A party with integrity must stay true to its core principles. To compromise on principles simply to gain power creates a party without a soul. Tony Blair’s advocacy of such political prostitution last week was as staggering as it was revealing and surely is a road to oblivion.

In these times of an extreme right government, the Blairites may well be tempted to pull the party to the centre right, but what does that say to those in society that need a strong left-leaning party the most?

Labour is tearing itself into two factions – those who myopically see unregulated markets as an enduring and unquestionable natural order and those who see that dogma as having been directly responsible for the financial crisis and the massive inequality in society. The latter have but one option. Corbyn may not be a natural leader and may be shy of power but he cannot be accused of lacking principles.

Labour has a stark choice: move to the centre right in the pursuit of power and concede the left to a new political force, or return to fundamental principles and work determinedly to promote a more socially responsible model for our society and economy.

While we await the outcome, the whole of the UK can be thankful that in the SNP we have the semblance of a proper opposition at Westminster.

Raymond Hunter

East Kilbride


YOUR article (Harris calls on Labour to forget about principles, The National, July 25) says it all about the so-called Scottish Labour Party and its MPs. Tom Harris, former MP for Glasgow South, reveals Scottish Labour for what it is: Middle England Labour. What I read between the lines of his words is “I do not care what Scottish people want, it is the good folks of Middle England who count. If it means shedding principles or acting in opposition to the interests of Scotland, so what? All that matters is getting my gluteus maximus onto those green benches again.” The gorge rises.

R Mill

Irving


AS far as Jeremy Corbyn goes, our problem – Scotland’s problem – isn’t the Labour Party or the Conservative Party. Our problem is Westminster and its corporate masters, its cronyism to royalty and the elitist system it feeds and is fed by. Changing Labour is like chucking clean sawdust on the same dirty barn floor.

Mark Harper

Dysart


THE Labour leadership election is a spectacular example of the law of unintended consequences.

First, we had MPs such as Margaret Beckett nominating Jeremy Corbyn just to widen the debate. Then we had the Daily Telegraph urging its readers to register as Labour supporters and vote for Corbyn in order to elect the Tories’ dream opposition candidate. Tony Blair then steps in and says anyone who at heart supports Corbyn requires a heart transplant – a full endorsement to anyone outside of Mr Blair’s fantasy world.

All we need now is for David Cameron to say he looks forward to sparring with the new Labour leader across the Despatch Box, whoever is elected – but, of course, as the “heir to Blair”, his arguments would be made harder against a certain committed Socialist.

The stage is then set for the triumph of the law: Jeremy Corbyn is elected Labour leader and subsequently prime minister. This to the dismay of all those who do not know that the law of unintended consequences is closely associated with the law of hubris and nemesis.

Geoff Naylor

Winchester, Hampshire

IT was so very heartening to read Rona Bird’s view (Letters, July 22), all too rarely expressed, on the apparent lack of any real empathy in public discourse for the plight of the long-suffering peoples of the Middle East, and Ian Campbell’s response (Letters, July 24) was sadly typical of the lip-service isolationist viewpoint to which she was referring. Human rights, like justice as a whole, are indivisible. Unfortunately there seems to be a certain kind of critic of Western governments who is all too ready to complain when they support vile dictators and is equally ready to complain when they intervene against them instead. (And in the case of Saddam Hussein, both simultaneously) It is one of the tragedies of modern times that Tony Blair’s manufactured lies about Iraq have ever since clouded the issue of human rights in the Middle East.

For me however, the real failure here rests squarely with the United Nations. It is that organisation, and not individual governments, which should be taking the lead with humanitarian interventions in troubled countries like Libya and Syria. But it is commonly rendered impotent by a rigid 20th century anti-interventionist view of civil conflicts, and in particular by its rotten core: a Security Council whose main members, the United States, Russia and China, have proved time and time again to be ready to thwart any concerted action that is perceived to be counter to their national interests.

Predictable UN paralysis in the face of egregious injustices like Bosnia is then cynically misused as an excuse for inaction by those whose real motives are anything but transparent – and conversely on occasion leads to rash and ill-considered interventions like Blair’s servile collaboration in the second Gulf War.

Robert J Sutherland

Glasgow

ALASTAIR Stuart (Letters, July 25) asks “Do the readers of The National think this [federal devolution] is a reasonable way forward. This reader’s answer is a resounding No.

Federal devolution, were such an unlikely thing to ever become a feature of the UK unitary state, could only be effected by concession of the Westminster Government. They retain the power. Anything any form of devolution does for Scotland, independence does better. And quicker. And simpler.

Surely two things are now becoming obvious. Firstly, all offers on enhanced devolution are not steps on the road to independence but intended as impediments. Secondly, all concession of extra powers are only offered in the face of growing appetite for independence.

There is no evidence whatsoever of any appetite for federalism in England and such a system could only be practical in the UK context if Scotland was reduced to the status of Yorkshire or other English regions.

Suggestions like Stuart’s can only encourage our opponents to lead us into the never-ending swamps of complicated constitutional wrangling in which minor concessions are heralded as huge steps forward and my grandchildren will still be waiting for an independent Scotland.

We nearly won last year. Have people forgotten? This is like a football manager saying: “Well done lads. We got a good runner up in the league. Let’s go for third place next season.”

Dave McEwan Hill

Sandbank, Argyll


WHILE I understand Alastair Stuart’s concerns – indeed in the past would have supported this – matters have simply gone too far. The political relationship with the rest of the UK has broken down irretrievably. It is painfully obvious (especially to the poorest) that no cognisance is taken of what Scottish voters think. The latest iteration of the Scotland Bill and Establishment reactions demonstrate this clearly.

The moment has passed, it’s independence or increasing heaping of ordure on our heads, I’m afraid.

N Mackenzie

Leith


WHAT is Allan Sutherland from Stonehaven’s problem with democracy (Letters, July 25)? In a state where a political party can win an outright parliamentary majority on about 35 per cent of votes cast, why does he think it acceptable to set a threshold of 60 per cent for Yes to win a referendum? Why does he think a referendum needs to be a “once in a lifetime” event when we’ve seen so many incidences of electorates changing beyond recognition within a five-year period? Why does he want his vote to bind my grandchildren, whether they agree with it or not?

Neil Caple

Tarland, Aberdeenshire

THE cover-up in the Westminster/Establishment child abuse scandal is far from unexpected given some of the distasteful history of the British state.

“The risks of political embarrassment to the Government is rather greater than the security danger,’’ said director of MI5 Sir Antony Duff to excuse the 1980s cover-up of a suspected child-abusing MP. No thought given to the victims as the state protected its own.

The latest half-hearted attempt to hold the Home Office to account for its failure to act against prominent figures in the recent past, with files going missing then mysteriously found, suggests that, left to its own devices, the British state will continue turning a Nelson eye to the corruption within its senior ranks.

James Mills

Johnstone

I HAD just read the comprehensive opus by Hugh Thomas regarding the commercial exploitation of human traffic across the Atlantic from Africa between the years 1440 and 1870, when David Olusoga presented his intriguing two-part series on BBC 2. He highlighted the duplicity exercised by the slave-owners who lobbied the government of the time to compensate them for “loss of earnings” following the emancipation of untold thousands held in bondage.

A fascinating insight into the dastardly deeds of all those who in effect led double lives – veritable pillars of their communities on the one hand, while living comfortably off the proceeds of harvesting sugar cane throughout the islands of the Caribbean and Guyana on the other. And the compensation was enormous at £20 million – equivalent to £17 billion today – and paid to the employers, while the slaves never received a single penny! A great many Scottish families are tainted – mine included, with three names in the ledgers of 1835-36 being Catherine, Hester, and Mary MacSween.

Roderick MacSween

Stornoway

I HAVE enjoyed The National since its inception and I am generally impressed by the quality and integrity of your articles. However, I must take issue with “Angry Salmond” (News, July 25).

He states that former Prime Minister Tony Blair ‘earned’ £330,000 for a 20-minute speech. If that is true, no-one can quibble about it. If it is true, presumably the Blairs are among the “hard-working families” that David Cameron wants to help out of poverty. Blair must have worked exceedingly hard to earn such a sum.

However, I suspect that the truth is that Blair did not ‘earn’ that amount – it is what he was paid. I would argue strongly that no one earns that amount for a 20-minute speech – even allowing for time spent in preparation. I would suggest that Angry Salmond would have made more of an impact had he adopted more accurate terminology.

Richard Fowler

Knockentiber, Ayrshire

THIS Tory Government have made their enemies quite clear: the old, the disabled, the sick, the poor and the young. Scrapping student grants and replacing them with loans, the national minimum wage does not apply to us youth anymore. So with Labour being so utterly useless, I thought I would say this: if you treat the young like second-class citizens, I can guarantee you will be getting a sore bahookie in all future elections.

Callum Reid

Renfrew


Calls to postpone UK Labour leadership race after outsider Corbyn becomes favourite

Ken Macintosh defends his Scottish Labour leadership campaign