THE SNP were on the losing side in the referendum, but their tails are up and they are full of enthusiasm.
The Labour Party were part of the winning coalition, but they are tearing themselves apart, even as they slide in the polls ("Murphy in Labour victory vow as poll predicts a meltdown", The Herald, October 31). It seems contradictory, but I think I've worked out why there's such a difference.
The SNP leadership are united behind an aim, a cause, a vision. The only vision most of the current London Labour leaders appear to have is the one they see in the mirror: of them sitting in the ministerial limo, or striding purposefully through Westminster with a retinue of advisers, civil servants and bag-carriers trailing in their wake.
Most of Labour's leaders are professional politicians. Many studied politics at university, then had a stint working for an MP; then perhaps a year or two working for the Democrats in the US and a spell working for the Labour Party centrally. And then, if they've cultivated the right people in the party or in the trade union movement, they'll find themselves as the candidate in a safe Labour seat, where the voters can be relied upon to put their crosses in the Labour box.
Personal ambition isn't a bad thing, but it can be if everything else is subservient to it. Some ambitious politicians clearly see principles as they do their wardrobe: to be changed at will depending on the political weather. Of course politicians have to be able to compromise, but that's a very different thing from supporting policies only on the basis that they may garner a few votes.
I've heard many good speeches from senior Labour figures about fairness, equality and justice. The trouble is, I don't see much evidence of policies that reflect those values. And it's been clear for a long time that the current stooshie is no isolated incident: Labour in their internal affairs are complete strangers to those concepts of fairness, equality and justice that their senior figures love to speechify about.
The Labour Party are in serious trouble in Scotland. Their London leaders appear to think this is just a passing phenomenon. But the SNP have been clever, they talk slightly left and govern slightly right, they have broad electoral support. If Labour don't get back to their core values, they won't recover, they'll keep sliding down the slippery slope. And frankly, if they don't start behaving in accordance with the principles they espouse, they don't deserve to recover.
Doug Maughan,
52 Menteith View, Dunblane.
ALISON Rowat's home truths must have made uneasy reading for Jim Murphy and the campaign team it took him so long to assemble ("Westminster ties will pose a problem for MP Murphy", The Herald, October 31). Ms Rowat reminds us that Mr Murphy supported the other Miliband brother during the Labour Party leadership contest, and perhaps Ed Miliband views the past week as a double blessing, with the departure of Johann Lamont and her waspish comments about dinosaurs and branch offices, and now the possibility of Mr Murphy and his Blairite Iraqi baggage heading for Scotland, even if the route he must take to get there will be long and winding, and the estimated time of his arrival is uncertain, with no rock-solid guarantee that he will eventually arrive.
It should also be borne in mind that during the period Mr Murphy and his egg-spattered Irn Bru crate toured the towns delivering stories of doom and gloom and presenting Scotland as a basket case, support for independence was actually increasing, and since September 18, all the political parties which campaigned for independence have seen dramatic increases in their membership numbers. It would be interesting to know how many new members Labour and their colleagues in the other Unionist parties have been able to attract over the same period. Given the latest of a batch of opinion polls showing the Labour vote in meltdown, I suspect not a lot, and given the scale of their task, Mr Murphy and his team may feel the need to fortify themselves with something stronger than Irn Bru.
Ruth Marr,
99 Grampian Road, Stirling.
IT was a touching sight seeing Jim Murphy arriving at Labour's gala dinner in Glasgow clutching a bag of groceries which he deposited at a food bank collection point.
A cynic might wonder why, when attending a dinner costing £100-plus per head, he would bring along a bag of groceries, unless it was to show his solidarity with the poor. In which case, why not donate the £100 to the food bank and get himself a veggie burger takeaway?
James Mills,
29 Armour Square, Johnstone.
THE notion that the Labour Party could be reduced to only four MPs in Scotland at next year's General Election is too ridiculous for sensible comment.
Further, the same source's forecast for the Liberal Democrats - a near wipe-out - has to be set beside a similar forecast for 2010. Indeed, on the basis of Scottish Parliamentary elections in 2007, it was forecast that Argyll & Bute, Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, East Dunbartonshire, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey and Gordon would be lost.
In fact, other than the loss of the by-election gain of Dunfermline & West Fife, all 11 LibDem constituencies, as from 2005, in Scotland were retained in 2010. Further, there were increased majorities in Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk and Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey (and Orkney and Shetland) and good second places in Dunfermline & West Fife, Edinburgh North & Leith and Glasgow North.
It is also significant that, in the independence referendum, in local authority areas which had Liberal Democrat MPs, the average No vote was higher then the national average.
Dr Alexander S Waugh,
1 Pantoch Gardens,
Banchory.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article