IT often seems to me that historians and history writers are preoccupied with rewriting history, or revisionism as it’s called. I am no revisionist, though occasionally I do like to take a different look at an event.
During the week I had cause to look afresh at the Hamilton by-election victory by Winnie Ewing in 1967 – which I wrote about extensively some years ago as visitors to The National website saw on the day of her death. There is no doubt that her by-election win caused a colossal shock in the body politic of Scotland and Westminster, and it was unexpected even by most SNP members. The bookies had Labour as 1-10 favourites for Hamilton, but even they got it drastically wrong – most unusual for them.
At this point, may I pay a personal tribute to Madame Ecosse who I met on a few occasions, the most memorable of which was when she was at a party featuring young Scots during her time as the MP for Moray and Nairn.
READ MORE: Winnie Ewing in pictures: The life of a Scottish independence legend
I recall her appropriately singing that ancient ballad The Bonnie Earl O’ Moray and listening with rapt attention as our local barber shop quartet gave their brilliant rendition of Parcel Of Rogues. Her eyes moist with tears, I remember thinking that here was the real deal, a patriot first and foremost, and I never had cause to change my mind on that.
I also remember watching spellbound on May 12, 1999, as we waited for the Mother of the devolved Scottish Parliament to take the chair in the General Assembly Hall of the Church of Scotland and preside over the start of its first meeting. I was not privy to any of the briefings given to the press prior to that historic moment so wondered what she was going to say, and I hoped her remarks would be historic. She did not let me down.
“I want to start with the words that I have always wanted either to say or to hear someone else say – the Scottish Parliament which adjourned on March 25, 1707, is hereby reconvened.”
That was actually a bit naughty of her as the Scottish Parliament was technically dissolved and the 1999 version was a new Parliament, not a continuation of the old one. But typically of Winnie, she caught the mood of the occasion.
I also recall her referring to the Earl of Seafield’s words when he signed the Act of Union 292 years previously – “there is ane end to ane auld sang”. Again Winnie caught the positive mood of the day when she said: “We can begin to write the new Scottish song.”
I also often remember other words of her that day, calling on the new MSPs to “follow the more consensual style of the European parliament and say goodbye to the badgering and backbiting that one associates with Westminster”.
Pity Holyrood seems to have forgotten that exhortation.
Going back to that Hamilton by-election which obviously featured in every story about her death, with the obituaries all centring on that amazing victory, I was taken to task by a reader after my original piece on Hamilton, 1967. As a result of that email, I have further researched the circumstances of Winnie’s wonderful win and have to conclude that while it was a surprise and a shock, nevertheless it was not totally unexpected and was the culmination of SNP changes in Scotland in the mid-1960s.
I have had to ask myself would Winnie Ewing have won Hamilton if there had not been the Pollok by-election earlier that year?
Professor James Mitchell’s excellent book Hamilton 1967 – The By-Election That Transformed Scotland published in 2017 by Luath Press is the best and most comprehensive account of Winnie’s victory and gives due attention to the Pollok by-election which was caused by the death of sitting Labour MP Alex Garrow at the age of just 43.
Garrow had won the seat in the 1964 general election and increased his majority in 1966, but it was still seen as a Labour-Tory marginal when the by-election was called for March 9, 1967. The SNP had not even bothered to put up a candidate in 1966, and the constituency association was in some disarray – Mitchell discovered from SNP reports that in July 1965, it had just four members and £37 in funds.
Following the West Lothian by-election of 1962 when Labour’s Tam Dalyell beat William Wolfe with a reduced majority, the SNP leadership brought in a more professional organisation for contesting by-elections and imposed a levy on constituencies and branches. There were still precious few feet on the ground for the SNP in Pollok when the campaign started.
Labour’s candidate was Dick Douglas, a well-known local councillor, while the Tories put up Glasgow University history professor Esmond Wright who enjoyed some celebrity for his regular television appearances.
SNP candidate George Leslie, a vet, had no profile at the beginning but Mitchell described him as “able, charismatic and energetic.
It was thought to be Douglas v Wright with the rest nowhere but then something remarkable happened. After early teething troubles, the SNP nationally got their act in gear and soon activists were pounding the streets of Pollok – every house was canvassed and 60% were canvassed twice.
The style of SNP campaigning changed. Mitchell quotes James Kellas, doyen of Scottish political studies, as saying: “It had been something new in Scotland’s dreary electioneering: it deliberately imported American-style motorcades, drum majorettes, jazzy literature and an all-pervasive fly-posting”.
Wright still won for the Conservatives with a majority of 2308 over Labour’s Douglas but what was this? From nowhere, the SNP’s Leslie won 10,884 votes or 28.16% of the vote.
The party learned its lessons – get an excellent candidate and be ready to go from day one or even before.
The SNP bandwagon had begun to roll in Pollok, and it carried on to Hamilton and the extraordinary success of Winnie Ewing, which really did mark the start of the modern SNP.
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