Another guest, this time from Jamie Glackin, Labour activist and SEC Member.
The election result on 5 May was the most significant in living memory. Much has been said about why but after taking some time to reflect on it I would like to contribute to the catharsis. Firstly, as an active member of the Labour Party, I have to conclude that my party leadership can’t carry all the blame. It was a collective and institutional one that we all share in. We did indeed offer a vision for Scotland, but it turned out to be a pretty dismal one.
Unfortunately, our election campaign fell into the trap of thinking that it knew what the voters wanted: Stuff the Tories, Thatcher hate figure, Independence Bogeyman. As the results show, Scotland had its own ideas: A confident Scotland taking its own place in the world, A fair Scotland that is always on the side of hard work and enterprise, and a caring Scotland that always puts its own people at the front of the line, not the back of it. My argument is that all of this can be achieved without the need for full decapitation. But major surgery is required if we want to save the patient.
The reality is that the Labour Party in Scotland is a slave to two masters. On the one hand, Scotland seems quite happy to supply Labour MPs to Westminster, knowing that that they can best elucidate the views of Scotland, albeit in a compromised manner. This is an example of the pragmatism of the Scottish people. We are realistic enough to know what’s on offer and to make an informed choice on that basis. So that bit’s alright then for Scottish Labour? Probably not as it happens, but more on that later.
On the other hand, we have never quite got to grips with devolution, and what that means. And in my view, this is where it all goes wrong. Scottish Labour should be there to facilitate the aspirations of a Nation. And the forum to deliver these aspirations is the Scottish Parliament. Not the other way round. As Labour, we consistently attempted to impose our policies on a public that has long since widened its scope on who it thinks can best represent those aspirations. The recent election campaign served as a reminder of why a race to the bottom in Scottish Politics can only ever result in one winner- the one with the record, freshness and vision. And rather than supply a competing vision, we offered Scotland more of the same. So when SNP members go on television and claim we fought a ‘Negative’ campaign, I believe that they are right. Labour hasn’t fought a positive one since 1997.
Some would have it therefore that Scottish Labour is institutionally incompetent. I think that’s harsh and in throwing missiles at John Smith House actually ignores the real issues facing the Party.
We were founded as a party of the people, and somewhere along the line, an institutional malaise set in. Human nature is a bit like that. We changed, slowly but surely, as champions of the underdog and the working classes to being managerial autocrats. Sure, we knew all the vocabulary required to protect our authority, but failed to connect with the values that saw Labour born at all. People have angrily told me that despite casting their votes Labour’s way for generations, that we still have slums, we still have generational worklessness and we still have a broken underclass, mired in alcohol, violence and substance abuse. Yet prosperity has visited other parts of Scottish society to the extent that a chasm now exists between a relatively small demographic. The issues that we face are so deep rooted that cosmetic changes to our institutions, including the Labour Party, can’t even begin to deal with them.
The challenge facing the Labour Party therefore is how to be the party of the Scottish People again. In my view, we can only hope to attempt to do this when we realise that the fundamental questions we have to address concerns the ambitions of a country. Institutionally regarding Scotland as a region of the Labour Party simply doesn’t cut it.
We can’t even start to think about policy failures until we embrace this point. Whilst there will always be convergence on the policies of the left, last week’s election should leave the Party in no doubt that identity is just as important to the people as policy, if not more so. Indeed, there were many areas of the SNP Manifesto that deserved very close scrutiny. Instead however, they had a free run at a campaign because they knew exactly what they were for and where they were going, to the extent that the policies of the other parties simply didn’t matter. We resorted to tried and tested methods. Vast amounts of doors knocked, thousands if not millions of leaflets distributed, votes counted and in the bag. The SNP had other ideas: a media policy suspiciously short on shortbread tin politics, no lamenting pipers. Only a clear message that regardless of what’s happening at Westminster, only the SNP were capable of delivering a Parliament capable of elucidating Scotland’s identity and ambition.
So let’s face facts. Surely the accusation that we are a party ruled by London is correct? Every member of the NEC resides within the M25 (with the exception of the excellent Callum Munro, the Young Labour Rep.) Colleagues from the North of England have raised concerns about this with me since the election of the NEC last year. I’m not saying for a minute that the current executive are without talent or commitment to the party, but I fear that there is a danger that London-centric ‘Progressiveness’ becomes the dominating mantra of a party that the rest of the UK just doesn’t get. Whilst I don’t know the mind of Ed Miliband, I can’t help thinking that he believes that Scottish Labour lost a Scottish election simply because we lacked a ‘Progressive Centre.’ Whatever that means.
