Labour must lick their wounds and address the policy agenda

She appears to have wanted the authority to allow her to lead, but that was something she should have taken and made for herself. If Margaret Thatcher had waited for her party to give her permission to be leader she would have remained on the periphery of political life. It would be wrong to say Ms Lamont was invisible during the referendum, but the front-runners in Better Together all being Westminster men gave a clue to her status. Her decency, which never posed a threat to Alex Salmond at Holyrood, was even less likely to be enough to lead a campaign or its aftermath. The reach of any blame, however, goes much wider than the merits of any individual.

Labour legislated for devolution but have never appeared to be convinced by it or to know what they wanted with it. Many of their members were converts without the conviction. From the 1970s it served to appease, they thought, the nationalist challenge. The expediency was best summed up by the George Robertson quote that "devolution will kill nationalism stone dead". In subsequent decades it provided an opportunity to win power they couldn't achieve in the UK.

Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum and, in the failure of Labour to provide effective leadership in Holyrood, Alex Salmond filled the gap. If Scotland is in a further period of constitutional navel-gazing Labour in Scotland carry a heavy responsibility for the road travelled and many will have little sympathy for their plight.

There is also, however, a policy agenda. Many of my age were Clause 4 socialists in the 1970s and beyond. In the course of the Tony Blair years they probably still voted Labour but suppressed their beliefs in gratitude for him removing the Conservatives. That group appeared disenfran­chised within the Labour Party but the referendum gave them a voice and it is unlikely that they will vote to suppress their beliefs any longer.

The breadth of the dialogue needed in the Labour Party is now much more than devolution and in consequence, potentially more damaging. As a party in Scotland, they at least mirror a devolved model. I trust that sensible people don't see the solution to all of this being found in the appointment of one person.

James Munro,

75 Marlborough Avenue,

Glasgow.

IN your analysis article the reader is invited to contemplate the candidates for the Labour Party leadership in Scotland ("Race for top Labour job ... and credentials of candidates", The Herald, October 27), but that is not Labour's real problem. That is trying to define their role and policies within the present political context in Scotland.

Labour have tried and failed to provide a pro-Unionist opposition in Holyrood and have failed to the tune of some 30 per cent of their support switching to the SNP. This defection reflects despair over the Westminster Labour brand and a vision of Scottish Labour in an independent Scotland. That transfer of loyalties is expedient and pro-tem until independence is achieved. Now, that is a role everyone can understand.

Socialism has been absent from Westminster since Jim Callaghan endorsed neo-liberal economics in 1974 and the difference between the main parties remains purely cosmetic. The same has happened in the United States with Democrats and Republicans and for the past 40 years government is constituted and run on the same basis as big business.

It is a mistake to see the 45 per cent as pure nationalists. Most simply want to see democracy and account­ability returned to government. In Scotland we were fortunate to have the constitutional opportunity of a referendum but unfortunately independence was portrayed as "little change", even to keeping the Bank of England which is the core of the big business model. That was not the radical change we were looking for and the battle was lost.

Next time we need to set out our stall confident that we can do our own thing in our own way. All nations have a national character and that makes them different, but not wrong.

RF Morrison,

Millig, 29 Colquhoun Street, Helensburgh.

SINCE the arrival of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 there has been a steady turnover of respective party leaders not least of all in the Labour ranks. The latest incumbent, Johann Lamont, had arguably the greatest political challenge to face with the steady rise of pro-independence support. Ms Lamont developed considerably as Opposition leader over a relatively short period of tenure. She had to contend with the steady loss of a once-loyal Labour support whilst being made subordinate to the efforts of Alistair Darling and latterly Gordon Brown.

Effectively, on the question of devolved autonomy she accuses the Westminster hierarchy of writing the script (badly) and leaving her to deliver the lines. Small wonder she took the action she did, leaving the real failures to abjectly reflect. But as one door slams shut another opens.

Surely in this unfortunate self-inflicted debacle opportunity beckons for potential Labour leaders-in-waiting already ensconced in Holyrood. Veteran Ken MacIntosh, runner-up to Ms Lamont at the last leadership contest, albeit with the majority support of MSPs, coupled with the law enforcement experience of the redoubtable Graeme Pearson would provide Labour with an effective dream team to restore dwindling party fortunes.

Allan C Steele,

22 Forres Avenue,

Giffnock.

JOHANN Lamont is surely no Iron Lady, else she would have steeled herself to sever links with the unholy Westminster anti-independence political alliance, her own West­minster party in particular of which she is now so critical, and cast her and her Scottish party's lot with the pro-independence grouping for the late lamented referendum; with a view to securing, in all probability, Scotland for the Labour Party in the 2016 Holyrood election and thereafter. That she did not shows poor political nous, foresight and courage. What she has sown the Labour Party at Holyrood (and not just at Westminster) is alas now bound to reap.

Darrell Desbrow,

Overholm,

Dalbeattie.

ANENT the Labour Party meltdown: If Jim Murphy is the answer ("Pressure mounts on Murphy to join Labour leadership race", The Herald, October 27), what on earth was the question ?

James Mills,

29 Armour Square,

Johnstone.