The good people of Hamilton, not forgetting Larkhall and Stonehouse, have spoken. And they want change. They want things to be other than they are.

Churn is vital in politics. Rough though it may be for individuals, the only way folk can express their disquiet and their desires is to kick out one lot and give another lot a chance.

To elect is, literally, to choose. And people in this by-election have chosen, narrowly, to put their faith in Labour’s Davy Russell, who fought a doorstep campaign, remote from media concerns.

This was the change contest. Understandably pleased, the Prime Minister hailed a “fantastic victory” for Labour – before adding that “people in Scotland had once again voted for change.”

Read more Brian Taylor

I think that is true but I suspect it may not be quite the change advanced by Sir Keir Starmer. I understand his perspective. He is seeking to fit Hamilton into the wider Starmer narrative.

You will recall that, at the July UK General Election, Sir Keir repeatedly offered “change”. His aim was to gain from the discontent – no, the loathing – which had attached itself to the Conservatives. To posit Labour as the remedy, without being all that specific about details.

So, with these comments on Hamilton, he is seeking to suggest that Davy Russell’s victory is, in some way, continuity: an endorsement of the approach pursued by his government.

To repeat, I understand his motivation in so doing. But I am certain that this is awry. You have only to listen to senior figures from Scottish Labour to grasp that Hamilton disquiet was aimed at incumbency. The SNP at

© Herald Scotland