Labour need to tell a new story about Scotland

Everything eventually changes. ­After 16 years, the SNP are finally showing signs of wear and tear and division. Yet where there should be competition from opposition parties there is currently just a vacuum.

The absence of a viable opposition diminishes ­politics. It has dramatically narrowed the range and dynamism of what is discussed and atrophied ­democracy. Ultimately, it has acted to the detriment of the SNP in office as the party’s leadership have fallen for the belief that they can dominate domestic politics without being seriously challenged.

As the Tory Party are engulfed in successive crises, UK Labour have built a sizeable lead which point towards a Tory defeat next year. The SNP’s patchy record in office, combined with the unexpected shift from Nicola Sturgeon to Humza Yousaf and ongoing troubles over financial governance, has seen Scottish Labour’s poll ratings rise. In comparison to 2019, there are strong expectations that they will make gains next year.

All of this poses questions for Scottish Labour. Many decades ago, voters knew what the party stood for when it championed a vision of Scotland that ­liberated working people and championed wider opportunity and choice aided by an interventionist state. But, as Labour took their dominance in Scotland as a given, their arrogance and taking voters for granted became more entrenched; voters eventually noted this and turfed them out.

Today Scottish Labour have become advocates for resisting far-reaching change in the Union and across the UK. In part, this is fear of playing into SNP ­territory but it is also about more including a lack of critique about what the UK is and who gains from its present power structures. And besides this, it is engaged in a bitter conflict with the Welsh Labour Party.

For many independence supporters, the case against Scottish Labour is clear. There is a view that they are not really Scottish, that “Scottish Labour is a fiction” and is – in the words of Johann Lamont – “a branch office” that Westminster is ­contemptuous of. And there is also a view from some that they are not really Labour and are the equivalent of “Red ­Tories” which, in its more extreme argument, claims no ­difference between Labour and Tories.

Both these perspectives are grounded in one ­interpretation of facts and taken to levels of ­caricature. The Scottish Labour Party are not a fully autonomous, independent entity, and have clear ­drawbacks in how they do politics, act and are perceived. But they do ­exist – just not as a completely separate entity from the rest of British Labour.

On the second argument, to say there is little ­difference between Labour and Tories and their ­parties in Westminster government flies in the face of most voters in Scotland. SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said recently “Keir Starmer is little more than David Cameron with a red tie”. This is not grown-up politics, and the SNP do not, in reality, see an equivalence between Labour and SNP, being clear that in a hung Westminster Parliament, they would never support a Tory government, marking a clear distinction between the two.

With British Labour on the way up ­electorally and the chance of the Tories losing next year a ­distinct possibility, Scottish Labour have to address a ­number of issues. Scottish Labour need to ­eventually ­become unambiguously Scottish Labour, and eventually become an autonomous party. They have to stand for Scotland’s right to decide its own future. And they have to oppose the hard Brexit which the Tories have ­imposed on Scotland and the UK.

READ MORE: Labour MSP candidate quits party amid savage attack on Keir Starmer

Scottish Labour need a different approach to ­politics. A new generation of Scottish Labour ­politicians do not see the need to continually be in an existential conflict with the SNP, rather seeing them as just another political party.

Labour MSPs such as Paul Sweeney, Monica ­Lennon and Daniel Johnson bring a fresh approach to how the party does politics, and are not hung up on past battles and grudges. Yet this is still not where Scottish Labour sit as a leadership or party culture. The likes of Anas Sarwar, or potential ­returnee MP Douglas Alexander, still have openly ­antagonistic attitudes to the SNP and ­independence.

More seriously, the party’s culture and DNA have not moved ­fundamentally in 16 years of opposition. There has been no collective assessment of why Labour were booted out in Scotland, or attempt to ­understand the appeal of ­independence and the SNP. The party’s inner world has yet to be shifted by the rising new ­generation of voices and ­instead a dead shell exists around the party ­preventing new life and intelligence from ­becoming Labour’s raison d’etre. The old ­sensibilities will eventually have to die off for a renewed party to emerge, otherwise, Labour will continue to be shaped by the past.

