Gordon Brown’s the brother I never wished I had

You won’t know me. You live just a few miles along the road from me. I guess almost a neighbour. You are nine years older and maybe in another life that much older revered brother I never had.

I moved to Fife from the Borders in 1986 and as you were the constituency MP for Dunfermline East, which then covered Dalgety Bay, I voted for you in the 1987 election, as well as those for 1992, 1997 and 2001. It was a “no-brainer” as I had voted Labour since I was first able to vote in 1979. I was proud that my local MP was one of the “big beasts” of the Labour movement and one of the most well respected political figures in the UK.

At some point earlier this century I turned my back on the Labour Party, and from then on voted for the SNP. I was never comfortable with “New Labour” anyway but at least they weren’t right-wing Tories and nobody else was going to keep them out of power at the time.

I had always thought the ideal situation would be for Scotland to be an independent country but the SNP had minimal support and my priority was to hopefully never again have right-wing Tories lord it over us. However as more and more disillusioned Scottish Labour voters moved over to the SNP, the prospect of independence also lured me away.

READ MORE: Perhaps even Gordon Brown is realising that poverty is a problem of the UK

Fast forward to last Sunday. Gerry Hassan wrote an excellent piece in the Sunday National entitled “The myth of Brown’s Britain”. In it Gerry referred to your recent essay in the New Statesman, laying out your “credo” for the Union. In it you claimed the England of Marcus Rashford and Gareth Southgate present a different, generous, multi-cultural England that challenges what you saw as the mean-spirited Tories and the Scottish nationalist caricature of England.

I totally agree with your comparison with the Tories. However, I 100% disagree that Scottish nationalism caricatures the whole of England as a blanket right-wing Tory inspired sea of “Brexitness”, as I feel you are implying. It’s just unfortunately that mean-spirited side is the one that keep winning elections.

The bit that really got under my skin though was when Gerry stated, “Brown then takes a giant leap to tar the politics of Scottish nationalism and independence with Brexit and it’s fantasy-land politics”. Gerry then quotes an extract from your essay: “It is a mirror image of the Scottish nationalist playbook, for they also have a one-dimensional and absolutist us-versus-them view of the world.”

Gerry goes on to state, “Posing Scottish independence as the irresponsible twin of the Brexit project is an attempt to frame it in derogatory terms, making it appear not fit for the modern world of interdependence, and drawing from the well of the disaster nationalism that gave us Brexit.”

I agree with Gerry and I’m deeply offended, and also take personal offence that you have given equivalence of my desireto live in an independent Scotland, to the abomination that is Brexit. My values haven’t changed since the 1980’s and 90’s and I’m sure it’s the same for the hordes of other ex-Labour voters that have seen the light.

It’s very simple, not rocket science. Your party lost four elections on the trot from 1979 to 1992 and likewise from 2010 to 2019. This led to extreme right-wing Tory governments that have demolished heavy industry and much of manufacturing in Scotland, chucked hundreds of thousands of our people on to the dole, then latterly decimated benefits to such an extent that many Scottish bairns/weans go to school hungry. Does this happen in other well off European countries to the extreme extent it does in the UK? I don’t even need to answer that question.

It’s about the democratic deficit us Scots have endured for decades.

Returning to my brother theme, I’ve dodged a bullet there. After your “Vow”, it would have been a family at war, fraternal bonds shattered. I think it’s better for my mental health to stick to being an only child!”

Ivor Telfer

Dalgety Bay, Fife

AS reported in The National, we have recently had two Labour politicians, Henry McLeish and Katy Clark, going public with acknowledgements that all is not well with the current UK constitutional arrangements. This week we have seen a new UK Labour leader repeating its patriotism good - nationalism bad mantras and announcing nothing that will attract a greater Labour vote here, Meanwhile, the Labour Party in Scotland remains wedded to the old UK through a mixture of solidarity with workers south of the border alongside the false promise that winning Scottish seats will deliver a Labour majority at Westminster.

