As the first set-piece contest of 2014, the Year of the Referendum, all the party strategists are today trying to read the runes from Cowdenbeath in terms of September. So what does it mean for the individual parties?
LABOUR
This was an excellent result for Labour, no two ways about it. Getting more than 50% of the vote is a real morale boost, and a personal triumph for candidate Alex Rowley after the bitter disappointment of what happened in 2011 in neighbouring Dunfermline when they were so busy looking to win back the seat from the Liberal Democrats that they didn't see the SNP tidal wave coming.
In October 2013, Dunfermline was taken back with relative ease, but last night was much more comfortable. But if Labour is to stage a real comeback at Hoyrood it needs to demonstrate it can achieve this outwith its heartland.
This was a result fairly similar to 2007. What Labour needs is to get back to where it was in 2003. This was a step in the right direction.
SNP
There was never a point in this campaign when there was a sense that the SNP might run Labour close in this by-election. Coming within 1300 votes in a seat like this in 2011 was the real surprise.
The Nationalists are now showing the normal signs of a party of Government in mid-term but they must hope that their candidate, Natalie McGarry was right when she observed that Labour voters on doorstep had told here that, although they were remaining loyal to their party, they were still considering a Yes vote in September.
CONSERVATIVES
The Tories are well pleased today, increasing their share of the vote here by two points and the only party to actually increase numbers. More importantly, they were not sucked down into the contest with UKIP for the lower placings.
UKIP
They will be pleased at having beaten the Liberal Democrats into fifth place but there was still no real sign here of them gaining much traction north of the Border ahead of the European Elections. Saving a deposit in Scotland continues to elude them.
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
This was a ghastly result for the LibDems. Their downward spiral continues, although this has never been a good seat for them.
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