DEAR Henry McLeish, Following on from the article on Thursday (Labour can beat Tories, The National, February 11), I would like to ask a few basic questions, such as: why would I, a former party member, consider voting Labour in May? Beating the Tories into second place surely cannot be the apex of my aspirations nor the best value to be put on my vote?
You state “we want to be the main opposition to the SNP”. That’s important, since I don’t know who will be “leader”. Does she or he have the skills to lead, far less govern in the future? To give my vote in those circumstances alone would be a real act of faith, wouldn’t it?
But, I understand your realism this underlines. Namely Labour’s inability to win first place and take on Westminster and Tory austerity, Brexit shambles post-Covid recovery, etc. It’s good to read the limit of Labour’s vision, and lack of hunger, to actually govern. Hopefully other former Labour voters will take heed. But I digress.
Other than beating the Tories,what would I gain, and what would Scotland gain? The chance, you say, just a chance, “to exclude the Unionism of the Tories which is the status quo and will not take Scotland further”. Mmm. I’m not too sure what excluding Unionism means.
Taking stock at this moment then, you’re offering the possibility of being second – and only a chance – and being “willing to see ... a referendum at an appropriate point”? That sounds familiar, perhaps Tory-lite, but familiar all the same. Doubts are creeping in here, Mr McLeish, since I don’t see myself as being Tory-lite. Dare I say neither a good look nor a hook for either undecided waverers, or former Labourites.
Labour will exclude Unionism, you say, but you can’t tell me with what, can you?
Really, giving my vote to Labour, to come second – and exclude Unionism with an untried, untested new leader – is a very weak argument, isn’t it? Especially since you acknowledge “we’ve messed up for the last decade”. No, it’s not cutting it for me.
But I turned the page to find Lesley Riddoch and just some reminders of what Scotland has achieved with the SNP as Labour messed up.
She referred to the social care system. Yes, you started that in the time of the old Scottish Executive. But, as Labour messed up, the SNP took to governing, to introduce self-directed support for those with disabilities. What about the integrated health and social care? You can’t comment because Labour was too busy messing up to notice.
And most recently there’s the review into adult social care, leading possibly to a National Care Service. And all of this without full economic levers, whilst mitigating Tory austerity, fighting the rape clause and bedroom tax. The SNP has found the ability to introduce £40 uplift via the new (note: new) Scottish Child Payment. All this while Labour messed up?
But you make no reference to the little matter that it’s Holyrood and MSPs we’re voting for in May. Not Westminster. Messing up is one thing, trusting is another.
So underneath your pronouncements regarding May, you’d have us trust Labour HQ to do exactly what some time in the future? Defeat the Tories? Get into power? And then? Be grateful Labour is second in Scotland, and come charging over the Border with what?
Don’t tell me, I’ve got it! They’re going to give up some of their new found power via some form of Unionism? Yes? No? Please! No, not federalism! That which we reject election after election.
Sorry Mr McLeish, no. There’s no argument for Labour.
You won’t get my vote, and I doubt very few other former Labour supporters will be fooled back into the Unionist fold.
Selma Rahman
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel