The latest from Liam Fox and Jacob Rees-Mogg is that a second Brexit referendum would make it difficult to deny Scotland a second Independence referendum, as if that’s an argument against a People’s Vote.

It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Whether or not Scotland has a second independence vote must surely depend on whether there is a significant change of circumstances since the last one.

Fox and Rees-Mogg want just such a change in circumstances, so they can’t convincingly pretend that Scotland can be denied a second vote if they get their way.

On the other hand, if there is a second Brexit referendum, the UK might not leave the EU after all, in which case the major change in Scotland’s circumstances is cancelled.

So a second Brexit referendum can only make a second Independence vote less likely, not more.

Their analysis is hopeless.

Alan Robinson,

Lindley Street,

Holgate, York

Theresa’s troubles are all self-inflicted

As each day passes my view that we should have walked away from the EU the day after the referendum deepens.

Theresa May has brought all the troubles she has on her own head.

We have the spectacle of the European court giving an overt political judgment on Article 50, just hours before a critical (now cancelled vote) in the British Parliament.

We have the president of the EU caught making off-the-cuff remarks and then having to do a reverse ferret. We know he knows exactly what he was saying.

Part of her ‘team’ are now traipsing around Westminster trying to gather support for a second referendum - what exactly will that achieve? - aided by that jewel of common sense Tony Blair.

And to cap it all Jeremy Hunt says he would rather like the top job.

The only thing to cap off this year is if Chris Grayling shows an interest as well.

Merry Christmas.

Keith Isaac,

Byron Drive, York

How do people know how we all voted?

Once again someone trots out the idea that only older people voted to escape from the EU, and insult is added to injury by suggesting most of those who voted for independence have died in the two years since the vote.

Statistics are quoted. How can anyone interpret the divisions of voter opinions from a supposedly anonymous vote? It is obvious that the pundits can calculate the share of the vote on a geographical basis, but the age of the voter? How? Please someone explain.

Perhaps “they” also know our gender, employment status, income, address? It is really quite sinister. Big Brother is watching us.

Possibly these observations are based on the pollsters’ tactic of sampling, ie ask a small percentage of voters their views and from the result estimate how the rest of the electorate voted. This is not an exact science as has been noted previously from election forecasts.

Talking to friends, family and neighbours, I have noted a fairly even split of views, independent of age.

Some older folk vehemently wish to stay, some younger see the advantages of freedom. What age is the age of wisdom?

Pamela Brown,

Goodwood Grove, York