Surely then there can be only one direction of travel for the Scottish Labour Party? As a party we finally need to grapple with the question of what we are for. We are either the voice of our communities or we are not. We are either the voice of industry, of business, of victims of crime and the police, of the hopeless, of the public sector, of taxpayers, of women, of all classes, or we are not. Scotland is a Nation made up of all of these and much more and its from each intertwined strand that a coherent vision for Scotland comes. And in listening to all of our people and in understanding what a country wants, we define what we are for. So there is no need for the perpetual internal argument about shifting to the left or right. The people tell us where they expect us to be and we live up to that expectation. (This lesson applies in England and Wales too!)
I personally believe that when Alex Salmond talks of the ‘Inevitability’ of Independence, that there might be some truth in that, but not to the extent that some of his party would like. The Scottish People are capable of differentiating the hubris of politicians from the issue at large. And two weeks ago they told all the parties in Scotland the direction that they want to go. I believe that closely resembles the Devolution Max option, where Scotland has total fiscal autonomy and responsibility for its own affairs, save those reserved, by agreement of the Scottish people to the UK Government. Opponents will argue that this proposal is Independence Lite, or a guarantee of the break-up of the United Kingdom.
Well, I’m sorry but if it weren’t broke why would be trying to fix it? The Union itself has never been a solid state entity anyway. What it is and how it is viewed has always changed, evolved and adapted. My argument therefore is that the Labour Party has to recognise that the people have spoken and now is the time to start being the party of the people again, regardless of where that might lead us.
For the Scottish Labour Party? I can see little option but exactly that. The Scottish Labour Party, and not the Labour Party in Scotland. Governed in Scotland, by a Scottish Executive robustly representing their constituencies, trade unions and socialist societies, reflecting what people are actually telling them. With a leader who is an MSP and a deputy who is a Westminster MP. With constituency parties representing Holyrood Boundaries, not Westminster ones, holding meetings open to everyone, not just party insiders forming supporters clubs. In short, a Scottish Party with its own unique identity, pressing for the renewal of itself and its country, always recognising the distinctiveness of Scotland. A party that realises that since 1999, we now have a Parliament that is no longer an infant, but ready to take its first steps into adulthood, and all the responsibility that goes with it.
The nitty gritty stuff, I leave up to you. But make no mistake, unless we seize this opportunity to become the party of the People of Scotland with the vision and the ambition that entails, then we are heading very quickly to irrelevance. Given the SNP dominance at Holyrood, the potential is there for policy to creep slowly but surely to the right. Scottish Labour have to play a role in the new Parliament and in the future to challenge this.
And of the referendum? Well we have to face facts and say that we simply don’t know how the Scottish People will vote. It might be for full Independence. And if that’s what Scotland wants, then Scotland will surely get it. And if that happens (which it might,) let’s make sure that there’s a Scottish Labour Party on the other side.
Jamie Glackin
SEC Member
West of Scotland, Mid Scotland & Fife
#1 by Davie Park on May 18, 2011 - 12:53 pm
A convincing analysis of Labour’s problems in Scotland, Jamie.
The question is, will anyone in Scottish Labour have the testicular fortitude to push these arguments when London tries to impose their solution?
Ah hae ma doots.
#2 by Jeff on May 18, 2011 - 1:30 pm
Excellent article Jamie, thanks very much for choosing to post it up here as it wouldn’t be out of place on Labour List or Comment is Free for my money.
Many great ideas and reflections in there but this line stood out for me:
“We changed, slowly but surely, as champions of the underdog and the working classes to being managerial autocrats”
That really neatly sums up the challenge that you and your party have ahead of you. I suspect there is no quick win, but at least you now have time on your side with UK/Scottish/Euro elections a few years off and a new clutch of MSPs not only keen to make their mark but also acutely aware of what the problems of sp11 were.
#3 by Jamie Glackin on May 18, 2011 - 1:58 pm
Many thanks Jeff. As hard as it may be for us, there are positives. This review is long overdue and it gives us the opportunity to reflect and reform. If we take it that is.
‘Change always comes bearing gifts!’
#4 by rlemkin on May 18, 2011 - 2:31 pm
Great piece, I hope for the sake of Scottish politics that the Labour party can reinvigorate itself and re-engage with the people of Scotland.
#5 by Doug Daniel on May 18, 2011 - 2:46 pm
Congratulations Jamie – finally someone in the Labour Party gets it. Scotland is on a journey somewhere, and as you say, whether it is devolution max or full independence, it is up to the people to decide for themselves. Things change, and attempts to hold progress back just result in those who fear that change being left behind, which is what has started happening at Holyrood.
If Labour were to follow your advice here, I think they’d manage to make a pretty swift recovery. Unfortunately, I fear your words will fall on deaf ears. Or should that be blind eyes, since it’s the written word?
Actually, I say “unfortunately”, but as an SNP member it would suit me down to the ground if they ignore these sort of ideas. With Jim Murphy heading the review, I imagine that’s exactly what will happen.
#6 by Charlie Sheret on May 20, 2011 - 9:37 am
Sorry Doug, but somebody got it long before Jamie; Jim Sillars. If we had set up an autonomous Scottish Labour Party at that time, taking forward the points that Jamie is now making, the SNP would never have gained the support that they have. Instead Jim got kicked out of the Party, and our loss was their gain.
#7 by Scottish republic on May 18, 2011 - 3:19 pm
“Given the SNP dominance at Holyrood, the potential is there for policy to creep slowly but surely to the right.””
Would that be the ‘right’ that lead the Labour party to the right of Thatcher with Blair and Brown.
You really haven’t understood that Labour is a right-wing party of finance (everything they touch is privatised or PFI -ed) . The only difference between pro-nuke Labour and the Tories is that Brown wanted slower cuts (albeit severe cuts) and the Tories just couldn’t control themselves.
The Tories are in every way mirrored by Labour. All this talk of trade unionism is living in the past, Labour cares only about the East of England vote.
Creeping towards the right; Labour are way off to the right already.
#8 by Dubbieside on May 18, 2011 - 4:10 pm
“Given the SNP dominance at Holyrood, the potential is there for policy to creep slowly but surely to the right.—
The SNP will never be to the right of Labour. Labour are the party that doubled the starting rate of tax that hit the lowest paid, put up the sick tax (prescription charge) every year when they were in power. These are just two of the many right wing policies that the so called socialists followed.
That aside, will Labour change? I very much doubt it, a start could have been made today when Alex Salmond was elected First Minister and a unanimous vote would have made no difference, but may, just may have signalled to the Scottish electorate that it was not just empty rhetoric but Labour had absorbed the lesson they were given on May 5th. Who would bet on any other outcome than Labour abstaining or voting against every proposal that is put forward by the SNP during this parliament.
Will Jim Murphy change? Do turkeys vote for Christmas? The Labour MPs will defend Westminster until their last political breath, until it looks like their own seats are in danger, then self preservation will take top priority over any other consideration.
BTW I thought that Iain Gray made a very measured and well balanced speech today, it looked like a great weight had been lifted from his shoulders. Patrick Harvie was also very good, ditto Margo, as for the other two, forget it.
#9 by John Ruddy on May 18, 2011 - 6:54 pm
“The SNP will never be to the right of Labour.”
Perhaps the desire to reduce the level of corporation tax and other taxes on big business to levels seen only in tax havens is not right wing?
#10 by cynicalHighlander on May 18, 2011 - 9:22 pm
Or Trident is left! Parties left to right.
Greens and ssp etc then SNP in the centre are LibDems then Labour with Conservatives on the right.
#11 by Tony on May 18, 2011 - 4:34 pm
Having chatted to several labour party members and supporters over recent weeks all voiced the opinion that the SNP should have been attacked as being soft on crime. Even in the face of the evidence that crime is at an all time low they still thought that was the way to go, something that is natural right-wing tory ground. This uniformity epitimised to me how far remover labour really are from ordinary people.
Still the persistant claims – again despite the evidence to the contrary – that the SNP is rippin aff Glesga and only labour can stand upto the Tories blah blah blah. That the SNP are a different party depending on what part of the country you are in was nonsense also.
What bugged me most however was that despite the obvious position on the right labour were still claiming that the SNP are tartan tories. The same old sloganeering undoubtedly rallied much of the auld guard which probably will vote labour in the main until they pop their clogs. It played to the lowest denominater, tribalism and loyalty, nothing new was put forward.
Kidding people on (putting it politely) seemed to be the central thread running through everything labour done, ecapsulated by the ludicrous promise for mandatory gaol sentences that were not mandatory, with no real plans on implementing the folly.
The independence campaign will be interesting, will labour shoot themselves in the foot by going all out for the union despite many of their supporters and members pro-independence and probably the majority not bothered one way or the other?
