PETER A Russell (Letters, May 13) suggests that the Labour Party’s problems in Scotland began in 2014. It is certainly true that after this, loss of support became a haemorrhage. However, is the cause only the referendum and Labour’s alliance with the Conservative Party at that time, or are there older, more deep-rooted reasons? Does the decline of his party to the point where winning a council that, historically, should be a matter of course, becomes a matter for celebration, not deserve a wider consideration?

In 1992, disappointment that a Scottish Parliament would not be along “in a tick” was exceeded only by having to thole yet another Conservative government for the next five years. In 2010, the Scottish electorate had voted for Gordon Brown’s Labour Party more strongly than the previous election, yet the outcome was another Conservative government (albeit in coalition with the Liberal Democrats) and austerity, substantially because the vote in England collapsed to 28 per cent (from 35% in 2005).

How informative is the Einstein quote about doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome? Vote Labour, get Conservative? In the 52 years since 1970, at 14 elections the Scottish electorate voted for the party that formed the Westminster government only five times, two of them in 1974.

Thus, as well as 2014, the decline in Labour support may reflect a growing awareness of, and refusal to thole a democratic deficit which meant that Scotland must accept a government, largely the will of another part of the UK, which in most cases in the last 50 years Scotland didn’t vote for. Brexit has only accelerated this perception.

This undermines much of Mr Russell’s argument. Is it a good idea to be the "party of the whole of the mainland UK”? Elections since then would seem to suggest not. He repeats again that independence would mean “an end to redistribution from the wealthy south-east of England and London to Scotland”, a situation Professor Mark Blyth has compared to being on the dole. Some of us think Scotland could do better.

Lastly, I would not dispute Mr Russell’s view about the difficulties of converting what remains of the Labour Party in Scotland to independence, but does he not realise that such dogmatism itself is another of his party’s problems?

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

BETTER TOGETHER LED TO COLLAPSE

IT was interesting to read Peter A Russell's explanation of "where Labour has gone wrong" after "the party's support nose-dived in the 2014 referendum campaign". Mr Russell doesn't mention Labour campaigning alongside the Tories as a factor, but speaking to voters during and after that campaign, I would suggest that was the straw which finally broke the camel's back.

Mr Russell suggests that Labour "suffered" because it did not "champion its own past achievements in Scotland", but the truth is that Labour, once a party to be proud of, had rested on its laurels and taken Scotland for granted for decades. Perhaps Mr Russell resides in a leafy Glasgow suburb, but the state of much of Glasgow's housing stock was a disgrace, and notorious for having the worst slums in Europe; crumbling, damp-riddled tenements, resulting in pasty-faced children with hacking coughs.

It should be remembered that it was Johann Lamont, a former leader of Labour in Scotland who complained that "Scottish" Labour was treated as a branch office by the UK party. However, Scotland stayed very loyal to Labour over many years; it was said that in some areas a dead cat would get elected if it was wearing a Labour rosette. Last year, at the Holyrood elections, Labour suffered its worst result; last week, it managed to beat the Tories. But after all the Tory sleaze, Boris Johnson's Partygate disgrace, and the flip-flopping Douglas Ross, even the proverbial dead cat could have beaten the Tories.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

SHAMING THE LEGACY OF KEIR HARDIE

PETER A Russell (Letters, May 13) writes that "Labour was the only party whose USP was that it was the party of the whole of the mainland UK". I think that the Tories and LibDems would beg to differ, but that is beside the point, the point of course is that it was hardly ever the party of government of the whole of the UK.

Mr Russell then goes on to give his insider's view on how to manipulate and manage a political party from the inside, all excellent stuff for the edification of the political outsider like me, but all he succeeds in is confirming to me the reasons I left the Labour Party in the first place. As a passive member I had, at last, came to realise that the purpose of the Labour Party was the perpetuation of the Labour Party, and its insiders, in Scotland.

He writes: "Independence would mean an end to redistribution from the wealthy south-east of England and London, to Scotland." How's that for an inspiring political vision for a nation? Mr Russell (as so many unionists do) is telling us that we are condemned to being a parasitic nation living off the wealth of its neighbour: what vision; what leadership; how inspiring. Keir Hardie will be birling in his grave.

John Jamieson, Ayr.

WE MUST RETAIN OUR INFLUENCE

IT is fair to say that the UK has been London-centric for centuries. This was the case even before the union of Scotland and England.

When the King of Scotland took on the role of King also of England he moved to London and visited Scotland only once during the remaining 20-odd years of his reign. During the ensuing centuries much of the known world became London-centric and London remains today one of the most cosmopolitan and influential cities in the world, and there is little doubt that decisions taken in Westminster during the foreseeable and indefinite future will have the potential to have enormous effects in Scotland and other places, regardless of the outcome of our current constitutional debate.

It is therefore of utmost importance that we work out what is the best way for the people of Scotland to influence these Westminster decisions – by retreating north of the Border or by keeping our hands on the levers of power at Westminster? It seems obvious that the removal of the Scottish electorate and its representatives from Westminster can only reduce the account that will be taken of Scottish interests in Westminster decision-making. Rather we might go forward with confidence in the Scottish ability to influence these decisions.

Michael Sheridan, Glasgow.

CALL ME AN INTERNATIONALIST

HAS there been a collective decision by UK Union-supporting commentators, from memory taken place around a year ago, that all references to the SNP, the independence movement, the Yes movement and the Greens will henceforth be referred to as "nationalists" ?

I support Scottish independence, yet on any objective test, I score highly as an internationalist. So does any person I've ever met within any of the organisations above. I am an independence supporter, not a nationalist. If anyone called me that to my face, I'd very quickly point out the error, or at least ask them to define what they mean by it.

In my experience, the term could more accurately be applied to the British unionists on the other side.

Iain Cope, Glasgow.

* IN case Ronald Oliver (Letters, May 13) is considering patenting the phrase “truth decay”, American troubadour Rodney Crowell beat him to it on track 4 of his superb 2007 CD Sex and Gasoline. Incidentally, Phil Everly was on backing vocals.

Davie Fulton, Johnstone.

DITCH THIS FLAWED SCHOOL ETHOS

IT is reported that teachers at Bannerman High School, Glasgow, are threatening to go on strike over violent and disruptive pupil behaviour. They have my sympathy. They should refuse to tolerate routine abuse and violence from pupils, taking strike action if necessary.

Sadly, the Scottish educational establishment seems utterly incapable of addressing the issue of deteriorating behaviour. The Scottish Government, Education Scotland, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the teaching unions and, unfortunately, much of the teaching profession, are in the thrall of "restorative approaches". Under this utopian ideology, punishment is deemed ineffective, unnecessary and counter-productive. Mini counselling sessions are all that is required to keep even the most recalcitrant miscreant in check.

As chaos engulfs one classroom after another as a direct result of this delusional project, all that the "experts" can prescribe is more of the same.

Teachers need to rebel against the idealistic strategies imposed from above by people who read about the latest educational fashions rather than teach children.

In the Scottish Parliament, opposition parties willingly describe the problem, but offer no solution.

Vital and fundamental questions of educational philosophy are entirely neglected by a whole establishment marinated in a stifling mono-culture. Attempts to open up discussions of foundational presuppositions are usually met with bemused incomprehension – it's like speaking a foreign language.

We are sacrificing a generation on the altar of a flawed and failing ideology. It's got to stop.

Richard Lucas, Leader, Scottish Family Party, Glasgow.