FRANCES McKie (Letters, January 21) correctly points out that the worst lies told by Boris Johnson were those concerning Brexit. However, it goes further than that, for the recent lies about partying in Downing Street will shortly be “chip paper”, but the lies about Brexit will continue to have significant effect on the UK, its people, its economy and its relationship to the rest of the world in the long term, particularly as the present leader of the Labour Party has said he has no intention of going back on it.

What puzzles me, though, is the level of surprise about the Downing Street parties during the pandemic. It was Eddie Mair who asked Boris Johnson, during the Andrew Marr Show in 2013: “You’re a nasty piece of work, Boris Johnson, aren’t you?” when despite denials about an affair, Mr Johnson had to be sacked from the Conservative front bench, having refused to resign. He was described by the Sunday Times shortly before the 2019 election as someone who had an “on-off relationship with the truth”, which could hardly be more serious, yet they recommended voting for him, and in due course his party won a majority of 80.

A superficial question is “why were we surprised?” when what we got was clearly written on the tin. But a more important question is, when careers have been wrecked by even a small skeleton in the personal cupboard, how was it that a man who can barely close his cupboard door for skeletons tumbling out on top of him, was elected as Prime Minister? Has Mr Johnson been no more than a useful idiot, a placeman to achieve the aims of others, which his successor will no doubt take on to completion?

Mr Johnson’s behaviour is a worthy topic for debate, but an even more worthy is to question the powers that have stood behind him. This is particularly so when the events that may bring him down (at the time of writing) mostly happened more than a year ago. Why the delay in these becoming public? Who decided? Why?

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

WHIPS' BULLYING IS NOTHING NEW

WHIPS trying to intimidate backbenchers ("Whips are ‘blackmailing’ rebels to back PM, says Tory", The Herald, January 21)? Sounds familiar.

For example, I distinctly remember being punched in the back by a furious Don Dixon MP, when he was Labour's Deputy Chief Whip.

My crime? Taking part in a peaceful sit-down protest by attending a parliamentary committee dealing with a bill which applied to Scotland only and which proposed to dispose of much of Scotland's public sector housing. Thousands of my constituents were affected but I was excluded from membership of the committee, despite the fact that some Tory MPs representing English constituencies were conscripted to membership of the aforesaid "Scottish" Standing Committee.

That was during a period of Tory government, long before the Scottish Parliament came into being. Don Dixon, a Labour MP, who was a fierce opponent of a Scottish Parliament, was purple with rage because of my unconventional efforts to stop a Tory Government foisting legislation on the people of Scotland against the wishes of the majority of Scotland's MPs.

I thought it would be a complete waste of time reporting the assault to the Metropolitan Police, but it all goes to show that intimidation by Whips is not new and is not confined to the Tory Party.

Dennis Canavan, former Labour MP, Bannockburn.

REES-MOGG'S REVOLUTION

I HAD understood that we operated constitutionally in a party system and that we voted for a party in order to supply us with a Prime Minister. I was, therefore, somewhat startled, watching Jacob Rees-Mogg being interviewed on Channel 4 News on Wednesday (January 19), when he informed his interviewer that it would not be a valid procedure for Boris Johnson to be removed by a vote of the 1922 Committee and replaced without a General Election. His argument was that his successor would lack a "mandate".

I wonder what previous Tory prime ministers like John Major, Alec Douglas-Home or, indeed, Winston Churchill, would have made of this? Mr Rees-Mogg’s argument implies that none of them had a mandate because they were not elected as prime minister when they first took on the office.

He has, however, shed light on my flawed understanding with his announcement that we now have a "presidential" (his word) system for electing prime ministers. Of course, a presidential system is called a "republic". Has he informed the Queen he has ruled that now this is our constitutional system?

Ian Brown, Giffnock.

ABSENT MSPs BILL MUST PASS

I FIND it startling that there could be any debate whatsoever about the proposed new "Mackay’s law", now at the consultation stage ("Law proposed to dismiss MSPs who persistently fail to turn up at Holyrood", The Herald, January 20). Derek Mackay, a former SNP minister and best known for his now-infamous "sex pest" texts to a teenage boy, clung on and received his full taxpayer-provided salary from February 2020 till May of last year. He had been suspended by his party but continued receiving his full salary. In all, he coined in around £150,000 in the period for not a single appearance at Holyrood. That amount could have bought an ambulance or two or paid the salaries of three new nurses.

