THE weekend’s opinion pages offered comment on the language used by politicians after a week in which Boris Johnson was accused of using violent discourse. The Prime Minister used terms such as “surrender” and “betrayal” and dismissed MPs’ concerns about aggressive language as “humbug”. So what did the columnists have to say about it?

The Sunday Times
Kevin Pringle described Mr Johnson performance in Parliament as “reckless” and accused him of “employing vocabulary calculated to deepen divisions”.
Comparing Westminster with Scotland, he wrote: “Members of the Scottish Parliament are already obliged by their code of conduct’s guidance to ‘ensure their choice of language in the chamber is appropriate and meets the high standards expected by the public’.
“This basic standard of civility should be exported for inclusion in the rules that govern Westminster MPs, and also be applied to political discourse outside parliament.
“The ability to express passion and strong beliefs is vital for any healthy democracy, but we need to expunge the language of aggression and violence from our politics.
“Scotland’s civic values were tested in 2014; Britain’s are being tested to destruction now.”

Scotland on Sunday
In its leader, the paper argued “politicians of all parties or none have a duty to take the heat out of acrimonious debate”.
It added: “In Scotland, we know better than most how deep the divisions caused by a referendum can be. More than five years after a majority rejected the SNP’s proposal that Scotland should leave the UK, ours is a nation split by the constitutional argument and, seemingly, unable to move beyond that issue.
“The divisions over Brexit, which are now being exploited by politicians, are familiar to Scottish voters. In the days and weeks to come, these divisions stand to grow deeper; positions will harden, trust will further erode.
“MPs from all parties have a duty to take the heat out of debate at this time. Those who choose, instead, to fan the flames must be prepared to take full responsibility for the consequences of their words.”

The Observer
Political commentator Andrew Rawnsley claimed the Prime Minister is seeking to “divide and conquer with his incendiary rhetoric”.
He wrote: “In decades of writing about politics, a career that spans the revolt against the poll tax, the Iraq war and many other divisive convulsions, I have never known a time when so many parliamentarians live in fear that something terrible will happen to them or their loved ones.”
Mr Rawnsley added: “All the parties bear some guilt for the poison flowing through Britain’s body politic. 
“The Labour leader’s one-time promise to introduce “a kinder, gentler politics” rings very hollow with the Labour MPs who have been targeted with vicious abuse by some of his zealots. 
“The referendum in Scotland in 2014 featured cybernats hurling 
the word quisling and other vituperative insults at Scots who opposed independence. 
“The Liberal Democrats, who like to think of themselves as the saintly ones, are not above reproach. 
“Their deputy leader, Ed Davey, had to apologise for expressing a desire to “decapitate that blonde head” of Boris Johnson. So it is not right to say this toxicity all began on the day that Mr Johnson arrived at Number 10. It is right to point out it has got worse since then.”

Sunday Mail
Columnist John Niven drew comparisons between Mr Johnson’s response to the Supreme Court ruling and that of Donald Trump to impeachment.
He wrote: “The President called reporters “rotten” and “corrupt” and screamed about “harassment”, “witch hunts” and all the usual stuff.
“Over here, we had Boris Johnson being found guilty of acting unlawfully when he prorogued Parliament. 
“This fine upholder of English values and the rule of law turned into a surly, hateful thug, calling the Supreme Court’s integrity into question and lashing out at everyone but himself.
“He caused uproar in the House of Commons when he responded dismissively to Labour MP Paula Sherriff, who had made a sincere plea for the Prime Minister to stop using vicious, emotionally-charged language like “surrender”.