#12 by An Duine Gruamach on May 19, 2011 - 10:48 am
I dout we saw whit the guid fowk o Glesca thocht o the “ripped aff Glesca” mode o campaignin.
#13 by Gaz on May 18, 2011 - 4:47 pm
Hi Jamie,
I get the feeling that these thoughts have been welling up for some time. It reminds me of the reflections of some of your activist colleagues I spoke to at the count for the West Lothian seats.
The impression I get is that your views are generally not shared by your elected colleagues, especially those at Westminster but unless they embrace them their reckoning will come.
I don’t think the Labour Party will be at all relevant in Scotland until it rejects its paralysing unionism. Most Labour supporters – as opposed to members/activists – are either in favour of or totally relaxed about Independence. If Labour can accept that then, at the very least, they will find a way back post-Independence.
My own view is that the SNP actually know more about Labour supporters than Labour do themselves. We knew the scare stories about Independence could only result in more votes shifting from Labour to SNP. You can’t insult the views of your own folk and expect them to stick by you.
#14 by DougtheDug on May 18, 2011 - 7:09 pm
“Scottish Labour should be there to facilitate the aspirations of a Nation. And the forum to deliver these aspirations is the Scottish Parliament…we have to address concerns the ambitions of a country.”
And there lie some of the problems of Scottish Labour. On the one hand the party’s main and at times it seems only objective is to keep Scotland as a UK region while at the same time ensuring that the Scottish Parliament is as close to a large regional council as possible but on the other hand it refers to Scotland as a nation and a country. If you want to facilitate the aspirations of a nation then perhaps the best thing to do is to make it a nation with a national parliament which unfortunately goes against the core principle of the Labour party in Scotland. There is a doublethink in this article where Scotland is referred to as both a nation and a country by the party which is the main block to making it more than a region and a clue to the Labour party’s thinking on self-determination and Scottish identity is contained in the ever present words “shortbread” and “pipers” which appear in depressing regularity whenever the SNP is mentioned.
The idea that Scotland will ever get, “Devo Max”, which is a common catchphrase but a nebulous concept of extensive but undefined powers, is wrong. Even though the SNP were riding high in the polls at the time of its deliberations all the Calman Commission could come up with was a solution which consisted of changing the current unused 3p in the pound tax varying power to a 10p in the pound power and the control over a small set of minor taxes. Independence can be taken by the Scottish people but, “Devo Max”, whatever it actually is, has to be agreed by Westminster and the idea that a Westminster controlled Calman2 will ever come up with financial autonomy as a recommendation is laughable.
Currently there is no, “Scottish Labour Party”, and unless the Labour party members in Scotland leave Labour and form their own Scottish Labour party there never will be. There is even a problem for those who just want more autonomy for the Scottish region of the Labour party because if Labour in Scotland gets some autonomy then Labour in London, Wales and even regions of England will also want autonomy. I very much doubt if the Labour party will allow Scotland more autonomy in isolation from the rest of the party regions. Creating a Scottified Labour party region may be an attractive option but perhaps the Lib-Dems should be taken as a warning from history. Even though the Lib-Dems in Scotland have regional autonomy the electorate correctly identified them as integral to the Lib-Dem party and punished them accordingly.
“And of the referendum? Well we have to face facts and say that we simply don’t know how the Scottish People will vote.”
And if Labour still had the controlling vote in the Scottish Parliament we would never know.
#15 by Brian Nicholson on May 18, 2011 - 7:23 pm
Alll this energy trying to put the genie back in the bottle is effort wasted. You commented that it is hard to serve masters yet you are incapable of seeing the contradiction when you advocate a Scottish parliament and a Westminster Parliament both within the union.
You expressed concerns about harshness of language but used the word “decapitation” to describe what many Scots feel is a removal of shackles. Despite your attempt to promote a Scottish controlled and managed party, you are unwilling to disconnect it from London or to see its standing other than through rose coloured glasses.
what this article offers is new management and rebranding exercise when what is need is a termination of a failed effort.
A phoenix cannot rise without the ashes, yet Labour wants the bird to arise without purifying flames present.
#16 by haarandrime on May 18, 2011 - 8:18 pm
A refreshingly honest appraisal of where it all went wrong for Labour. I voted Labour for most of my life in England but stopped over the Iraq war. On coming to Scotland and discovering Scottish politics I have been astounded by the attitude of Labour to the SNP government. I hope you get the review you want as there is a real need for a multitude of voices in the Scottish parliament but those voices have to used in a constructive way.
I think Alan Trench in this article http://devolutionmatters.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/devolution-and-the-gap-between-public-expectations-and-constitutional-reality-2008-unlock-democracy-book-chapter.pdf
gives a very good analysis of Labour’s hopes for devolution and addresses the question of why Labour never got to grips with it. It also seems very prescient in its predictions of the unintended results from such a muddled thinking . He states:
“It is a sad comment on Labour’s constitutional management that what should have been one of its crowning, if slow-developing, achievements, may have failed to deliver any of its expected political benefits. It is worse that this failure should also have put the Union (which it was meant to preserve) at risk, and with it Labour’s ability to win Westminster elections.”
#17 by Allan on May 18, 2011 - 8:22 pm
Firstly, congratulations on a good honest post.
The malase sprouted up because of two things. Firstly the Scottish working classes started voting en mass for Labour, this began to become noticable in the late 1970’s. As a result the confidence of candidates began to spill into overconfidence resulting in empire building at council level – municipalism. When the municipalists – who had prospered since the heyday of Thatcher (as a result of voting against the Tories) – stepped up to Scottish Parliament level, they were found wanting with their outmoded ideas.
Secondly, while Scotland voted Labour en mass, the London heirarchy steadily took the party ever rightwards. When Blair became leader, he suddenly positioned Labour on the centre-right in terms of crime and economic policy. Labour people thought that they would get away with propagating right wing policies with a red rosette – until the banking crisis, until they doubled the tax rate for low earners and probably untill the bills for the shiney new schools started to cripple Education departments up and down the country (£800 million for last year alone).
Unfortunately (for New Labour), the malase is still there. Milliband the younger saw the Scottish Parliament as the first step towards No 10, seeing Scotland as Labour’s own kingdom, while Balls (who still advocates “light touch regulation” in front of city audiences) came up to lecture us on the realities of a vote for the SNP. You won’t get anywhere with Jim Murphy as chairman of any review.
I suppose the best thing you could do is go back to basics. “Scottish solutions to scottish problems”. Well this is a problem that could have concequences for May 7th 2015 – when the next Westminster Election is penciled in for.
#18 by Stuart on May 18, 2011 - 8:29 pm
Like many others I agree with what is said in this article. However, ONE thing really really does annoy me with Labour members/supporters is that it is somehow their party’s god given right to represent EVERYONE in Scotland.
Sorry, but I’m left wing, pro union, pro equailty and I have no plans to ever be involved in the Labour Party. And for the Labour Party (even their brightest lights) to consistently portray themselves as to have the right to represent people like myself still shows there is a huge amount of intolerance for differing views, a tribalism and an anti-pluralistic element to Labour that I detest.
I would have thought this election would have made Labour members realise this- that they can’t be all things to all men. We don’t live in the early 20th Century anymore, society is more complex now, and people have very differing views and political stances. Stop trying to be everything to everyone, and learn to work co-operatively with other groups who may not be in the Labour “Movement” (I prefer club) but still have similar goals.
#19 by Brian Nicholson on May 18, 2011 - 11:54 pm
For many Scots, the Labour brand is stained by its history with Westminster and the attitudes of its leadership over the last two decades. As a former staunch supporter, nothing could convince me to return as long as the party remained branded as Labour and tied to the English party. I have spoken to thousands who share that view.
If the unionist parties wish to truly be seen as Scottish, they needed to form new parties, independent of other alliances, and preferably with a new brand which would showcase their core beliefs.
Otherwise as the vote support dwindles so does the relevance of the parties.
#20 by Stuart Dickson on May 19, 2011 - 3:56 am
Now looks unlikely that we’ll be having a Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath by-election on the same day as Inverclyde:
‘Brown’s IMF hopes fade’
“The Swedish finance minister dealt another blow to Gordon Brown’s already slim chances of becoming the next leader of the IMF yesterday, saying he is “not right†for the job. Anders Borg believes Brown’s financial record should count against him…”
Latest Inverclyde best prices:
Lab 4/11 (Stan James)
SNP 3/1 (Paddy Power)
Con 100/1 (William Hill)
LD 150/1 (William Hill)
#21 by Doug Daniel on May 19, 2011 - 11:33 am
“Anders Borg believes Brown’s financial record should count against him…â€
What a preposterous idea!!!
Ahem…
#22 by Don on May 22, 2011 - 6:42 pm
“Anders Borg believes Brown’s financial record should count against him…—
But, but, but according to the Labour party, Brown saved the world (making him a legend in his own mind). Surely that’s not a bad thing for the leader of the IMF!