There is a fundamental difference ­between Scottish and British Labour. The dynamics of Starmer’s Labour point in the opposite direction to Scottish ­Labour. Labour in England need to win votes and seats from the Tories, and therefore feel that they need to appeal to right-wing voters on a range of issues from Brexit to immigration. Hence, there is the crushing aspect of Labour parroting such right-wing messaging as “make Brexit work” and “Stop the boats”.

This brings us to five big challenges that Scottish Labour have to address, champion and act upon now, and in the run-up to the 2024 UK election. These would not only benefit Scottish Labour, but contribute to a more dynamic Scottish politics, and ultimately aid a better SNP and independence.

First, there is the content of their ­policies. These could say something about ­Scotland that goes beyond ­itemising what is wrong and laying that all at the door of the SNP. Going beyond critique and saying what everyone expects them to say about ­modern Scotland, Labour’s policies could offer an alternative ­vision of ­Scotland that is uplifting, positive and filled with possibilities, and that ­recognises the collective potential of the people of this country.

Second, Labour’s tone and attitude would at last indicate that Labour ­recognise Scotland has changed from the days when the word of Labour was law and went unchallenged. It would be a ­dispensation and attitude which ­personified that Labour not only ­recognised that Scotland had changed, but that Labour themselves had changed, ­recognising the limitations of their old ways, and were willing, even happy, to adopt new uncharted ways and politics.

Too often Labour come across as ­miserabilist, scowling at the SNP and ­detesting all things nationalist to the point it comes over as slightly unhinged. Labour need a different voice; this was obvious in 2007 but things did not change. The painful experience of 2014 (more on which below) should have been even more of a wake-up call but it still did not lead to change. The beginnings of that change are present in that new ­generation of voices, but they have to overthrow the old, or persuade them of the need for change.

Third, Scottish Labour needs a ­different approach to the Union. One that is less like Gordon Brown, and more like Mark Drakeford, leader of Welsh Labour and First Minister of Wales. Scottish ­Labour’s tragedy has been that it boxed itself into a cul-de-sac in the 2014 indyref. This was not just about joining with the Tories (and LibDems) in Better Together; ­rather it was the profound shift in ­Labour’s ­messaging on the Union which has left it with an enduring problem.

READ MORE: Hulk actor Mark Ruffalo calls on Rishi Sunak to tax the rich

Labour in 2014 ended up ­arguing the case for the Union as an end in ­itself: an absolute principle. This was an ­unconditional argument for ­union ­irrespective of what the Union ­represented and an inflexible ­British ­nationalist argument. Hence when ­Labour politicians like Brown made the case that this was “a social justice union” and “union for social justice”, they were flying in the face of not only the reality of the UK (one of the most unequal countries in the developed world) they were undermining their own unconditional argument for the Union.

Labour has ended up advocating what is, in essence, the Tory ­unapologetic ­argument for the Union whatever the ­circumstances. The Labour case for ­union in the past, and which needs to be remade now, says that the Union is not as an end itself but a means to an end. That qualification would allow Scottish Labour a degree of distance and qualification in how it views the Union – and to advocate for a different union.

This has ramifications in the here and now in how different parts of the ­Labour coalition understand the Union. ­Drakeford talks with ease about a “union of four territories”, the importance of sovereignty and even of Scotland having the right to decide its own future.

Whenever Drakeford does this, it is a red rag to a bull to Scottish Labour. ­According to one party insider north of the Border: “When Drakeford goes down this line, the Scottish party gets on the phone and complains to Starmer’s ­office.”

This dynamic is confirmed by Welsh ­Labour. One party figure told me that when this happens, Starmer’s operation gets on the phone, and that causes much ­annoyance. “We are fed up being told off and being told to cling on to what is in ­effect a Tory interpretation of the ­constitution which does not help Labour in Wales or elsewhere.”

Fourth, embracing a different union would assist Labour in understanding the nature of the UK. This is about more than constitutional matters, but about where power sits, who exercises it, and how they do so. The many interventions of Brown and his Devolution ­Commission cloud the waters. A programme which centres on what is in effect English ­local ­government piecemeal reform is not ­fundamental reform – and a plan for a new second chamber replacing the House of Lords is going to be kicked into any ­Labour second term.

