Letters: Labour refuses to learn from its past mistakes

So, what did Labour do next? Come the Scottish independence referendum, it urged the Scottish electorate to vote No, which as a Unionist party is only to be expected. However, it opposed independence in a formal coalition with the Conservatives, not only associating Labour with a political brand that has been in decline in Scotland for about 30 years, but to join in a campaign of hitherto unknown negativity. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, “it takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it”. Moreover, winning the independence referendum did it little good as less than a year later its 41 MPs were reduced to Ian Murray’s Edinburgh South seat.

Sir John Curtice wrote recently in a blog that the SNP’s 2015 success was down “to an apparent determination by those who had voted Yes to independence to affirm the choice they had made. Not only did Scotland’s position in the Union now seem less secure than ever before, but Labour’s domination of Scotland’s representation at Westminster had been reduced to rubble.”

While matters improved a little in 2017 with seven Labour MPs being elected, the fact is that even that “triumph” increased its vote by only 9,860. Is this a comeback or a “dead cat bounce”? Based on the EU election result, allied to many recent polls which suggest that in an election held any time soon, the SNP would win more than 50 seats again, it looks more like the latter.

When a political party does badly, it is always possible – indeed arguably mandatory – that they identify someone to blame, but this is becoming serial for the Labour Party in Scotland, as since 2007 Jack McConnell, Wendy Alexander, Iain Gray, Johan Lamont, Jim Murphy and Kezia Dugdale have all come and gone to little positive effect.

It is all very well to be blaming Mr Corbyn and his advisors for the failure of Labour’s EU Parliament campaign, but the fact is that this was a further failure, illustrating the truth of George Santayana’s claim that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

THE question about why the UK government should have a say in when Scotland holds another referendum on separation was unwittingly answered by Kirsty Blackman MP on BBC Scotland’s Debate Night programme (June 2). Responding to a question on Brexit she said that she was not supporting the will of the people in this case because “Leave was undefined” and stated that it was “very difficult to extricate yourself from a relationship with your closest trading partner”.

With all its dire warnings of "cliff-edge Tory Brexit" if we left the EU without a deal, it is surely inconceivable that the SNP would advocate holding a referendum without having negotiated a withdrawal agreement and future settlement with the remaining UK. This would make the Brexit negotiations seem like child's play and would tie up our politicians and civil servants for years, preventing progress on other vital legislation. Without detailed co-operation from Westminster, any attempt at a White Paper vision of Scotland’s future would hold as much validity as a slogan on the side of a bus.

The SNP has also expressed outrage that some EU citizens in UK were not able vote in the EU election. It wants over-16s and EU citizens living in Scotland to be able to vote in an Indyref2. If that is its moral position, then logically all Scots living in the rest of the UK and their offspring over 16, should also get to vote. This would require the UK Government to get all these people identified, registered and systems set up for voting.

Holyrood cannot unilaterally impose all of this on the rest of the UK. The Westminster Government has a responsibility to protect its citizens both sides of the Border from any more uncertainty and division at the very least until the Brexit outcome is clear.

Mark Openshaw,

Aberdeen AB15.

AS First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon seeks permission to have another Scottish independence referendum. The wording of the question to be asked has raised its head again, but this should be decided by the Electoral Commission and certainly not the SNP.

One question that remains to be answered by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is: Why is Holyrood wasting essential parliamentary time on Indyref2 when Scotland has important pressing problems in health and education that the SNP has failed to resolve over the last 11 years?

Dennis Forbes Grattan,

Aberdeen AB21.

ONE of the more interesting, if not unusual, contenders in the Conservative leadership contest is Rory Stewart. If successful he would undoubtedly bring a new style and emphasis to the political scene. The present adversarial style has its merits – it can more readily produce the arguments on both sides of an issue as happens in the legalism of the court process – but in practice it degenerates into a permanent battle between the main political factions.

Mr Stewart would bring a much-needed fresh approach to British politics. He appears to be someone who can listen politely to all sides before coming to a decision – resolute without being combative; philosophical without being indecisive or dithering.

Not only would this approach help to improve the present tarred relationship between the people and the politicians but it could assist in reversing the disdain which many currently have for the political system itself.

Is there in all of this a bonus for the Conservatives? Could Mr Stewart rejuvenate the British Conservatives in the same way that Ruth Davidson has rejuvenated the Scottish Conservatives? The Conservative Party has survived as the oldest political party in the world simply because it is not (small c) conservative. It has always been willing, albeit sometimes reluctantly, to embrace change. Whether the present Conservative membership is courageous enough to go down this route remains to be seen.

David SW Williamson, Kelso.