#23 by Nick on May 20, 2011 - 2:25 am
‘We are either the voice of industry, of business, of victims of crime and the police, of the hopeless, of the public sector, of taxpayers, of women, of all classes, or we are not’
You are either the voice of the capitalist class or of the working class, you can’t be both, away and decide whose side you’re on
#24 by Scott on May 20, 2011 - 9:35 am
Well done Jamie. I’m fairly active in the SNP in the same area as Jamie and he is head and shoulders above most Labour elected members in any chamber and unlike many Labour people I have come accross he is always engaging polite and magnanimous, even in extremely political circumstances. Great article.
#25 by Dave MacLurg on May 20, 2011 - 8:17 pm
Many good points have been raised. However I feel that to concentrate on separatism either in the :Labour Party or of Scotland from the UK is a retrograde step. These days it is closer cooperation and interdependance that is the right way to go. “In unity is strength”. I will welcome the referendum when it comes as a chance to say NO to independence. Even the SNP are backing off from independence, they want to share armies, embassies and loads of other things that are too costly and pointless for a small group of people to support. I just wish they would not talk of independence whenit is not.
The Labour Party came into existance as the political voice of the unions. Sine then the power and membership of the unions has declined significantly. Labour did try to move to a wider constituency but just went right towards the conservatives, privatising sectors that are too imortant to fail and bowing to the mercies and dominance of “the markets”. Labour needs to connect with the people again and that is, as Jamie rightly point out, in communities of all sorts. Communities must become the grass roots of Labour and that does include the communities of people who work and organise in unions.
Scottish Labour needs to focus on its communities and that probably does not mean jumping on the independence bandwagon but going out to talk to the people and to listen to them. The SNP have not been bound by philosophies such as socialism or capilatism so they are able to listen to the people and it has paid off.
The personality of Alex Salmond has also been a significant factor when the other parties don’t have someone with the same sparkle. Be that as it may it is by focusing on the people that elections will be won.
Nothing is to be gained by splitting into smaller and smallers groupt until we’re just back to a whole crowd of individuals just wanting to fight with everyone else who infringes on them in any way. It was by joining together and focusing on what we have in common that we have built stable democratic peaceful societies. “Look at what unites us not at what divides us.”
#26 by Don on May 22, 2011 - 6:29 pm
Iain Gray’s congratulatory speech to Alex Salmond the other day gave those of us who have grown to loath the man an insight in to the real Iain Gray. And I have to admit, he came across as the man that SLAB tried so hard to convince us he really was. The irony is, that now the pressure to adhere to Labour’s strategy in Scotland has been removed from him, Iain Gray could actually turn out to be the best leader the current Labour group in Holyrood will ever have.
Which brings us to Labour’s problem. Despite Iain Gray’s assertion the wee Milliband “gets Scotland”, the evidence overwhelmingly reveals he absolutely doesn’t. Being able to point to Scotland on a map doesn’t automatically instill the intimate knowledge of Scotland that her peoples expect, nay demand. In this fault, young Milliband is in some infamous company – Thatcher didn’t “get” Scotland either and that failing still haunts the tory party north of the border.
The Labour party have claimed they will learn the lessons and have instigated a review. However, now that they have their sacrificial lamb in Iain Gray, the man who will carry all the blame for Labour’s failings (how did things work out for Labour south of the border?), it appears that the review will be a “going through the motions exercise” with absolutely zero changes. The arrogance of the Westminster labour MPs, who still don’t realise that there is a very fine line between running down the SNP and running down Scotland (Scotland’s too poor, too wee, too stupid – look at the Scottish banking crisis), especially when they share a platform with the Lib Dems to do so (the party that willingly sells its soul – and principles – for power), is highlighted by the fact that, by all the evidence available, they have already made up their minds that more Westminster control is the answer.
That’s fine. It’s actually starting to really annoy me that all these bloggers, journalists and political pundits think that there is a need to help the labour party fix their problems in Scotland. I don’t. I’m watching what’s happening from the sidelines and am finding it hard to suppress a hearty guffaw. Without radical change, and I don’t think the Labour party is capable of such a change, the party that SLAB hold up as the bogeyman in Scotland whilst trying so hard to emulate in the South of England, will be seen to have trailblazed the route of SLAB. And whilst Jackie Baille will never be as much loved as Auntie Bella, she will be no more relevant from a Scottish point of view.