Drakeford and previous Welsh first minister Carwyn Jones have shown the way. They have articulated a different vision of the UK that challenges traditional Tory and Labour accounts. They recognise that the problem is the political centre, its ­undemocratic mindset and its clinging to monopoly power. The place in the UK where Labour has been most successful in the devolution era, and indeed over the last century, is not accidently the place which most understands what is wrong with the present UK. Take note, Scottish Labour.

A Scottish Labour senior figure ­summarises the trap they believe the ­party have fallen into: “Scottish ­Labour embrace a hugely unimaginative, ­conservative take on the UK. They ­cannot grasp this needs to change.”

They conclude with the following ­observation: “The party has to stop ­looking like it is standing up for ­Britain in Scotland and instead stand up for ­Scotland in Britain. These are two ­entirely different things – and the gap ­between the two has grown as the UK has become an increasingly hostile place for so many people to live in.”

A Welsh Labour insider observed to me: “Wales is a sovereign nation. The UK has to be a union of consent, not a union of being told you have to belong to it. That is the future Scottish Labour have to embrace.”

READ MORE: Alba to publish legal expert's review of Supreme Court indyref ruling

FIFTH, if all of the above were not enough there is one more requirement for Scottish Labour to be looked at anew. They need to tell a new story of Scotland. What would that new story entail? That new story would not (as too much of Scottish Labour do) hark back to the party’s past, yearning for some golden era of “Red Clydeside”, the ILP and a more straightforward class politics of Labour versus the Tories.

Instead, they would look at the present-day ­picture of Scotland – about ­inequalities, ­inequities, poverty, powerlessness and the closed shop of insider Scotland – and be an unapologetic champion for change. They would call time on this ­country’s ­establishment classes – political, ­administrative, professional, civic and business – and demand that they change their ways, and if they did not reform them by legislation.

This would be a Labour Party that had learnt and absorbed the lessons of why they were defeated. Namely that they had become a party of the system, the elites and ­vested interests. They would finally recognise that after 16 years of opposition they could not go back to the old ways and instead had to articulate an insurgency politics: of ­challenging the SNP and ­institutional Scotland to represent the values of a ­progressive, inclusive, centre-left country.

The Scottish Labour Party have to ­embrace a politics of change, and not cling to the status quo in Scottish public life, in relation to the Union and nature of the UK. There is an obvious terrain on the first which is there to be captured and championed, but which the party has failed to do over 16 years.

On the second and third, the ­party must stop clinging to outdated, ­reactionary ideas of the Union and the UK. This brings us back to their long-running ­disagreement with Welsh Labour. The Welsh Labour insider reflects that “they despair at ­Scottish Labour”. The ­Scottish Labour senior source states that “the Scottish party have much more clout with the British party than Welsh ­Labour. This is historical, about independence, and the electoral importance of Scotland.”

Labour currently have a single Scottish Westminster seat, and 22 of 40 in Wales, and hope to make gains in Scotland.

One difference between Welsh and Scottish ­Labour is how they ­understand national identities and ­respective nationalist parties. Welsh ­Labour are in a co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru. More than this they unambiguously embrace their Welshness.

The Welsh Labour insider reflects: “Our tanks are firmly parked on the lawn of national identity, culture and ­autonomy. It is part of who we are; not about who we are against.”

There is a lesson for Scottish Labour who used to sit on this ground in the 1980s, but have now vacated it to the SNP.

Dramatic change and disruption are coming to British and Scottish politics. The UK Labour Party will more than likely win power next year and face huge challenges and constraints. This will ­provide a major opportunity for Scottish Labour to speak with a new voice and break with the past.

Do they have the ambition and imagination to make that leap? Can they be an advocate for change across the UK? Can they challenge the insider class politics in Scotland they used to benefit from and which the SNP now embody? Or do they want to cling to the wreckage of the old order here and across the UK and pine for the return of the old ways which are not coming back? This is a choice for Scottish Labour which cannot be avoided.