Finally, we hear yet again that Gordon Brown is going to review the UK constitution. We could already write his report recommending British values, a regional second chamber at Westminster including Scottish representatives, and greater devolution. This would be the same Gordon Brown who was behind The Vow before the 2014 referendum and signed by the UK Conservative, Labour and LibDem leaders saying each party will deliver “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament, improvements in “the way we are governed”, opportunities to secure the “welfare of every citizen,” the Scottish Parliament having “the final say on how much is spent on the NHS” and that “a No vote will deliver faster, safer and better change.”

The political story since then includes the Labour Party as the most resistant to further devolution within the Smith Commission and the Tories cutting welfare benefits, reneging on pension commitments and opening the door to NHS privatisation through their Internal Market Act. But, the speeches by Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar to the Labour conference confirmed that the party is going to retain the Unionist strategy adopted before the 2014 independence referendum.

Labour is mistaken if it believes it can win back the Scottish lifeblood it lost in its haemorrhaging of votes since the 2014 independence referendum. Even if an indyref 2 in 2023/4 resulted in a Unionist majority, the Yes movement is not going to go away and its demographic of support amongst younger adults would deliver a substantial majority in favour of independence in due course. However, the Labour unionists need to be respected, and their views heard, as an accommodation of their concerns could potentially help increase a referendum vote for independence and reduce fractious divisions before and after the referendum.

One very legitimate concern for all sides of the debate, but maybe especially for Labour unionists, is the future of the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK. The questions about how this relationship would work for an independent Scotland needs to have proposed answers; otherwise, the issue will become as much of a barrier to independence support as the currency question was within the last referendum.

The answer to be expected from the Gordon Brown review will be a devo-max form of federalism. Labour might join the Tories in demanding Devo–Max on indyref ballot papers, with further devolution then excluding powers over foreign affairs, defence and with other exclusions undefined. This would leave us with Brexit’s 6% reduction in Scotland’s wealth (GDP), powerless against UK trade agreements, Scotland’s £18 billion contribution to the development of nuclear weapons, a grossly inflated defence budget and UK government control of immigration. All of these have massive consequences for Scotland’s economy. Whilst the continuation of Westminster power in these areas would be unacceptable, the independence movement needs to recognise that of the £85 billion of Scottish exports, £50 billion is from exports to the rest of the UK. We would also want to retain open borders with RUK and to continue the mutual benefits from UK free movement of labour.

The other nations of the UK are Scotland’s nearest neighbours and our biggest trading partners. We all inhabit the British Isles and will continue to be British, with huge family, institutional and commercial ties. Therefore, whilst a federal system leaving Westminster with ultimate power and control over certain aspects of Scottish government would be inappropriate, a new kind of British Isles Federation will be desirable.

Scandinavia offers an example, which could be followed as a model for the new British federalism.

READ MORE: Gordon Brown is unsuited to solving Labour's Scotland problem

The Nordic Council is the official body providing the means of governmental cooperation with 87 members elected by its constituent parliaments to represent the various political parties of the member states: Denmark; Finland; Iceland; Norway; Sweden and the associate members: the Faroe Islands; Greenland; and the Åland Islands. The Nordic Council is complemented by the intergovernmental Council of Ministers, involving a Minister for Nordic Cooperation designated by each country and other member state Ministers with particular interests, e.g. agriculture, the environment, health and education. The Council elects a President to lead its proceedings and is supported by a Secretary General and Secretariat.

The UK and Scottish Governments are already members of the British–Irish Council, which also has representatives from the administrations in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man.

So, there is already a body, within the present British/Irish Common Travel Area having mutual citizen rights to travel, study, work and access health services across boundaries, in which Scotland could participate as an independent state, alongside any other international European or global partnerships that an independent Scotland may wish to join.

So, the Yes Campaign should reach out to previous No voters in all political parties not only with the slogan Independence in Europe, but also calling for Independence in Britain and we should set out how best both of these aims can be achieved.

Andrew Reid

Comrie, Perthshire