Letters: Why my anger over partying Boris Johnson gets stronger every day

* Going to all my scans and chemo alone.

* Having a major op in July 2020, going to hospital alone with no visitors during my stay.

* Being told my cancer was incurable and inoperable on Hogmanay 2020, desperately needing family support but not being able to have it.

* Trying to teach my daughter at home while I had a mental breakdown in spring 2021.

* Receiving counselling over a screen while I nattered on about my death and what that will do to my family.

* Being driven to all my hospital appointments by my parents and not hugging because we were trying to adhere to the rules.

And I watch the news and my anger with the UK Government is getting stronger every day. They made the rules too late, and then broke them – repeatedly. At best they're incompetent, at worst they are grasping, corrupt liars.

I don't just want the Prime Minister gone, I want all the Tories out of government, I want thorough electoral reform and opposition parties that stand up and stand a chance of attaining seats.

I'll be voting to leave the Union at the next Scottish independence referendum. I'm sad to do so but the situation cannot go on as it is.

And I'll go to the chemo ward as I do every two weeks alone, and I'll watch as the ordinary legends of the NHS care and care and care. Even though they're done in. And my comrades on this bleak trek of disease wear their masks and wash their hands.

No parties here.

Jane Barrow, Edinburgh.

IT'S NOT ABOUT CAKES

JANE Lax (Letters, January 26) takes a very permissive attitude toward the conduct of Boris Johnson and the behaviour he seems to have tolerated of others in Downing Street during the pandemic.

She tells us that if she had been at her place of work during the pandemic, if “someone brought a cake in, or I provided cakes that does not constitute such a heinous crime”. However, I think her laid-back judgment misses two points.

First, many of the reports go somewhat further than “cakes”. Some suggest “suitcases” filled with bottles of wine. Does “that” photograph of the Downing Street garden, “that” day at the “gathering” of work colleagues, look as though all of them had been busily working, discussing the future of the country, and someone just appeared by chance with a few bottles of plonk? Maybe that person said it was their birthday?

Secondly, and more importantly, the issue is not whether “cakes” are a “heinous crime”, but how the electorate respond to such news. I don’t suppose anyone can forget, but at the time of the reported parties we were all subject to various levels of restriction, which many followed diligently, or had to follow diligently, even at the expense of not seeing close relatives such as grandchildren or perhaps elderly parents in poor health for many months.

Ms Lax paints a picture of casual socialising at work, and certainly that cannot be ruled out. However, as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner said yesterday (January 25), one of the factors considered in deciding there should be a retrospective investigation was if “there is evidence, those involved knew – or ought to have known – what they were doing broke the laws”.

Work, unless from home, of necessity involves social interaction with colleagues. Having a send-off for a colleague who is leaving, for instance, in normal circumstances would be quite natural. But these are not normal circumstances and the frequency and scale of the events reported do seem to cross a line between casual and planned, thus may “undermine the legitimacy of the law, another important factor for the Metropolitan Police.

If this is so, then the issue becomes whether those involved consider that the law applies to everyone else, but just not to them, and I think we all know the answer to that.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

* JANE Lax says that she liked the fact that Boris Johnson got Brexit done even though she voted Remain. If that bizarre point of view is typical of the UK voter then we deserve the Westminster politicians that we get.

David Clark, Tarbolton.

* HOW ironic that scarce police resources should be diverted towards investigations into the "relatively minor" indiscretions of members of the law and order party. In the meantime there will be many failing to access support from police on a wide range of distressing matters.

Ken Cameron, Cupar.

* IN the context of whether the Prime Minister authorised the rescue of animals from Kabul or not, we are told that he did not because “we have always prioritised people over animals”. This cannot be true, if only because Boris Johnson, in promoting Brexit, was putting fish and cows before people. Another porky perhaps?

Patrice Fabien, Glasgow.

BITTERNESS OF THE VOTERS

WILLIAM Barr's letter on godless politicians (January 26) brings to mind the old joke "What happens if a politician drowns in a river? That is pollution. What happens if all of them drown? That is a solution."

Cruel, but indicative of how so many voters feel in these troubled times.

David Miller, Milngavie.

WHERE'S THE CASE FOR THE UNION?

ALEX Gallagher's dismissal of six possible cases for Scottish independence (Letters, January 25) seems to assume that, if a statement is made dogmatically, it does not require verification or inquiry. I would challenge his assumed claim to infallibility, case by case.

No economic case for Scottish independence has ever been made because there has never been a genuinely independent analysis of Scotland's economy to provide the necessary information.

There is a perfectly good historical case as Scotland was an independent country for centuries – long before most of the present countries of the world and probably even pre-dating the consolidation of kingdoms that created England.

The rejection of any cultural case based on the "lives and attitudes" of city dwellers in England and Scotland is a very subjective matter but, having lived extensively in both countries, my observation is that that there are indeed very different cultural attitudes.

The legal case for separation is that the Union depended entirely upon the bribing of a handful of venal politicians and the presence of a potential occupying army. The subsequent history of cynical violation of the terms of the treaty removes any trace of legal validity.

The geographical case depends upon the recognition that the independence of nations has long ago replaced post-imperial subservience as a normal, desirable condition. "Size and influence" should be regarded as dictatorial fantasies and replaced by moral responsibility.

The negation of the "democratic case" makes reference to the narrow result of a loaded referendum and neglects both its original terms of reference and the subsequent profound changes in circumstances.

Perhaps Councillor Gallagher should apply his critical skills to providing some "evidence-led" cases for Scotland remaining in the Union.

Peter M Dryburgh, Edinburgh.

INDY QUESTION HAS BEEN ADDRESSED

I HAVE just read Ruth Marr's letter (January 26) regarding comments about the future of Scotland. Once again, can I gently remind her that Scotland did not "vote strongly to remain" in the EU; it was a national referendum, and while the majority of Scottish voters (including myself) voted to remain in the EU, as did London and surrounding areas, the majority of the country voted to leave and we did.

There well may have been "rioting in the streets when Scots discovered that their independence had been signed away by Scottish nobles"; I thank her for pointing that fact out, as I was unaware of it, but despite that happening, the Act of Union was signed.

She finishes her letter by stating that "Nicola Sturgeon is committed to her promise to deliver a referendum which will give Scotland's voters the right to choose Scotland's future". Well, as we know, we already had that opportunity to vote in a referendum, in 2014, which we did, and which gave the result that Scotland did not wish to become independent, and that was the result "for at least a generation", as she and her predecessor had continued to tell us during the referendum campaign.

Your Letters Pages give us all the opportunity to vent our feelings, our thoughts, our beliefs, and to engage in arguments with fellow contributors – that is what democracy is all about. And hopefully that is what our First Minister will remember as she leads her one-woman party towards the future, and she starts to allow other SNP and Green members of the Government to shape her future policies and behaviour.

Walter Paul, Glasgow.

Read more: I will vote SNP again – so that it can be removed from power