The proposed law change will bring MSPs into line with councillors, who after six months of no-show, receive no pay. It is demonstrably fair and badly needed.

The names of those MSPs voting against this manifestly fair proposed change would be interesting and should be prominently displayed.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh.

REMEMBER THE HORRORS OF WAR

AS we approach International Holocaust Memorial Day, which will be observed next Wednesday, it should not be forgotten that a further dreadful example of genocide took place in Ukraine in 1932/33 when an estimated four to ten million men, women and children died due to a policy created by Stalin which produced widespread famine throughout that country. At its height, around 28,000 citizens died every day.

Ukraine has returned to the attention of the media as Russia and Nato-aligned counties go head to head on its borders ("Americans warn of ‘swift, severe’ response if Russia attacks Ukraine", The Herald, January 21).

It would have been hoped that, after two world wars, followed by major conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as those in Suez and the Falkland Islands, world leaders might have learned lessons from the suffering caused by their belligerence.

Many readers will remember how they held their breath as bombers took to the air during the Cuban missile crisis. At the 11th hour a possible nuclear war was averted through face-saving negotiations.

Have the horrors of war already been forgotten?

Malcolm Allan, Bishopbriggs.

* IAN Mitchell (Letters, January 21) has misread Vladimir Putin.

Mr Putin has already said openly he wants the Soviet Union back. He is intent on taking Ukraine slice by slice exactly as Hitler took Czechoslovakia. He grabbed Crimea because the Ukranian people deposed a dictator. He has been hacking at his second slice of Ukraine since 2014. He has also sidled into Kazakhstan to protect another dictator.

Neighbour Alexander Lukaschenko of Belarus has also said he wants the Soviet Union back and has welcomed Russian formations into his country to engage the northern border of Ukraine while the army of Russia engages from the east.

In Russian nationalist eyes, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are all one nation termed Great Russia. Ukrainians see it differently and have a right to their own nation state

The events of 1938 and 1939 demonstrated that appeasement is more dangerous than resistance, and Mr Mitchell has neatly demonstrated that the Hitlers of history always have supporters in privileged and safe countries like the UK.

Tim Cox, Bern, Switzerland.

ALARMS RULES A STEP TOO FAR

SCOTTISH Government requirements for the installation of smoke/heat and carbon monoxide alarms in domestic property seem to fall into the category of using a very large hammer to crack a relatively small nut ("SNP Government rules out any further delays to new fire alarm regulations", The Herald, January 20).

The legislation, which takes effect from February 1, has been introduced following the fire at the 24-storey Grenfell Tower in London. I might be missing something, but why does the Scottish Government consider that every residence in Scotland, including all low-rise properties – which make up the bulk of housing stock in Scotland – requires such a level of fire protection if the basis for their decision is a fire in a 24-storey residential building?

Scottish fire fatalities must always be a concern, but from the latest statistics I have been able to find, for the year 2020, fire fatalities in Scotland totalled 27, not all of which occurred in domestic property. This fire fatality rate was very low when compared to previous years and was achieved by the good work of Scottish Fire and Rescue Service personnel through their education programmes and also by the very simple cost-effective policy of Scottish local authorities installing battery-operated point-type smoke/heat detectors in their housing stock.

It has long been known that fire fatalities do not occur evenly throughout all sections of society. Generally fire deaths occur (but not always) in socio economically deprived areas. Why then does the Scottish Government not concentrate its fire protection measures on those most at risk rather than the whole population who statistically are not within the main at risk from fire category?

Perhaps the Scottish Government might want to consider other groups where fatalities commonly occur and prioritise them for action before introducing their fire safety measures in respect of 27 fatalities caused by fire. For example, in 2020 there were 1,339 drug deaths, 805 suicides and 99 water-related deaths in Scotland, all of which perhaps require to be prioritised before those which are fire-related.

John S Milligan, Kilmarnock.

* THE SNP Government has ruled out a further delay to householders installing new fire safety equipment. Housing Secretary Shona Robison states insurers are “not likely” to ask questions about specific standards and it is “not likely” that policies would become invalidated for not complying with the new law.

I will “not likely” be willing to trust to luck and find it astonishing that a Government minister is being so flippant about a new law which could have desperate consequences for individuals and families. But this is the SNP and we have had years of woeful mismanagement and poor decision-making, so it is to be expected. It doesn’t matter about important stuff like this because the drive for independence is more important.

Douglas Cowe, Newmachar.

Read more: Forget Partygate, the worst lies came from Brexit campaigners