Why on earth should we call these people Honourable?

During said crisis, Boris Johnson and a number of his Cabinet colleagues attended parties, which they renamed "work sessions", despite them having drafted legislation forbidding such gatherings, creating the Partygate scandal.

Further, several colleagues of the present PM’s colleagues have been found to be guilty of breaching the ministerial code – Suella Braverman, Owen Paterson, as well as Mr Johnson; the last being under investigation for no fewer than 18 such breaches.

Mr Zahawi claims he made a "careless error" in his tax returns, for which he was fined, and which he "forgot about" when being interviewed for the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr Sunak, who himself has admitted to his family having used non-domiciliary status to avoid paying tax on income, "immediately’ (i.e. after procrastinating) fired him.

There has been little reaction from many members of the Cabinet, many of whom, like Jacob Rees-Mogg and Alister Jack, have spoken in glowing terms of almost all the above, and are prepared to grovel to whoever is in power.

One wonders at the double standards employed here, even for a party that, to the horror of many decent supporters, became synonymous with duplicity and sleaze under Mr Johnson. Perhaps it would not be too much to expect that all the above-mentioned cease being referred to as "Honourable", so as to preserve the meaning of the word.
TJ Dowds, Cumbernauld

A home for serial liars

WILL the Tories have the courage to get rid of former party chairman Nadhim Zahawi as an MP now, forcing a by-election? Unlikely.

Will the Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross demand he be sacked? Unlikely again, but he flip-flops so much on major issues you never know.

Will the constituents of Stratford-on-Avon campaign for a new MP? Possible, but still unlikely.

So we are left with an arrogant, incompetent UK Government which appears to be a home for some serial liars, completely out of touch with the rest of us. And we still have the investigation into Dominic Raab's alleged bullying to come.

The next General Election is not scheduled until January 23, 2025 at the latest.

How many Chancellors and Tory party chairmen can we get through in that time?

And how much more damage can they inflict on the UK economy?

I think we all know the answer.
Andy Stenton, Glasgow

• ON Sunday Michael Gove admitted that the Government had given inadequate guidance in respect of tower block recladding ("Faults in guidance allowed Grenfell’", The Herald, January 30). A Scotsman from any other party might have pointed out that building control regulations are more stringent north of the Border.

After a fatal fire in an Irvine tower block in 1999, Scotland's regulations were revised to prevent fire spreading up cladding. A similar fatal fire in Camberwell, south London, occurred in 2009. The Grenfell disaster happened in 2017. Guidance and clarification for cladding in England was only issued in 2019.

When Boris Johnson was in charge we had a procession of spokesmen, including Mr Gove, explaining (or trying to explain), his various misspoken statements. Recently various ministers have been doing the same for the misdeeds of other Rt Hon Cabinet members.

This time we should believe the much-awaited apology. However, a cynic might wonder how much of the failure to tighten regulations – and save lives – was down to nationwide developers and builders who make significant donations to a certain party?
JB Drummond, Kilmarnock

Sturgeon attack may backfire

KEVIN McKenna is right to condemn Nicola Sturgeon ("Why is Sturgeon now acting like a cut-price Trump?", The Herald, January 31). But I do not agree with those who demand she should “apologise forthwith” for her gross insults that some opponents of her Gender Recognition Reform Bill are “transphobic … deeply misogynist, often homophobic” and even more extraordinarily, that possibly some of them are “racist as well”. Her attack may backfire against her, both from outside and even within the SNP, either of which would be a welcome result.

Just as with her “I detest the Tories and everything they stand for”, her remarks were not ill-thought, spur-of-the-moment outbursts. They were and are her considered views after years of careful thought, for which any apology would be untrue and therefore rightly disbelieved. When politicians are forced into apologising, they tend to adopt weasel words in so doing; and a forced apology is no apology.

It is clear that this bill’s farcical fiasco was caused by a majority of MSPs, from all parties, who could not even accept any sensible, logical, common-sense amendments, supported surely by the vast majority of adult Scots, which could have ensured an even larger majority for genuine legislative reform. Those MSPs should be deselected before the next election.
John Birkett, St Andrews

• CAN anyone in the Scottish Government tell us why women in prison have more rights to protection from potentially dangerous men, however they "identify", than women and girls who have committed no crimes?

Meanwhile, predatory men whether transgender or not will have, and in many places including hospitals in Glasgow already have, free access to what were female-only toilets, changing rooms and hospital wards, putting women and girls in danger.

Does committing a crime and being in a women's prison in Scotland confer more rights on a woman than being a law-abiding citizen? In Scotland today, it would seem that it does.
Dorothy Connor, Glasgow

Beginning of the end

IT would seem we are witnessing the beginning of the end. Making the trans issue a nationalist shibboleth will surely rank as the worst decision the First Minister has ever made.

It will cost her electorally and may even ensure that her obsession with breaking up the UK will have to be dropped for at least a generation, if not permanently. She has alienated vast numbers of female voters, who surely now see what others have been saying for a very long time: manufactured and unsubstantiated grievances are no way to run even a devolved country.

It seems the country is returning to its senses and fantasy is being put aside.
Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Can Sturgeon be courageous?

IT is hard to disagree with W MacIntyre (Letters, January 30) that a vote for independence should need a high threshold to ensure that its outcome is truly what Scots want, rather than reflecting a reaction to a temporary phenomenon (such as a Tory government.)

Like him, I would prefer the "supermajority" two-thirds required in most countries and organisations (including the SNP) for a change in their constitution. As an alternative, a true majority could also be measured by the simple formula of the Returning Officer applying the turn-out figure to the percentage of the vote secured. In other words, 50% of the vote on a turnout of 80% = 40% in favour (= fail). Or 60% of the vote on 90% turnout = 54% in favour (= success.)

What would be truly transformational in this debate would be if Nicola Sturgeon were for once to assume the role of First Minster of the whole of Scotland rather than just the leader of the SNP. It would be truly courageous of her to stand up at her party's forthcoming Special Conference and tell her members something along the lines of "A Scotland that is at ease with itself is more important than independence, and that cannot be achieved by a simple majority of 50% plus 1 representing a minority of our voters. We must aim high, and set ourself the goal of achieving unity and independence. For that we need a supermajority."

Unfortunately, Nicola Sturgeon's talents lie in indulging the baser elements of her tribe, and not in challenging them with the reality of what is best for Scotland. So we should not be holding our collective breath.
Peter A Russell, Glasgow

• THERE is a regular flow of suggestions for the adjustment of any Indyref2 and W MacIntyre offers the latest.

If 66% were adopted as the necessary majority for success, a majority of 64% would result in rejection. If a proposition supported by 64% of the electorate were rejected, would Mr MacIntyre regard this as a triumph of democracy?
Peter Dryburgh, Edinburgh

Read more letters: The Tories want us to work until we drop. We have to get out

For more than two centuries The Herald has been delivering quality news and insightful commentary.

To celebrate our 240th anniversary, we’ve launched our lowest ever subscription offer – one year for just £24.https://t.co/v7nDp2BrP7 pic.twitter.com/KFMVyriX9T

— The Herald (@heraldscotland) January 24, 2023

Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.