THE best line from the launch of Kezia Dugdale’s Scottish Labour leadership campaign in June 2015 was underplayed by some members of the press present in Edinburgh that day. Ms Dugdale pledged to end the charitable status of private schools. She warmed to her theme. “I don’t begrudge any parent that wants the best for their children. But the reality is that private schools get charitable status, they get tax relief because of that status, and at a time when state schools are really struggling for resources, I think this is fundamentally a question of fairness.”

A few days previously, she had asked me to interview her live on stage to help launch her campaign. She explained she wanted the event to be different from the usual stage-managed affair. She wanted to be interviewed by someone who was known to be a critic of the party and of its lurch to the right under previous incumbent Jim Murphy. Significantly, she didn’t seek any advance information on the questions I intended to ask her.

I found her to be a thoroughly decent, kind-hearted and articulate woman who wanted to make Scotland a better place. I was also pleased she largely avoided the empty anti-independence rhetoric that characterised the short-lived tenancy of her predecessor and which had ultimately led to his downfall. Her desire to end the charitable status of private schools was in sharp contrast to the SNP’s position, in spite of their oft-stated claim to reduce the educational attainment gap and to deliver a “fair and equal” Scotland. In the way that she conducts herself, she honours her party, her family and her beliefs.

Just over two years have since elapsed and Ms Dugdale has had enough of leading the Labour Party in Scotland, a job which ought to come with the advice: “Any candidates must be proficient in walking up a down escalator.” When a leading politician resigns as suddenly as Ms Dugdale did this week and with no prior warning to the leading party faithful, the press (kindly and compassionate souls that we are) usually jump to two conclusions: they have either been the victim of a brutal putsch by shadowy forces inside the party or a tabloid is about to publish something unsavoury about their personal affairs.

On this occasion, astonishingly, every person I’ve spoken to has accepted more or less without question her reasons for demitting office. Included in her resignation statement was this moving and eloquent paragraph: “Earlier this year I lost a dear friend who taught me a lot about how to live. His terminal illness forced him to identify what he really wanted from life, how to make the most of it and how to make a difference. He taught me how precious and short life was and never to waste a moment.”

It was Ms Dugdale’s misfortune, at the age of 33, to have been thrust to the front of the party several years before she’d been able to amass the experience and statecraft which would normally be required. That her coronation occurred amidst such an inclement gathering of circumstances was due to Mr Murphy’s hapless leadership and the absence of anything resembling good governance in the party since it was hounded from office in 2007. Mr Murphy paid the price not merely for backing the No side in the independence referendum but for the manner in which he did so. In his new book, Socialism and Hope, Labour MSP Neil Findlay said Mr Murphy “hasn’t a principled bone in his body”. He also writes of his dismay at Mr Murphy’s leadership role in the Better Together campaign, stating: “We should have had a strong Labour campaign, radical and distinct from the woeful Better Together effort, who appear not to have a clue what they are doing.”

Far too many of the senior Labour figures who connived at this disastrous strategy were still hanging around like crimpolene suits in a fire sale. A young and inexperienced leader would normally be expected to turn to the party’s old guard for advice. Sadly for Ms Dugdale, these individuals were still fighting the independence referendum and venting their rage on the SNP – the cuckoos in their nest – instead of taking on the Tories on issues of social justice. That went well, didn’t it? Wise counsel came there none, and when the Scottish party hierarchy opted to wrap itself ever more tightly in the folds of the Union flag they were picked off by a Scottish Tory party which could scarcely believe its luck.

As The Herald reports today, Scottish Labour MSPs and council leaders attended a party away-day yesterday prior to the resumption of Holyrood business next week. It is vital the two credible leadership candidates, Richard Leonard and Anas Sarwar, each garner enough support to ensure a proper contest. It is one which I hope Mr Leonard wins. His likely opponent’s strident opposition to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership cannot be forgotten, no matter how plaintive his pleas for redemption. That Labour gained six Scottish seats in June’s General Election was largely due to the Corbyn effect to which Paul Sweeney the young MP for Glasgow North East, bore witness. Asked by the New Statesman if the Corbyn surge had helped him win his seat, Mr Sweeney replied: “Absolutely – without a shadow of a doubt.”

Mr Leonard is, in the words of an experienced Labour activist in Glasgow, “an old-school trade unionist who won’t waste resources on targeting the SNP. Instead he’ll do what Labour always does best: fight the Tories.”

Labour’s fightback must begin in its old heartlands of Glasgow’s north and east and in Lanarkshire. Whatever happens in places such as Edinburgh South are irrelevant to its chances of recovery. In recent weeks the Tories in Scotland have been revealed to be a collection of political backwoodsmen dancing to the sound of a banjo. Ruth Davidson has failed spectacularly to control them and she will pay a price for this. More crucially, within the SNP there is an insane tendency to attack Yes groups and individuals not deemed sufficiently loyal to the party. This is already bearing consequences. If the Labour Party in Scotland is wise in its choice of leader the road to recovery can be a less fraught one than we all imagined it would be last year.