Ian Bell asks: "Will protest ever overcome lies, deceit and arrogance?" (The Herald, March 9).

Probably not, but protesting against unfairness, standing up for our beliefs, railing against evil, is nourishment for our souls, a reminder to ourselves and to those in authority that we are not gullible, brain-dead human beings who will tamely accept the world's ills and iniquities. And there can be few worse than what happened 10 years ago in Iraq. The eyes of the world were glued to their television screens in fascinated horror as screaming bombs tore through Baghdad's skies. Who can forget the scenes of devastation in the cold light of day with parents tearing at the rubble of their homes desperately searching for their families, and children crying hysterically over the bodies of their dead mothers?

Possibly one million dead, countless others left horribly wounded or orphaned or homeless as a result of that dreadful war, with violence and terror still a feature of life in Iraq today. That is what we marched and protested against 10 years ago, and although we can't turn back time, we can ensure that to Iraq and its traumatised, innocent people we deliver justice. Until we do, there can be no moving forward and no peace of mind, either for them or for us.

Those who are culpable of the Iraq war have yet to be brought to face justice in a court of law. Mr Bell points out that "democracy is abused in democracy's name, and there is no democratic means to do a thing about it". That in itself is a valid reason why we should march again in protest and in solidarity with the people of Iraq. Those responsible for that illegal, immoral, indefensible war must answer for their crimes, and face their Ides of March.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.

Tony Blair's support of the Unionist campaign in the independence debate is of considerable interest. Presumably the No campaign regards his involvement as a bonus but his input may turn out to be a recruitment aid to the Yes campaign. Certainly his standing with the public in general could hardly be lower. Ian Bell's review of the beginning of the Blair/Bush Iraq war reminds us about his ability to lie and deceive. Mr Bell also highlights the dramatic opposition by the world's public to starting the war in Iraq. Blair opened the floodgates of suffering on the Iraqi people, which continues today, and thus he must be regarded as a liability which could come to haunt the No campaign.

At home, Blair presided over a government which introduced light-touch regulation of banks and approval of astronomic bank bonuses to help Treasury funds. This, along with a massive raid on pension funds, contributed hugely to the collapse of the UK banking system and the other financial problems we face today.

He also acts as the official Envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East, in which role he has failed to achieve much improvement. His presence in the No campaign may well encourage Scottish voters to feel that they are much Better Apart.

Nigel Dewar Gibb,

15 Kirklee Road,

Glasgow.

Ian Bell suggests governments should be swayed by the number of demonstrators any given cause can muster on a particular day, taking as his illustration the case of the Iraq war.

He and your readers should remember a few other instances. For example, the Countryside Alliance put more than 400,000 people on the streets of London to demand that foxhunting should not be made illegal. Likewise, after any particularly nasty murder or terrorist outrage, you can be sure large numbers could be mobilised to support the reintroduction of the death penalty. And Ukip, the BNP and others could be expected to organise well-populated demos to demand an end to immigration. Similarly, it is certain that enough religious fundamentalists could be assembled to demand the abolition of free and safe abortion. The logic of Mr Bell's argument is that these should also dictate government policy.

And what about counter-demonstrations and the risk to public safety? During the Iraq demonstrations, it was reported that anti-Saddam protestors were removed by the police after threats from the "pro-peace" marchers. I am sure the police would not welcome, for example, an anti-racist vs racist riot, and indeed they probably feel they already have too many parades to supervise.

A representative democracy means we elect parliaments to govern the country, and the way in which they do so is ultimately moderated by accountability through the ballot box. Protest has an honourable and important role to play in expressing public concern, but this should not extend to dictating policy.

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road,

Jordanhill,

Glasgow.