I NOTE Labour Deputy Leader Alex Rowley claiming that Labour should have adopted Home Rule as its policy position on the constitution (“Deputy leader says Labour should pursue Home Rule”, The Herald, May 9). It should have, but it may be too late now. I have always found it strange that despite Devo Max being the most popular constitutional option, no party has adopted it as its preference. Labour could have taken that opportunity but it did not.

Imagine if, at the time of the referendum, instead of insisting on there being no second question and then wedding themselves to the Tories in Better Together, Labour had instead called for a second question and campaigned for a Yes vote on that and a No vote on independence, keeping itself distant from the Tories. Where would it be now? Likely preparing to form a Government in a new extremely powerful parliament rather than third place in a parliament where most of the new powers are unusable.

Of course this was not an option for the party. Its large contingent of reactionary ultra-Unionist MPs simply would not hear of any more devolution yet their removal last year should have presented an opportunity to move on and adopt a new constitutional position.

The reactionary elements in the party are already trying to blame the more progressive social and economic policies the party adopted this time for defeat rather than their disastrous constitutional position. Polls showed people actually liked those positions but were not willing to vote for a party that they opposed on the now-dominant national question. I know speaking for myself I found myself in agreement with a lot of Labour’s non-constitutional policies but voting for it was simply out of the question. To move to the right while not addressing this problem will cause the party to lose even more votes.

It is worth remembering that in the 1990s Labour enjoyed a lot of success with a constitutional policy both differing drastically from the status quo and being an alternative to independence. Devolution won Labour a lot of support, refusing to continue on that part ever since is self-destructive.

It may be too late for Labour to recover now, but as a final attempt embracing full Home Rule while trying to outflank the SNP on the left would certainly be the best option available. After all, attacking Labour from the left and presenting a bold constitutional policy did wonders for the SNP.

Iain Paterson,

2F Killermont View, Glasgow.

IT is clear from your reporting of Alex Rowley’s prescient comments that Scottish Labour is down but not out. But how do we fight back? Does Scottish Labour still have a distinctive narrative to offer the Scottish people? I believe the unequivocal answer to that question is Yes.

In 2015 we fought the General Election largely on a retrospective debate on the constitution. In 2016 we tried to forget that there is a constitutional debate and not withstanding Thomas Docherty's very unhelpful comments (“Cheers and jeers reflect the triumphant march of the Nationalists”, The Herald, May 4) tried to focus on a radical manifesto which had poverty reduction at its heart.

However, Labour’s desire to “move on”. was not by and large shared by the Scottish people who didn't want to move on. The Labour challenge is to find how we can use the constitution to help people ‘get on’.

The way forward for Labour is not an either or but a fusion of radical constitutionalism with radical policies for creating jobs and tackling poverty and inequality.

Our most successful period as a party was when we were unequivocally the party of Home Rule and the party most associated with fairness.

John Smith rightly said that devolution is the settled will of the Scottish people. What Labour has not acknowledged is that the form of devolution is not settled.

Labour has to have a serious debate about what needs to be done to create quality jobs in Scotland, improve our public services, tackle social exclusion and so on and then tie our devolution demands to these. In other words we need to get back to "powers with a purpose".

It must mean moving towards a federal UK but for Scotland this means a modem day vision of Home Rule - a Scotland based on a constitutional settlement which provides “maximum power with maximum security”.

Scottish Labour needs to look to its past to give it hope for the future. Aldous Huxley said: “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history”.

I hope Scottish Labour can prove him wrong.

David Martin, Labour MEP,

Midlothian Innovation Trust, Pentlandfield, Roslin.