THE return of David Cameron to front line politics shows the dearth of talent on the Tory benches.
As Prime Minister, Cameron was an abysmal failure. He was an enthusiastic supporter of “austerity”, the economically insane ideology on a par with Mao’s Great Leap Forward.
Wages collapsed at the same rate as Greece. The NHS and council services were starved of cash. The result of this was that food bank use went from 60,000 to 1 million by the time Cameron resigned. Another consequence was the NHS was woefully unprepared for Covid-19.
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak challenged to reveal David Cameron's China links
Cameron was as much of a warmonger as Tony Blair. He lied the UK into a regime-change war in Libya. This left that country as a safe haven for Islamists and criminals.
Cameron allegedly asked the Russian President to intervene on behalf of Better Together during the Scottish independence referendum. Under his stewardship the Tories took millions of pounds in donations from Putin-friendly oligarchs. Not one penny has ever been returned.
Cameron decided to solve his party’s interminable divisions on Europe by holding a referendum on EU membership. He arrogantly thought he would win, and resigned so he could duck the consequence.
READ MORE: Are Rishi Sunak and David Cameron planning to offer a second EU vote?
The only reason Cameron is not the worst Prime Minister in history is that he was followed by May, Johnson and Truss.
The Tory party is now run by fourth-rate pen-pushers who mistake personal ambition for leadership and ability.
In his first incarnation, Cameron and his hatchetman Osborne were the Burke and Hare of Westminster. Today that moniker belongs to him and Sunak. History suggests that now, as then, Cameron will make a pig’s ear of things.
Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee
MANY readers been shocked at the surprise return of David Cameron as Foreign Secretary but the truth is, given the political system of the UK, any party can utilise the House of Lords and this is a perfectly reasonable move that party leaders have at their disposal. Given Unionists are happy to play this game, maybe independence parties should start taking advantage of the system.
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak vows to tear up UK laws and challenge judges to push through Rwanda plan
I’m not an Alba member or supporter, but if they were only daring enough they could attempt to install Salmond as Westminster leader in exactly the same fashion. Partisan life peers are elected simply through opposition parties making nominations to the prime minister. As it stands, the Green Party have two peers and one MP, Plaid Cymru (independence advocates) have one peer and three MPs. As a party with two MPs, all Alba need to do is get their Commons leader to nominate Alex Salmond as a life peer, and install him as Westminster leader the second he accepts. There is a convention of former heads of government being offered life peerages, and there is little reason to suggest this request would not be accepted. It really is as straightforward as this; there is nothing wrong with it under UK political convention.
The SNP should consider ending the Lords boycott and taking advantage of this system as and when required. We Scots typically despise the unelected British upper chamber, but to quote the Cranberries’ debut album, Everyone else is doing it so why can’t we?
Tim Jones
Wrexham, Wales
AM I being over-optimistic when I hope that Cameron’s return to the Cabinet places him in a position where he might have some influence to make good on the promises he made to Scotland in the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum and appeared to have broken shortly thereafter? I think I know the answer to that question and I will never trust the government in London to have any regard for the best interests of Scotland and the Scots, unless by coincidence it coincides with the interests of the electorate in the south-east of England.
Ni Holmes
St Andrews
BRAVERMAN’S letter can be summarised in one short sentence: Sunak is a liar, a cheat, incompetent and I should be Prime Minister. It was no secret that a deal was done between them to promote Sunak. Braverman’s reasoning at the time was that Sunak was so weak she would be able to show her right-wing backers that she was pulling the strings. It remains to be seen if her tactics will achieve her dream.
Mike Underwood
Linlithgow
READ MORE: Suella Braverman's scathing letter to Rishi Sunak in full
STUART Nicolson’s excellent article in the Sunday National (Nov 12) on the cult of the poppy and the fetishisation of the military was illustrated perfectly in the Daily Mail the following day.
Under a headline declaring that this was the proper way to observe Remembrance, they featured a large picture of Kate Middleton (Mrs Next-Queen-Windsor) dressed in funereal-type garb and looking appropriately sombre. On closer inspection, I noticed she was sporting not one, but THREE poppies. It seems an escalation of virtue-signalling has broken out, which will likely result in Megan Markle wearing four, Camilla displaying five, and so on. Can we expect Ascot-style poppy hats next, poppy-patterned trews, or the full pearly-queen poppy suit? It’s not so far-fetched, since I’ve seen jewel-encrusted poppies and soup-plate-sized ones on the fronts of vehicles. Opium of the masses?
David White
Galashiels
HOW any publication can refer to Camilla as “the Queen”, when we have just witnessed the passing of someone who through years of service at least deserved the title of Queen, is beyond me. In fact, the previous holder of that title said “ it is my sincere wish that, when the time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort”. So why does the media go against her wishes? Laziness or convenience, or a further move by Charles to “justify” her position?
Paul Gillon
Leven, Fife
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here