AS an active member of Scottish Labour, I am fully behind Kezia Dugdale’s plans to rebuild the party in Scotland (“Dugdale: I will not shy from historic debate on Trident”, The Herald, August 17).

Ms Dugdale is exactly the type of leader we need to reach out to new supporters and activists, and she is clear that she will do that in an effort to find fresh faces and talent for the party. She wants people who also have experience of the real world – people who have held down real jobs, but want to do more to serve their country. People who are passionate about social justice, but have experience as nurses, engineers, planners, teachers, academics, parents or carers.

Ms Dugdale and Alex Rowley also clearly want to change the tone of the political debate in Scotland. Simple anti-SNP and anti-Tory zealotry will not help Labour with the mountain it has to climb. Within this context, Ms Dugdale has set out quite clearly how education in Scotland is failing the most vulnerable Scots. Importantly, however, she has also offered constructive solutions and given a public commitment to work with the SNP Government to help ensure every child in Scotland reaches their full potential.

This does not mean that Scottish Labour will not hold the SNP to account on policing cuts, NHS waiting times and falling literacy. However, it does show that delivering Labour values is at the core of her leadership.

There is clearly an appetite for change across the UK. People want Scotland and the UK to become a fairer and more sustainable country which plays a positive role in the world. Scottish Labour’s challenge will be to give Scots hope that Labour values can deliver that change.

Dr Scott Arthur,

27 Buckstone Gardens, Edinburgh.

READING your article on Kezia Dugdale I note two points. First, she seems like a breath of fresh air (though I don’t vote for Labour) and a suitable foil for Nicola Sturgeon – which is required in order to maintain balance in the Scottish Parliament, especially with the SNP’s heavy handiness in some areas such as planning and policing.

Secondly, I take issue with Gordon Brown’s point that winning is the priority, seemingly over policies and what Labour members and voters may want (“Brown: members have a duty to pick credible leader”, The Herald, August 17). This has been Labour’s tack for many years now –unsuccessfully.

Though I am not for or particularly against Jeremy Corbyn I think it is admirable to form views, get support, then try to win an election on a clear manifesto with as little spin and subterfuge as possible.

Niall McTeague,

12 May Terrace, Giffnock.

GOOD luck to Kezia Dugdale as she launches herself into the brave new world she hopes to help build. She will get plenty of advice on how to go about it, but I have to speak out as one who is hopeful for unity across ideologies where and when it matters.

Ed Miliband’s stubborn and short-sighted refusal to co-operate with the parties opposed to Tory policies in the pre-General Election BBC hustings (SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru) went a long way in accounting for Labour`s defeat. If Ms Dugdale has the humility to enter into a less confrontational and more collaborative style of leadership, I’m sure that the electorate will be interested in what she has to say and maybe support her endeavours in reconstruction work. What it won`t forgive are missed opportunities gifted to her and her team for radical changes of attitude!

Janet Cunningham,

1 Cedar Avenue, Stirling.

GORDON Brown’s Sunday sermon on power with his dramatic pacing, symbolically from left to right and then right to left plus the swings of a roundabout in the background represents the troubled semiotics of Labourism.

In addition Mr Brown frequently mentioned his hero Nelson Mandela, the late leader of the African National Congres, yet took time to condemn national movements. He quoted Mahatma Ghandi without reference to Ghandi’s leadership of the Indian national movement.

It is this political schizophrenic attitude that plagues the Labour movement, acknowledging the effectiveness of democratic national movements abroad while trying to oppose the idea at home.

Power (the central text of his sermon) is defined by sovereignty: the current sovereign regime in Westminster represented by the House of Commons and the House of Lords is failing democracy in Scotland when 56 of the 59 Scottish MPs represent the National movement.

Without power closer to home, Scotland will never achieve the twin ambitions of economic prosperity and social justice.

Gordon Brown the historian (PHd Edinburgh) if not the politician should be well aware that the history of the Labour movement in Scotland demanded Home Rule as the most effective form of exercising democratic political power.

Until the labour movement in Scotland in its several guises understands and accepts the popular demands of the broad national movement then Mr Brown, Ms Dugdale or even the latest saviour Jeremy Corbyn, will not save Labour from its inevitable destiny of failure.

Thom Cross,

18 Needle Green, Carluke.

IVOR Tiefenbrun makes the point well that just being popular does not make you right (“Night in Las Vegas is insight into hype of Corbyn”, The Herald, August 15).

Speaking at sold-out events in Scotland, Jeremy Corbyn presents plans like a politics professor without care for the practical consequences of his proposals.

He says funding issues are to be resolved by printing money, capitalists are to be dealt with by renationalising their businesses, and the rich taxed for the benefit of the poor. Also, we are to give up nuclear weapons and leave Nato.

But what does all that mean? Printing money generates inflation, harming the poor more than the rich. Placing cautious public servants in charge of enterprises will lead to slow reactions, lack of investment, and ultimately poorer services. Top levels of tax have limits beyond which they do not work. There are not enough rich people willing to sit still while higher and higher levels of tax are squeezed out of them to fund mass welfare benefits. Ultimately they simply go, and the policy is self-defeating. Unilateral disarmament is fine if all the bad people in the world do the same. Otherwise it is a defence policy of sticking your head in the sand.

Perhaps Mr Corbyn takes comfort from how the SNP populist bandwagon is unhindered by the ever-growing failings of the services they are responsible for across health, education and police. He might similarly defy logic and secure the Labour leadership. But then he will need to move from halls of adoring and unquestioning fans, to face a very sceptical general public.

Mr Tiefenbrum concludes: “Irrational crowd behaviour is the great enemy of personal freedom and collective success.” We must hope people keep those words in mind when next listening to a politician claiming the key to our salvation.

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

AS a Unionist and a neo-liberal, I would enjoy Jeremy Corbyn’s becoming leader of the Labour Party. He believes in all the leftist nostrums: unilateral nuclear disarmament; open borders to all immigrants; man-made global warming (despite the fact that his expert meteorologist brother, Piers, is a warmist-denier); nationalisation of the railways and the energy utilities; expropriation of the land and property of the rich; much more public spending, particularly on welfare (tax credits) to the able-bodied; state planning of the economy; running up the national debt to even more dizzy heights.

But I profoundly disagree with him on all these matters. However he marches in step with the Scottish Government and the SNP. He differs from them only on the means of achieving socialism. The Nationalists want separation because they cannot bear the UK, and particularly England and the English. Mr Corbyn, on the other hand, is British, and loves Scotland and the UK.

And I share the disquiet of Ivor Tiefenbrun regarding the group-think of the demos. Long before Nietzsche warned about the madness of crowds, Socrates warned that democracy did not guarantee the liberty of conscience: condemned to death for his outspokenness and his individuality, he had to take hemlock.

Ever since the referendum campaign, I have felt an unease in the pit of my stomach, despite having lived here for 44 years. During that campaign the Nationalists dissembled (at best) or lied (at worst) on future currency arrangements, on the likely tax revenues from North Sea oil, and on the integrity of property ownership.

In order to capture votes, the party leadership cynically promised an expansion of welfare spending, primarily on those who do not work, breezily sidestepping doubts about funding. Too many Nationalists were less than courteous in their attempts to persuade, and in their general public demeanour. It was shocking how insouciantly people swept aside any qualms about the disruption independence would bring to the lives of “ordinary working people”. Fortunately a clear majority of voters did not yield to the emotional self-indulgence of separation.

Yet recently 62 per cent of Scotland’s voters have declared their intention to vote for Nationalism in next year’s Holyrood election, and lefties swarm in support of Jeremy Corbyn and his Marxist prospectus. Perhaps they know something which I do not. Nevertheless Nietzsche had a point, I think.

Richard Mowbray,

14 Ancaster Drive, Glasgow.