I VERY rarely find myself agreeing with Sir Keir Starmer and I never waste my time listening to the nonsense uttered by Ian Blackford, however I concur wholly with both of them in that our Prime Minister should resign.

Boris Johnson has repeatedly misled Parliament, and the people of the UK, over too many issues and over too many months.

His apologies and defensive rhetoric at Prime Minister's Questions was pathetic and frankly beggared belief. He is treating the people of this country with total disdain and like we are fools. This makes me very angry.

Errors made by previous Prime Ministers, for which they humbly apologised and survived to carry on in their role, were by and large “one-off” events, not really “felt” by individuals or households to any personal degree. This said, the most recent error made by Mr Johnson, flagrantly attending what was clearly a social gathering at No 10 – we now know with more than 30 people – at a time when every household across the UK was suffering in one way or another due to lockdown rules or restrictions, is one which is very deeply felt by every UK household.

He simply does not realise the immense damage his actions and deceitfulness have done and the associated implications regarding his credibility and trustworthiness, to him as a leader.

Displaying such irresponsible, selfish and misleading behaviour has resulted in him having lost the confidence and respect of the majority of UK voters, including myself as a loyal Conservative, and importantly as I understand it, many of his Cabinet colleagues.

Not only is he now a real danger to the longer-term success of the Conservative Party, but there is no way he can possibly have the support and loyalty of those around him to develop, implement and drive those policies and initiatives we need to deal with and manage the very serious issues that the country faces and that require to be urgently addressed.

The United Kingdom deserves, and indeed now more than ever needs, a far better leader than this.

Paul McPhail, Glasgow.


LISTENING to Boris Johnson at PMQs trying to weasel out of the mire that he has created for himself was quite excruciating. I then listened to Conservative junior minister Rachel Maclean talking on the BBC2’s Politics Show and my despair turned to fury. When she was asked whether Boris Johnson’s attendance at the drinks party for 25 minutes was a breach of the regulations she responded that she didn’t know. I couldn’t decide if she is so short of intelligence that she doesn’t understand the rules that everyone in the country understands or if she thinks that the British public are as stupid as her and believe anything she says.

I was reminded of the Dominic Cummings episode when the Tory Government first rehearsed its strategy for ignoring the rules that it had imposed. It all makes me despair at the lack of integrity of our politicians.

Robin Mather, Musselburgh.

* I LISTENED with great interest to the Prime Minister's apology on this week's Prime Minister's Questions. It raised several questions in my mind: first, on whose behalf were invitations to the gathering issued? Secondly, did the PM receive an invitation? Thirdly, does the PM usually attend work meetings where those attending bring along their own bottles?

Christine R McLachlan, Milton of Campsie.


IT is hard not to agree wholeheartedly with the call by Ian Blackford ("Top Tories turn on Johnson as anger grows over garden party", The Herald, January 12) for Prime Minister Johnson to resign. However, he cites as one of the reasons for this call Boris Johnson's “loss of moral authority”. Surely it must be glaringly evident that Mr Johnson never had any vestige of such authority?

As a proven serial liar, adulterer and power-hungry hypocrite, it simply beggars belief that sufficient of the electorate was seduced by his false bonhomie to put this person into a position of high office.

Sadly, even if he is forced to resign, the likely replacements are from the same awful mould, concerned only with clinging on to power in order to do the bidding of their shady billionaire backers, with no thought of the consequences for the rest of us.

Dr RM Morris, Ellon.


NO doubt the SNP and its supporters will use the allegations that Boris Johnson held parties in Downing Street during lockdown as yet another reason why Scotland should separate from the rest of the UK.

In fact, the opposite is true. Regardless of our political views, we are fortunate to live in a country where individuals, the media, Parliament and even elected members of his own party are free to report, investigate, criticise and publicise alleged wrongdoing by the Prime Minister. Once allegations are investigated, any proven misleading, lawbreaking or poor judgment can then be judged and punished either by his party, Parliament, the legal system, at the ballot box, or all four. This is the result of hundreds of years of evolving democracy and the rule of law in our islands and is something the citizens of many countries can only dream of.

The absence of consequences following the Holyrood parliamentary committee’s conclusion that the First Minister had misled the Scottish Parliament about her actions during the handling of the allegations against Alex Salmond, combined with the SNP’s omerta-like intolerance of internal dissent, do not inspire confidence in swiftly achieving similar maturity if Scotland were to separate.

Mark Openshaw, Aberdeen.


TWO letters this morning (January 12), each in their own way, illustrate a dominant tendency of the contemporary unionist faction – don’t let the Scots speak.

This is expressed most brutally by Alan Sutherland, whose aim is to take the UK and Scotland back to before 1999 and the setting up of the devolved Parliament at Holyrood. I won’t try to summarise his argument because beyond that Mr Sutherland is not only opposed but contemptuous of what it is doing – despite the election of its government (SNP and Green) by the majority of those who voted last May – there is none. “This mess started with devolution and Labour, it should be its mission to clear it up”, or put it this way: “I don’t like it, get rid of it”, despite that voter turnout in the 2021 election reached 63.5 per cent, the highest ever at a Scottish Parliament election.

Peter A Russell offers a more subtle example, claiming “the precedents [for a national convention] are not exactly propitious”. However, his precedents appear to be the Russian Revolution and UDI in Rhodesia. Its not exactly clear how even the latter applies here, and as for the former, maybe there are some political developments not being reported (surely no).

In his conclusion Mr Russell recommends an "analysis" of the independence case, concluding with the astonishing suggestion that if “these questions are answered to the satisfaction” of 66% of the electorate, then and only then should there be a referendum. This suggests that Mr Russell has no awareness (or is hiding from it) that the UK has changed so significantly since 2014 – most notably regarding Brexit, the consequences of which are still to become fully clear – that there is a parallel obligation on those of Mr Russell’s view to put forward a case for the Union, why Scotland should remain part of the UK.

In this way Mr Russell shares Mr Sutherland’s disrespect for Scottish democracy. Only independence is to be scrutinised (as it should be), but don’t even mention any possibility of the same for staying in the Union. And if there is to be independence it should be by a majority which most certainly was not attained by the Brexit vote, and indeed has never before been required in the history of British politics.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.


YET again, this morning (January 12), John Swinney was on BBC radio struggling to explain some of the Scottish Government decisions with regard to Covid restrictions. I must be going soft as I am starting to feel sorry for him. There appears to be a developing pattern. Mr Swinney, the loyal number two, makes the uncomfortable media appearances and suffers while Nicola Sturgeon reserves hers for statesman-style performances at Holyrood where she avoids directly answering questions, uses paragraphs when a sentence would do to use up time and mocks those who dare criticise.

She is so lucky that Boris Johnson provides so many reasons to deflect attention from her governance.

Duncan Sooman, Milngavie.

Read more: Labour should stay clear of devo-max