?

READ MORE: Meet the men backing Boris Johnson who stand to win from Brexit

George Kerevan, writing under the heading “Meet the money men who are bankrolling Boris” (September 30), ended his article by stating that Brexit is not a cry for help from the English underclass.

On the contrary, “it is a carefully stage-managed campaign by hedge funds ... and Boris Johnson is their front man”.

This is such a strong claim that one feels it must be true, or have elements of truth. And yet I am then puzzled and intrigued that it is not exposed, resisted, and forming a constant background to the ongoing saga of Brexit. Is it not another major issue for the Scottish Government to exploit for remaining within the EU? People are only now starting to talk and write. Very large sums of money are involved.

Is it because this kind of thing is the only way modern society and capitalism can work? Surely moderating measures can be taken? And is this what the EU is attempting to do?

Victor Moncrieff

“THIS is my country, it’s what I’ve fought for, it’s what I believe in”, states Ruth Davidson as she jumps from the sinking “Unionist” ship, yet vows to fight for “her” country.

It reminds one of the other has-been who pops up to defend the Union which is taking us out of the EU against our democratic vote, namely Gordon Brown.

His book, My Scotland, Our Britain, now languishes at a knock down price among the pulp fiction shelves in garden centres, a symbol of his irrelevance. It looks like Ruth Davidson is on a similar downward trajectory a last ditch attempt to do something for her country, but which one?

She has been sidelined by the new leader in London, the Tories in Holyrood are now No Deal supporters, and so Davidson still supports a Union and a party which denies the Scots EU vote!

The Tory-Unionist behemoth flattened Gordon Brown after his (in)famous Vow when Cameron stood up for English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) and Ruth Davidson, no doubt, was leant upon to ditch the failed leadership of the party after her failed attempt to prevent Johnson becoming leader and PM! Yet, like Brown, she still expects the Union to remain a better option for Scots?

One must assume she will leave the Tories, as unrepentant Rory Stewart has announced. There are many who will see in her political demise the result of her being a one-shtick mouthpiece and shallow stunt merchant for a party which now has no substance and no integrity.

John Edgar

I COULDN’T help noticing that commentators on TV and the press have a tendency to use words beginning with the letter “B” to describe Boris, eg Ruth Wishart in Moday’s column (excellent by the way) depicted Boris as “blundering and bullshitting” (We must not let Johnson stand in way of indyref2, October 7). Other typical and derogatory descriptions include balloon, bampot, buffoon, bawbag, blethering, and bumbling.

Now after indyref1 many felt cheated – the promises and vows of Better Together, a nation of equals, that never appeared! Again we are “bee”ing warned to brace ourselves for more of the same.

It’s already happening. Promises of billions to be spent on policing, education, the NHS. However, all the indications suggest we won’t be fooled again. We are high in the polls. Thousands are marching for independence. We are taking him to court and winning. We are undoubtedly on the crest of a wave. Let it never ebb!

Robin MacLean
Fort Augustus

I WRITE in response to Paddy Farrington’s letter complaining that Peter A Bell offers no alternative to grovelling to Westminster for permission to hold another referendum (October 8). We must, he says, act within the “current constitutional framework”.

READ MORE: Letters, October 8

I do not believe he has thought through Mr Bell’s argument very carefully. As I understand his position, there exist perfectly transparent international treaties that recognise the rights of nations and regions to secede if they so wish, and that would enable the Scottish Government to present a straightforward referendum question of the form: “do you want to dissolve the Union?”

The “current constitutional framework” does not stop at the borders of the allegedly “United” Kingdom. To believe otherwise is to pander to the same exceptionalism that has motivated the British state for centuries.

Andy Duncan

READERS will be familiar with the way in which the Conservatives, copying Mr Trump, now attach derogatory nicknames to people or things they dislike, for instance the “Surrender Bill”. In this spirit of harmless fun, may I suggest that in future the Prime Minister should always be referred to not as “Boris Johnson”, but as “The Joker”?

Kenneth Fraser
St Andrews