So now you know, SNP: indy is not what people care about

The Herald Scotland

07-06-2025

There may have been little talk of independence in the campaign but Katy Loudon, the SNP candidate, put out a Facebook video on the morning of the by-election which made clear it's all about separating us from the rest of the UK. The unionist parties' share of the vote at the by-election was just short of 66%. If that doesn't send a clear message to the SNP and the Greens that independence is not what is important at the moment, I don't know what will.
Maybe if the SNP improved our NHS, our education system, housing, our infrastructure, managed to build ferries and dual our roads on time and improve our economy, it might get more support. That would be novel, would it not?
Jane Lax, Aberlour.
Nothing short of humiliation
It wasn't only the kitchen sink that the SNP flung at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. It threw the washing machine, tumble drier and dishwasher as well. Anyone who saw on social media the gangs of SNP enthusiasts roaming the constituency, saturating it with MSPs including ministers, as well as foot soldiers, with a massive intensity, for weeks and especially in the last two weeks, must have imagined that it was a seat they could not lose.
I wondered, in the last days, whether the SNP was not engaging in overkill, that the good folk of the constituency might be saturated with SNP propaganda to the point of apathy. The turnout, at 44 per cent, suggested that as a partial possibility. In this by-election, it was possible to utilise all the party's resources, and it did. That would not be remotely a possibility in any one constituency in a General Election.
The result was nothing short of humiliation for the SNP. It is also a personal humiliation for John Swinney, who spent much time in the last week campaigning in the constituency rather than attending to First Minister's business.
Nothing much will change at Holyrood, of course, but Mr Swinney's insistence that Scotland does not welcome Reform UK looks a bit hollow after it scooped up 26 per cent of the vote. Perhaps we can have a break from his preaching about Scotland being allegedly more moral than England.
Ah well, one can but hope.
Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.
Read more letters
For many, politics is not working
It is alarming that, in Thursday's by-election, Reform UK came third with 7,088 votes, a mere 1,471 behind Labour. The victorious Labour candidate, Davy Russell, is quoted as saying that 'this community has [also] sent a message to Farage and his mob tonight. The poison of Reform isn't us – it isn't Scotland and we don't want your division here.'
I suspect Mr Russell was speaking from within the excitement of winning and did not realise the significance of Reform UK winning so many votes. The party of Nigel Farage, that enthusiastic Trump supporter, was understood to hold little attraction for the Scottish voter compared with his standing with the English electorate. The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse voters have demonstrated otherwise.
The UK political establishment, Labour in particular, has one important lesson to learn, that being that politics in our country is not working for a significant element of our population. The vote for a disastrous Brexit was the first warning sign of a significant discontent with the inequalities and injustices in our society and economy.
Uncontrolled neoliberalism has done untold damage to our social contract with our politicians accepting unquestionably the words of Mrs Thatcher, 'there is no alternative'.
John Milne, Uddingston.
Reform will be a Holyrood force
The most interesting thing about the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election for Holyrood is not who won, Labour, nor the fact that the voting was a three-way split between it, the SNP and Reform UK, but where Reform's votes came from.
Compared to its vote share in the constituency in the last Holyrood election four years ago, the SNP vote dropped by almost 17% of the votes cast and the Tory vote by 11.5%. Labour's vote share actually went down by 2% as well. This means that Reform UK's 26% of the vote came more from parties of the left than the Tories. Clearly Reform is not just a threat to the Conservatives.
In the climate of dissatisfaction with the established parties, Reform is on track to be a force at Holyrood next year.
Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife.
• After all the ballyhoo, the result is in and the real winner is Reform UK.
John Swinney talked Reform up too effectively. Labour's candidate was nearly invisible. The result speaks volumes. The SNP lost. Labour just limped home despite being helped a huge amount by the SNP's travails. Reform UK came from a near-zero base to gain over 7,000 votes and run both other parties close.
This by-election was a real test of public opinion for the shape of Holyrood in 2026. Reform could still founder given frequent party in-fighting. Equally the Tories could re-assert their desired position as defenders of the Union.
John Swinney has made another major SNP blunder and released the genie from the bottle. Is he going to be the architect of the SNP's downfall?
Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.
Labour far from home and hosed
While Labour's victory in the Hamilton by-election seemingly points to the party winning the Scottish Parliament elections next year, if I were Anas Sarwar, I wouldn't be sizing up the curtains of Bute House just yet.
The seat was won comfortably by the SNP in the last Scottish Parliament election in 2021 and is just the sort of seat that Labour needs to win if Anas Sarwar is to become Scotland's next First Minister.
