BRIAN Wilson is right to point to the shortcomings of Kezia Dugdale's current approach to federalism (“Labour veteran: Dugdale’s federal vision a ropey idea”, The Herald, February 27). Nonetheless, she also is right to recognise that UK federalism is the big idea that can outfox the SNP as, in its own way, it tries to follow Nigel Farage and Donald Trump in creating division where there should be unity.

There are two problems with federalism. It could probably only work in the long run if England were divided into regions, and Jeremy Corbyn clearly has no interest in it in any case.

Little can be done at present about Mr Corbyn, and the SNP no doubt hopes that he will be around for many years. But English regional government's time will come. The direction of travel is already clear with metro mayors, combined authorities and the London Assembly. However, it will take many years to develop further without a push, years that are not available as a second independence referendum becomes more likely.

Warnings about the oil price and a budgetary imbalance really cannot be relied on to stave off separation. Sometimes people make decisions on other issues. Brexit and Mr Trump did not succeed because of balanced economic argument. They won because of opportunism and polarising politics from their instigators, and disarray amongst their opponents. Sadly we are heading in that direction yet again, and brave new ideas are required to save the day.

So the UK-wide constitutional convention proposed by Ms Dugdale needs to be established and report very quickly. Gordon Brown is clearly the right person to lead it. If the current UK Labour leadership is unhelpful and holds Scotland back, and the English regions are not yet ready for further empowering constitutional reform, then Ms Dugdale and Mr Brown should lead the Scottish Labour Party in breaking away from the UK party.

I know this is a terribly upsetting suggestion for many. But it is primarily the Union that needs saving, not a monolithic UK Labour Party led by someone who cares little for that Union, as he cared little for our EU membership.

An independent Scottish Labour Party would be able to argue for the return of a block of Scottish Labour MPs to Westminster, who would then demand full Scottish home rule. This would have to be granted. It could also offer its hand of friendship to the English regions and English and Welsh Labour, who by this time would no doubt start to realise the benefits of a full UK federal solution. Mr Corbyn would, of course, have been swept away by this point.

Scottish Labour now needs to steal some of the SNP's clothes, but then wear them in a less divisive fashion. It should become the party of full home rule even if that has to be via breaking from UK Labour and demanding a provisional quasi-federal arrangement for Scotland in the short term, until the rest of the UK is encouraged to catch up with a full and well designed federal solution.

John Gemmell,

157 Collingwood Drive, Great Barr, Birmingham.

THE Labour Party’s new-found enthusiasm for federalism smacks of desperation. Perhaps half a century ago, federalism could have been a feasible option for the United Kingdom, but who in political power was interested then?

Under Scottish Labour’s proposal, in so far as it has any substance, it is suggested that most powers would be devolved to Scotland and the other nations that make up the UK, except for defence, foreign affairs and currency. These would be reserved to a federal parliament. Sadly in each of these areas, Scotland has been ill served by Westminster.

As regards defence, Scotland pays much more than is spent here, but is left with a nuclear target within 30 miles of one-quarter of our population and from which the main defence, Nimrod maritime surveillance aircraft, were irresponsibly withdrawn. The Navy’s nearest major surface warships are stationed on the south coast of England – two days’ steaming away from any attacker.

In terms of foreign affairs, apart from the UK seeking to take Scotland out of the EU against Scotland’s wishes, how seriously do we believe the British Government is interested in Scotland’s interests? Sacrificing our fisheries in favour of the City of London suggests not very seriously.

And the currency? Bearing in mind the UK’s massive debt approaching two trillion, the pound is now regarded by many international market traders as a fiat currency, which is likely to lose value further as the stark reality of Brexit dawns.

Surely no sane nation would leave itself open to such a disadvantageous arrangement? But then, apart from the fact that Labour is unlikely to be in power in Westminster for many years to come, there is absolutely no evidence that the English electorate has any more interest in federalism than it did half a century ago.

Roy Pedersen,

Lochlann, 8 Drummond Road, Inverness.

WE were constantly told during and after the independence referendum that the nations of the UK lived in harmony and mutual respect and that Scotland was treated as an equal partner in a perfect Union.

