DENIS Bruce (Letters, November 14) questions whether Rishi Sunak has “a death wish for the electoral prospects of his party” by appointing David Cameron as his Foreign Secretary. Or could it be that Mr Sunak has recognised that the change in political opinion supporting Brexit has been resolutely downwards, a perception, however belated, of the economic and reputational harm it has done to the UK?

I doubt the newly-ennobled Lord Cameron “failed to notice the all-too-evident vibes about the raging Euroscepticism gripping his party, fuelled by the antics of Nigel Farage”. As I recall, John Major had a fairly colourful name for that element of his party. Not noticing them was about as likely as being unaware of Nigel Farage.

David Cameron’s error was misreading the public mood, and not for the first time either. But since then, older voters, the age group most in favour of Brexit, have "left" the electorate through natural causes, being replaced in the electorate by younger voters, the group most against it, so changing the balance of opinion.

Even then, though, Professor Curtice has opined that the level of change of opinion about Brexit has been too rapid to be accounted for by demographic change alone. Perhaps the recognition of the difficulties we have imposed on ourselves with Brexit, for instance with supply of labour, is really starting to hit home?

Thus, rather than berating Mr Sunak, should he not be congratulated for recognising the shift in opinion? This is not to say that a "rejoin the EU" campaign would be successful. Obstacles remain, for instance with regard to migration, the ECJ and more. However, does it reflect a change away from the sour relationship with the EU we had under Boris Johnson’s premiership? Perhaps to a relationship where some sort of associate agreement were possible that would make it possible for both sides to treat each other with respect and gain from this?

In that case, Sir Keir Starmer might just feel that Mr Sunak has stolen his clothes. If so, then, whatever you think of the Tories, it would not be a “death wish for the electoral prospects of his party”. If a week is a long time in politics, how would you describe more than a year? Could John Major (1992) repeat, fated to lose that election, but coming out on top after all?

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

Memories of failure

I REMEMBER watching an interview given by the former French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, in which he recalled a conversation he had with the then Prime Minister David Cameron during the years of the Tory/LibDem Coalition Government, when Mr Cameron confided that he was going to announce to the UK public that he would give them a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. "But David, will that not be risky?" asked Mr Sarkozy, only to be assured by Mr Cameron that such a referendum would never actually happen because "Clegg wouldn't allow it".

As Mr Cameron walked through the door of Number 10 to accept another Tory Prime Minister's offer of Foreign Secretary, what memories must have walked with him, not least the wraith of Nick Clegg, who was supposed to save him from holding that EU referendum but whose party had fallen at the fence of the 2015 General Election and been sent packing by an outraged public.

Mr Cameron himself soon fell at the Brexit fence he had erected for himself and which brought catastrophe on him, on the UK, and particularly on Scotland which voted decisively to stay in Europe. After all his love-bombing flattery and insincere promises of greatness during the independence referendum, I wonder how Mr Cameron can look Scotland in the face.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

Read more: Sunak has pulled off a masterstroke. The election is not yet lost

This is no safe pair of hands

I’M unclear why some people view David Cameron as a "safe" pair of hands.

It should be remembered that it was his policy of "one regulation in, two regulations out" that contributed directly to the Grenfell Tower disaster. This dictum was cited by one government witness to the current inquiry as the reason he felt unable to introduce stricter legislation prohibiting the use of combustible cladding on tall buildings. This was despite repeated recommendations from coroners to do so.

The building regulations are the minimum - repeat minimum - standard of safety in a building. If you have 100 regulations and you introduce one more, then the 101 regulations become the minimum level of safety. Removing two thereafter simply means you are no longer achieving that minimum standard unless you can demonstrate that the two you are removing were superfluous.

But by definition that implies that they were not contributing to enhanced public safety in the first place, so they should never have been in the regulations. Moreover, every subsequent safety regulation which is introduced in the light of new information or evidence requires the removal of two existing regulations. You will eventually reach a point where there is only one regulation left.

This was the conundrum the civil servants were left to cope with by David Cameron’s ill-thought out and frankly reckless political campaign slogan. Seventy-two people died as a consequence.

Robert Menzies, Falkirk.

A democratic disgrace

AT a time with serious foreign issues to consider, we now have a Foreign Secretary who is beyond the reach of two of the UK’s elected parties of government (Scotland and Northern Ireland) to question. For families from these two countries with relatives victimised by despotic regimes, how can the issues be aired and succour attained? In a supposed democracy, for those in power to be beyond legitimate questioning by our elected representatives is a disgrace irrelevant of party.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

• YOUR front-page picture today (November 14) of David Cameron and crony emerging from 10 Downing Street, both in step, with matching suits and matching shoes, reminded me of an old stage act: Mike and Bernie Winters, another pair of has-been comedians.

David Hay, Minard, Argyll.

• IT seems we have finally discovered what lies beneath the barrel.

Hugh Mulvihill, Edinburgh.

Read more: Beware the slippery slope to a police state

Be glad that Braverman is gone

I CANNOT let Jane Lax's letter (November 14) go without comment. Suella Braverman was wrong on so many counts and suffers from a distinct lack of memory.

Ms Braverman forgot that the Second World War was fought to maintain freedom of speech including peaceful protest; she forgot that the right-wingers who caused mayhem on the day were encouraged by her rhetoric; she forgot that she was only an elected custodian of the Home Office and did not have the authority to order people about to suit her own views; she forgot that the will of the people is paramount and a peaceful demonstration, reputedly the largest since the war, is a clear sign that the people are saying to the Government "we want peace" - exactly what Remembrance Day should signify; most of all, she has forgotten her own roots.

Let us be glad she is gone.

Ken Mackay, Glasgow.

Sign up for the Letter of the Day email.

It's her own fault

I TRUST that when Suella Braverman was sacked the process included feedback that being fired is a lifestyle choice that she has knowingly and willingly made No doubt she will be expected to be perfectly happy with this outcome as it was entirely due to her own actions.

Having used her office to stir up hatred in volatile situations, spouting bile about existential threats from immigrants and subsequently doing nothing about it, she rounded things off with an article in the Times, thereby alienating the entire police force.

So, she can’t blame anyone else for the lifestyle choices she made.

However, last time she was fired she was back six days later, so in this currently surreal political farce don’t be surprised if she reappears in some guise, perhaps as new leader.

Keith Swinley, Ayr.

Matheson's dedication

THERE is just a week to go until The Herald's Scottish Politician of the Year is announced. Surely very high up the list must be Michael Matheson? Here is a politician who selflessly looked after his constituents' interests even when on a well-deserved holiday to Morocco. To spend almost the entire time whilst abroad working for these constituents is above and beyond the call of duty. This kind of behaviour is so exceptional that Mr Matheson must be in serious contention for the winners prize. Let us hope justice is done.

Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.