The SNP has made little progress in restoring its fortunes following its heavy defeat in last summer's Westminster election, with polls suggesting that the party's support across Scotland is still 15 points down on its tally in 2021. In the event, the fall in the party's support in Hamilton was, at 17 points, just a little higher than that.
However, Labour's own tally was also down by two points on its vote in 2021, when overall the party came a disappointing third. That drop was very much in line with recent polling, which puts the party at just 19 per cent across Scotland as a whole, while the SNP has around a third of the vote.
In addition, Labour is losing somewhere between one in six and one in five of its voters to Reform since last year's election.
After nearly two decades in the political wilderness, there is little sign that Labour, as it currently stands, is set to regain the reins of power at Holyrood.
Alex Orr, Edinburgh.
Now flesh out the policies
All the pundits initially claimed the Hamilton by-election would go to Labour, given local circumstances. Now a Labour win is described as a 'shock' after even some in Labour were describing their own candidate as not up to the job. But Labour needs to up its game for the next election.
Criticism is easy, but Labour needs more fleshed-out policies for government, beyond centralising health in Scotland.
The SNP needs to drop all the 'student politics' stuff; it was embarrassing to see a squabble over £2 million when it should be asking why Scotland does so poorly on defence procurement and jobs. Formulate a proper industrial policy for Scotland, and back any project that would enhance jobs and prosperity for Scotland. Refuse nothing and put the onus on unionists to explain their plans in detail.
Trident: are the unionist plans for keeping Trident in Scotland similar to those for Diego Garcia? Nuclear power: why do they think Scotland should have it, given its high-cost electricity and the extensive lags on construction? What of waste disposal and site security? The SNP should be in favour of local pricing for electricity as a draw to attract jobs, and for North Sea oil/gas production (until Scots are empowered to decide its future).
A Labour/SNP coalition? It looks like the only feasible outcome.
GR Weir, Ochiltree.
• For all the fuss about the Hamilton by-election, it should be noted that almost 56% of the electorate really don't care who represents them in the Scottish Parliament.
Malcolm Parkin, Kinross.
Russia claim is baseless
Brian Wilson ("Yes, we should stand firm over Putin, but let's not make Russia our implacable foe", The Herald, June 5) tells us today that the rights of the former Soviet republics to seek security (membership of Nato) should have been balanced against Russian fears of encirclement.
This raises two issues. Firstly, the Soviet Union consisted of 15 republics: the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Russia itself) and 14 others. Of these, only three (the Baltic states,which were independent between the wars) have joined Nato. I am unclear as to how this constitutes encirclement. Does Mr Wilson envisage the Central Asian former republics (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan etc) expressing a wish to join the alliance at some point, thus making encirclement a reality rather than a baseless claim?
Secondly, does Mr Wilson not wonder why these small countries wished to be under the umbrella of the Nato alliance? To avoid the current fate of Ukraine perhaps?
Alan Jenkins, Glasgow.
• Brian Wilson expresses the hope that we should not categorise the Russian people as being inevitably in the enemy camp. He concluded his article by observing that narratives about Russia should have "due regard to past history and also future potential for peaceful co-existence".
Such narratives should certainly not fail to take account of the contribution made by Russian armed forces and the civilian population during the Second World War, which is estimated to have resulted in some 25 million Soviet deaths. It is clear that the Russian effort during that war was profoundly influential in assisting toward the eventual defeat of Germany. The Russian people at the time called upon impressive levels of love of country and perseverance in the fight toward victory over a formidable enemy. Once we were allies.
While Russia remains in the firm grip of the dictatorial, ambitious and ruthless Vladimir Putin, it is difficult to see to what extent meaningful steps can be taken to pursue the "potential for peaceful co-existence".
Ian W Thomson, Lenzie.
A Pride rally in Glasgow (Image: PA)
Pride needed now as much as ever
Gregor McKenzie (Letters, June 6) suggests that LGBT Pride has had its day. In fact, since the end of the pandemic restrictions, more people have been going to more Pride events across Scotland than ever before.
Why? I think it's in part because people see how, after several positive changes in the law for LGBT people in the past 25 years, things are now starting to get worse again. Mr McKenzie asks why we can't all just let people be, and I wish we could. But the increased restrictions being introduced on trans people in the UK are quite the opposite of that. Trans people just want to get on with their lives, but the new rules make that much more difficult. And trans people are constantly maligned currently by some parts of the media.
So Pride events are needed as much now as ever. They are a celebration of how far we have come in the 30 years since the first Pride Scotland, and they are a protest against the regression we're seeing now. One day perhaps Pride will be solely a celebration, but that day still seems some way off. Meanwhile people join together in the streets to say "Not going back".
Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh.