I FIND it increasingly difficult to understand just what Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, actually stands for.

Commenting on Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. Presidential Election, she said that while it was not the result she wanted, we have to respect the will of the American People!

Which is in complete contradiction to the stance she has taken over the result of the UK referendum on the EU.

Her argument seems to be that as the majority Scots voted to remain in the EU - Scotland should not be bound by the referendum result.

But California, the most populous and by far the wealthiest of the United States voted for Hilary Clinton, which, using Sturgeon’s argument, would justify the people of California refusing to accept the result of the Presidential Election.

The First Minister displays the same kind of muddled thinking when it comes to her desire for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom - yet is adamant that Scotland must remain a member of the EU.

Does she not realise that is a contradiction in terms?

What would be the point of gaining independence from the UK - yet shackling her country even more tightly to the European Union whose avowed aim is the abolition of the nation state altogether?

Scotland has and will have far more independence as part of a UK outside the EU than it will have as a province of a Federated European Superstate.

In any case she needs to understand that there is absolutely no chance of the Eurocrats permitting an independent Scotland to join the EU as it would act as a spur to other regional minorities such as the Basques to step up their fight for independence.

I’m afraid the First Minister is in dire need of a reality check.

ROBERT READMAN Norwich Avenue West, Bournemouth