A RECENT Panelbase poll suggested that one-third of all Labour voters are planning to vote Yes in the independence referendum.
This is not reflected among Labour MSPs, who have presented a united front of opposition. Since various former Labour luminaries and high-ranking trade union officials have come out for Yes, this shows either a remarkable degree of consensus in this small corner of the Labour movement, or strong party discipline, or else a fierce repression of dissenting opinion. I would think it is the second scenario, but the fact that the leader in Scotland, Johann Lamont, is rarely seen in the contest and that her deputy, Anas Sarwar, has been actively sidelined may incline others to view this differently. Increasingly the direction and substance of Labour's No campaign is being directed by Westminster-based MPs, notably Alastair Darling, Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy and Gordon Brown.
A further notable instance of the dominance of London Labour occurred when Johann Lamont was obliged to defend Labour's tax-raising proposals for Holyrood, proposals which had been altered and watered down from her own preferences. This resulted in the most excruciating interview on the BBC with Gordon Brewer where it was clear that she was neither enthusiastic about the amended proposals nor did she understand them, and Brewer toyed with her like a cat with a mouse. It was not really her fault, since the proposals are incoherent, impractical and designed not to be used to create difference from whatever tax regime Westminster sets.
This string-pulling from London may partly explain by why the Scottish Labour Party seems to be still in a state of denial about its collapsing hegemony in Scotland. Or why it is adopting self-defeating policies such as means-testing for prescriptions and other state provisions. To give up on universal provision is tantamount to giving up on wider egalitarian aspirations - it justifies inequalities by creating differential accessibility to benefits. It is dangerously close to proposals south of the Border to make patients pay for GP visits according to income.
The Labour Party in England is scarcely recognisable as a social democratic party as it tailors its policies to appeal to the swing voters of middle-England in order to gain electoral advantage. It is allowing the Conservatives and Ukip to set the agenda and then following them ever more rightward.
My own wider family are overwhelmingly working class and lower middle class. Twenty years ago we were almost all Labour voters. Now not a single one of us casts our vote that way - most vote SNP while the rest vote Green and SSP - but we are all, without exception, voting for independence. It's getting perilously close to it, but it's still not too late to win back at least a few of the dozens of us who have deserted the party. If any Labour MSP were to come out for independence (and survived the wrath of the party machine), I suspect they would sweep to substantial victory in their constituency at the next Holyrood election in the event of a Yes vote. Pro-union Labour voters have no other social democratic party to turn to, those who have deserted Labour over the independence issue would flow back, there are homeless disaffected Lib Dems to be garnered, and many SNP voters have only the slimmest loyalty to that party based on a desire for greater Scottish autonomy.
A revamped, genuinely democratic socialist Labour Party is a distinct possibility once the New Labour chains of London are thrown off, and a resurgence of support rather than continuing decline is more likely in an independent Scotland than in a dysfunctional UK. Who will be first to put their head above the parapet? Who will be ahead of the curve instead of resisting the tide of public opinion- and instead of making common cause with Ukip the Grand Orange Order, the Scottish Defence League and George Osborne?
David White,
Leebrae House,
Galashiels.
COMMUNICATIONS Minister Ed Vaizey states that an independent Scotland would have been incapable of building a 4G broadband system ("Yes vote broadband warning", The Herald July 4); it is also alleged that if Scotland votes Yes it will revert to the Stone Age, although an unnamed Government source claimed that there would be a shortage of stone .
James Mills,
29 Armour Square,
Johnstone.
JOHN Scott Roy (Letters, July 3) is too ready to dismiss as fantasy the possibility of the formation of a federal UK. England taken as a whole certainly is too large to form a single component in a federation, but why assume that all parts of England think the same?
There is increasing evidence that parts of England, especially the north and the West Country, are becoming disenchanted with the baleful over-emphasis on London and its needs, as articulated by the predatory Mayor of London. Sooner or later it is likely that other regions of England will seek devolved powers, paving the way to the formation of a successful federation.
Andrew A Reid,
75 Glencairn Drive,
Glasgow.
JONATHAN Sher overstates the "determination of American independence to create a more just, egalitarian and democratic society" ("Why the spirit of the Fourth of July must prevail in September's vote" Agenda , The Herald, July 4). Can he explain how that is compatible today with the reports that the great majority of US citizens have had no pay rise in real terms for 30 years while the top 1 per cent have creamed off trillions of dollars?
Independence is no guarantee of increased fairness and reduced inequality. Any move to achieve these goals must spell out how, especially if the only way is to redistribute assets and incomes from whomsoever is supposedly rich to those who are defined in some way as needy without qualification. Ruling elites everywhere tend to manoeuvre redistributions one way -into their and their cronies' pockets.
Will the SNP be any different?
Joe Darby,
Glenburn,
St Martins Mill,
Cullicudden, Dingwall.
Ian W Thomson (Letters, July 4) states that Scots who have decided to emigrate should "not tell us what to do".
I recollect Alex Salmond had the kilted Allan Cumming on the front row when the referendum was announced.
The said Allan Cumming has not only left Scotland for foreign shores to fulfil his "lifestyle choices", he has also taken out American citizenship.
Sean Connery is another who is constantly quoted as supporting independence. He has hardly been in Scotland, let alone lived here for 40 years.
It is a little hypocritical, to say the least, to object to other celebrities expressing their opinions on the referendum that do not concur with one's own views.
Donald Campbell,
3 Carron Drive,
Bishopton.
THERE can be no excuse for comparing any democratic party or politician with the Nazis and in respect of the resignation of the Labour candidate who did so, Dr Hans J Pieper (Letters, July 4) is completely justified in his condemnation.
However, I am afraid that he is also mistaken in his comment regarding Alistair Darling, who at no point has ever referred to Blood and Soil nationalism. This myth needs to be knocked on the head.
In regard to the comparison with Kim-Jong Il, moreover, it should be noted that this was specific reference to the claim by Alex Salmond that Ukip only gained a European Parliament seat in Scotland because voters had been influenced unduly by the alien BBC down south beaming in images of Nigel Farage. This is exactly the type of hyperbolic paranoid delusion which could be expected from the North Korean dictator, and is an accurate comparison for Mr Darling to make.
Peter A Russell,
87 Munro Road,
Jordanhill,
Glasgow.
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