IT would be fair to say that Scottish Labour’s successive leaders since 2014 have been so busy carefully removing the knives placed in their backs by party colleagues that there has scarcely been time for them to be much of an opposition.
The party have fallen hard from the days when Labour dominated the Scottish political landscape, and a bunker mentality since the independence referendum has done them no favour in reversing their fortunes. With the latest leadership ballot opening tomorrow, two paths are now laid out before the party and I suspect that whichever route is taken will ultimately be good for Scotland and the independence movement – though not necessarily Scottish Labour itself.
Monica Lennon has often stood out from much of the rest of Scottish Labour for the simple fact that she seems competent, progressive and actually appears to have an understanding of Scotland’s political and constitutional landscape.
There are few notable achievements that can be attributed to Scottish Labour in Holyrood over the past few years, but Lennon’s period poverty bill absolutely stands out as a success that will tangibly improve the lives of women, girls and all who menstruate. The Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act speaks to the very best of what Holyrood can be.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer urged to consider indyref2 if Labour wants to get back into government
And unlike the Tories and many of her colleagues, Lennon actually stands by her democratic principles when it comes to a second independence referendum. While she doesn’t support independence itself, her position is that it’s up to those who live in Scotland to choose the timing of a second referendum.
Some Labour commentators have claimed that Lennon’s popularity with independence supporters is a reason to back her leadership opponent, Anas Sarwar. Her popularity, they argue, “just shows how feart the Nats are of Sarwar”.
Of course, this is tribalist nonsense.
It doesn’t benefit anyone to have a Parliament stacked with obstructionist politicians who would rather oppose for the sake of opposing, over having a firm set of political goals and opinions that sometimes align with the Government and sometimes do not.
With Lennon as leader, I suspect we’d see a Scottish Labour who were more interested in setting out their own table than arbitrarily flipping those of others. That’s a good outcome for progressive politics in Scotland.
It would also benefit the majority of Scots who back independence to see another political leader in Holyrood who recognises our democratic right to ask the question on self-determination again.
Under Lennon’s leadership Scottish Labour might actually have the chance to become a relevant political force in Holyrood once more, and a decent one at that.
In Sarwar, however, I see only more of the same issues that brought Scottish Labour to where they currently stand; a party supposedly “for the many” being run into the ground by the few.
It’s strange to watch a leadership election play out beat for beat in the same manner as the contest that handed Jim Murphy the poisoned chalice of Scottish Labour back in 2014. The same commentators who viewed criticism of Murphy then as proof that the SNP were on the run have applied the same logic to Sarwar, with little self-awareness.
Murphy led the party into a Westminster election that cost them 40 of their 41 seats and resulted in his resignation.
WHILE time has undoubtedly cost the party much of the renewed support from left-wing activists and trade unions that Corbyn’s election brought, a victory for Sarwar may be the final push needed for whoever is left holding on.
READ MORE: Monica Lennon hits out at Labour for ‘wheeling out’ likes of Gordon Brown
Rudderless, and deeply removed from the founding principles of the Labour Party, Scottish Labour would inevitably flounder toward their end. Perhaps it’s a cynical position to take, but this, too, would be good for Scotland.
It would be hard for left-wing, and pro-independence voices, to remain a member of a party that for years will have consumed the time of dedicated activists for the sum total of nothing.
Freed of whatever holds them to the party still, there would be potential for more left-wing voices to take the stage while reducing Scottish Labour’s influence and, by extension, its ability to stand in the way of a democratic referendum in line with the wishes of the Scottish left and trade union movement.
Unlike the years that followed the independence referendum, which saw great changes and the dwindling of Britain’s international relationships, we’re now set for a period of enforced stability. The long, dark shadow of a Tory Brexit awaits and I suspect decisions made in this next short period of time will be with us for quite a while, and hot-footing from failure to failure will no longer be as easily dismissed.
READ MORE: Anas Sarwar gives up top spot to ensure gender balance in regional list
That applies, too, to whatever decision Scottish Labour members make in the coming weeks – although it may all be in vain for as long as Scottish Labour remain attached to the UK Labour Party. Keir Starmer seems to be increasingly tacking to the right, in both his approach to building an “unashamedly pro-business” Labour party and over leaked plans to slap a Union flag on everything with a Labour logo on it.
While that kind of right-wing, rah-rah Britain rhetoric may play well to some parts of England, it’ll go down like a bucket of sick in Scotland – and take the Scottish branch with it. At least in Lennon, there’s hope that the party could move to becoming its own separate institution. She called for radical change in the form of becoming a separate party at the beginning of last year.
Scottish Labour can no longer survive in the margins. It can flourish as a progressive, democratic party with a meaningful role in Holyrood, or it can get out the way and let the rest of us get on with building a better Scotland. That’s for them to decide.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel