I HAVE not had much respect for the Labour Party since the days of Harry Ewing, Dennis Canavan and others of similar integrity and dedication to their constituents. The letter from Pete Rowberry (I hope the Labour Party can be rebuilt following General Election, December 26) however, has prompted me to wonder if perhaps Jeremy Corbyn could have been an excellent leader of the Labour Party, but never had a chance.

In the leadership election, there were three front-runners who were well-known to the party and public. They quite obviously believed that, due to their parliamentary record and performance in ministerial roles, one of them was the ideal candidate and it was only a matter of which one. When Corbyn then put his name forward, these three led the ridicule of this “nobody” who obviously had no chance of winning. Their outrage when he won was obvious to all.

From that point, these three and their supporters lost no opportunity to belittle Corbyn, digging into the past for dirt to destroy his reputation and prove to the Labour membership that they had got it wrong. So along came accusations of his being an IRA sympathiser, because he had met with some of their leaders, and being a friend to terrorists because he had spoken to members of Hezbollah and other Palestinian groups. But surely what he had actually done was try to talk to both sides of these conflicts, to find common ground on which peace might be based, at a time when the entrenched positions of governments were hindering true negotiations?

The undermining continued, his speeches at PMQs were regularly derided, and the accusations became of antisemitism, without recognising that criticising the actions of a government is totally different from hating the people they govern. As water wears away stone, this underhand sniping has finally split the party, leaving it in its present perilous state. By defeating the heirs apparent, Corbyn actually signed his own political death warrant.

Perhaps those who, from personal outrage, have patiently engineered this outcome should reflect on the demise of Maggie Thatcher. John Major became the leader who was never given a real chance, but those who wielded the knife never wore the crown. Corbyn is Labour’s Major.

Regarding the future of the Labour Party, however, Mr Rowberry is right. In an independent Scotland, we will need a strong, truly Scottish Labour Party, and likewise a Conservative one, amongst others, so that Scots can back the manifesto that most accurately reflects their wishes.

P Davidson
Falkirk

I SEE that Ian Johnstone has just taken my old friend Michael Fry to task for denigrating Cuba and Venezuela, which Michael rightly sees as being failed states (Fry’s latest attack on the FM and SNP takes the biscuit, December 27). Ian thinks that Michael should do some “research” on these countries and enquire what caused the Cubans and Venezuelans to adopt a “more comprehensive and humanitarian perspective”.

Ian Johnstone should thank his lucky stars that he is far from Caracas and sitting in civilized democratic Peterhead. I can tell Ian a thing or two about Venezuela. I first visited Venezuela in 1989, and later went back and lived there until 2001. My wife and child are Venezuelan and our circle of friends in Aberdeenshire are largely Venezuelan. We have close family still living in Venezuela and the language of our house is Spanish.

When I read letters like that of Ian Johnstone, I do not know whether to laugh or weep. Venezuela is a complete and utter disaster. The Chavistas have rubbished the rule of law and business has collapsed. Inflation is running into millions of percent per annum. This is Weimar Germany inflation. There are now four million desperate refugees (out of a population of around 25 million).

The most basic products are unobtainable, such as babies’ nappies, toiletries and cleaning agents. People starve and charities feed school-children who are faint for lack of nutrition. The country suffers continually from power cuts. (Yes, Venezuela! It has the world’s largest single pool of oil, huge reserves of gas, and excellent hydro-electric potential). Law and order have broken down. Caracas is the most dangerous non-warzone city on Earth.

Recent visitors report that the economy has now informally moved to being dollar-based even though this should be illegal under the current exchange controls.

The great majority of people are paid minimum wages which are Bolivar-based. Most hospitals do not even have running water, far less adequate medication. Venezuelan public services are an awful “joke”.

Venezuela, objectively speaking, is a land flowing with milk and honey. I have already mentioned its phenomenal energy potential. It also has huge wealth in hard minerals, including gold and iron. It has very fertile land which can grow world-beating coffee and cocoa. Venezuelan beef is the best I have ever tasted (sorry, Aberdeenshire), but the Venezuelans can no longer afford it. The country has delicious cuisine, but it is largely unknown.

Venezuela now has to import much of its food.

It has a relatively small population: five times Scotland’s population for 19 times our surface area. It has superb potential for tourism including hundreds of miles of Caribbean coastline, the Llanos, and the huge rainforest zone (now being destroyed by illegal miners).

In 1975 Venezuela was three times richer than Chile. Today, Chile is three times richer than Venezuela. Ian should find the comparison interesting. Thousands of desperate Venezuelans are now trying to reach Chile or any other country that would accept them. Venezuela has no migrants! It is an economic and political black-hole.

After 20 devastating years of socialism, Venezuela has lost so many irreplaceable people. How will it ever recover? Cry the Beloved Country!

God grant that 2020 be better for Venezuela.

William Ross
Via email