Letter: Defence of the indefensible

IN THE pro-Labour contributions to the election debate so far we have seen lots of criticism, some no doubt reasonable enough, of things the SNP has done or not done during its first term in office.

We have seen jibes at the form of the SNP's campaign, and at its leader's style and personality. We have seen speculations on how vagaries of the electoral system, or of the electorate, might work in Labour's favour. We have seen suggestions, those from Kenny Farquharson (Insight, 24 April) being the latest, of how Labour might improve its chances by becoming a different party with different policies and different people (advising Iain Gray to be something he is not, an inspiring national leader, amounts to that).

What we have never seen from pro-Labour columnists is any attempt to argue that Labour deserves to win the election for having wiser policies than the SNP, or a better record in office, or a more accomplished and reliable team.

From one point of view this is not surprising, for the fact is that Labour has none of these and therefore does not deserve to win the election. But what a disheartening comment on the state of Scottish politics that so many people are determined to find specious grounds for supporting a party which they know perfectly well merits no support whatever.

Derrick McClure, Aberdeen