So why does Kezia Dugdale feel the need to try to introduce a federal system to supplant this wonderful arrangement?

Or is it only in the La La Land of the Tory/Labour Unionist allies that this situation exists?

Willie Douglas,

252 Nether Auldhouse Road, Glasgow.

SO Claudio Ranieri gets sacked but Jeremy Corbyn doesn't. I don't understand.

Michael Watson,

74 Wardlaw Avenue, Rutherglen, Glasgow.

IF anyone needed evidence of why Kezia Dugdale has taken Scottish Labour to the depths of 15 per cent in the polls, when it was at 45 per cent only three and a half years ago, the weekend's Scottish Labour conference showed why. Notwithstanding silly comments by Sadiq Khan (“UK party ‘at risk of Scots-style electoral disaster’”, The Herald, February 27) and Jeremy Corbyn's disrespect for the 62 per of Scotland who voted Remain, it was Ms Dugdale's words that betrayed a leader out of her depth and failing to even recognise why Scottish Labour has lost so many voters.

Her embrace of the Tory position on Unionism is why Labour finds itself at a level of support it has never been at for more than 100 years. She is telling two-thirds of former Labour voters who voted Yes that their views don't matter. How on earth does she expect to revive Labour in Scotland by appealing to a few hundred activists who hate the SNP on an issue on which hundreds of thousands of former Labour voters take the opposite view?

An issue that at its heart is about whether Tories at Westminster, whom Scotland has never voted for in 60 years, should make decisions for Scotland. Self-evidently Ms Dugdale and Scottish Labour now think lumbering Scotland with the Tories for decades is worth it just as long as it "annoys the Nats".

Meanwhile her wingmen claim there is no mandate for an independence referendum despite the clear fact the people of Scotland voted for a majority of MSPs who support one. Like the Tories they act as if they can say anything and the people of Scotland will swallow it.

And to add to the mind-boggling positioning under Ms Dugdale we read that Labour are actively prepared to support the Tories in taking over councils as long as it keeps out the party its former voters now vote for.

Maybe those former voters will send a message to Ms Dugdale this May in the local elections that might finally shake the party out of the delusion that being a support act for the Tories will win those voters back.

Graham C B Roberts,

13 Caithness Street, Glasgow.

ONE of the advantages Nicola Sturgeon has over the leaders of the London-based parties is that she doesn't have to explain any insensitive pronouncements made by Metrocentric politicians with little knowledge of Scotland or the Scots. In the last couple of weeks we have seen a Labour MP on BBC Question Time talk airily about the “violence” that took place in the last independence referendum – a remark that left many of us up here scratching our heads trying to recall any black eyes or jeely noses we'd seen during that campaign.

Now poor Kezia Dugdale has been left trying to explain away the clear parallels Sadiq Khan drew between the SNP and parties like the BNP and the National Front.

Her explanation is that another independence referendum would be “divisive”. This, again, has me scratching my head because, after all, is not party politics by its very nature “divisive”? There's doesn't seem to be a lot of “divisiveness” in North Korea but in a mature democracy people have the right to agree to disagree.

In truth, “divisive” is a word that the Unionist side have latched on to without giving much thought to the implications of its use. It's less contentious than “racist'” but the end result is the same old “shut up” argument it always trots out to close down honest debate.

David C Purdie,

12 Mayburn Vale, Loanhead, Midlothian.

SPEAKING at the Scottish Labour party conference, London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s comments about the dangers of divisiveness angered some who are quick to take offence.

Yet when a country is bitterly divided over one big issue, as is the case here in Scotland on the constitutional question, we all need to remember to be careful where our rhetoric takes us. It is all too easy to paint those who do not agree with us in the worst possible light, creating a caricature that is more readily dismissed. But this does not help in winning over the undecided or healing the all too clear divisions that run through so much of our public debate.

It makes no sense to imply that those you are seeking to convince of your point of view, are either racists, or foolish, or close minded, because the great majority of people on all sides politically do not consider themselves to be any of those things.

If there is to be a second independence referendum, and a new round of campaigning as a result, we would all do well to remember before we speak, just how similar we are, and how much, despite appearances to the contrary, we can all agree upon.

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.