Scottish Politics

Will Scottish Labour EVER Gain a Seat from the SNP?

Labour has never won a Scottish Parliament Constituency from the SNP.

In fact, Labour has never gained a Scottish Parliament Constituency from any of the other parties. These facts, I’ve found, tend to startle my comrades in the Scottish Labour Party when they learn them. And quite rightly too when one considers that the SNP now hold 52 out of 73 Scottish Parliament Constituencies. Even if the SNP doesn’t win a single Regional List seat in 2016 hanging onto that 52 would be a bigger win than Jack McConnell achieved in 2003. The SNP has only ever lost ONE Scottish Parliament Constituency, and that was Galloway and Upper Nithsdale to Alex Fergusson in 2003.

In hindsight, the only real opportunity the Scottish Labour Party has ever had of poaching a seat off of the SNP came in 2003. In that election there was only one SNP held constituency in which Labour were within 10 percentage points of the SNP: Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, with a majority of just 441 (or 1%). It also bore the dubious distinction of being the only seat at that time to be held by Labour in Westminster but by the SNP at Holyrood. Not only was the Scottish Labour party unable to gain this seat, and not only did the SNP more than double their majority, but the SNP also snatched Ochil, Aberdeen North and Dundee East from Labour despite suffering a net loss of 8 seats overall. Though little significance was attached to these results at the time they foreshadowed the very real difficulty Scottish Labour has in winning seats back once lost to the SNP.

Even if one looks through the doldrums of history to the dark days of the SNP, Labour has only ever won 4 seats back from the SNP: East Dunbartonshire and Clackmannan & East Stirling in ’79, and Dundee East and the Western Isles in ’87. Labour has never won a seat from the SNP in a by-election.

I offer no explanation as to how or why SNP incumbents are hard to shift. The problem, however, doesn’t appear to be that SNP incumbents simply dig-in their heels (though as one former colleague remarked to me recently “the bastards make bloody good MSPs!”) The problem, I fear, is much more deeply rooted in that once Scots break their lifetime habit of voting Labour it’s very difficult to win them back. If this is indeed the case then the new leader of the Scottish Labour Party, whomever they might be, has a far greater mountain to climb than perhaps they realise.

Independence: Time for a Substantive Debate

There will be a referendum on Scottish independence. This fact, I fear, so many in my party have yet to grasp. It’s understandable given that the SNP have already been in power for over four years, and were presented with an offer (the sincerity of which I would doubt) of Parliamentary support for a referendum by Wendy Alexander. It’s clear that Alex Salmond’s government aren’t in any rush to hold a referendum, knowing full well what a “no” vote could potentially do to his party, and the present timetable puts the holding a referendum eight clear years after the SNP first winning power. Nonetheless the SNP’s healthy majority in the Scottish Parliament means Alex Salmond has no excuse for not holding one by the end of this Parliamentary session.

With the exception of Henry McLeish’s recent intervention, the constitutional debate thus far has focused on the timing of a referendum, as well as a somewhat binary argument about the merits of separation. Very little regard has been paid to the substantial questions surrounding what an independent Scotland would actually look like. This, I suspect, is largely to do with an apprehension on the part of unionist parties towards accepting independence as a premise for discussions about Scotland’s future for fear of lending it credence. The SNP, meanwhile, are quite content for the details to be deliberately vague, allowing them to focus instead on populist arguments about sovereignty and self determination. I would contend, therefore, that without a serious debate about what sort of society an independent Scotland would actually look like then the unionist cause is doomed to failure.

So far, the only template we have to work from is the SNP’s Constitution for a free Scotland drafted in 2002. Oddly enough this hasn’t received very much attention since the SNP came to power, from politicians or scholars alike – with the exception of Bulmer’s recent study in Parliamentary Affairs. Written by former leader Bob MacIntyre and renowned constitutional scholar Sir Neil McCormick, the document appears at least to have entered SNP canon.

On the whole the document largely follows the Westminster model. It provides for a Constitutional Monarchy, with Crown prerogative being exercised by the Executive who, in turn, are drawn from the unicameral legislature. This approach is understandable given the desire of nationalists to present independence as being as unfrightening as possible. However this in itself poses the question: if you’re going to design a system from scratch, why on earth would you choose the one we’ve got?

My comrades in the Labour Party will testify to the fact that I’m most certainly not a republican in so far as the United Kingdom is concerned however it strikes me that the arguments which are usually proffered in favour of retention of the monarchy, being tradition and tourism, don’t really apply. The Constitution also provides that :

During any period of absence of the Monarch from Scotland, the Chancellor of Scotland (the elected presiding officer of Parliament) shall act as Head of State

Given that we could expect the Sovereign to be absent from Scotland for the vast majority of every year the Presiding Officer of Parliament would inevitably become the de facto head of state. This compromise between the traditional role of the monarch and an indirectly elected head of state seems to be imbued with the worst of both worlds – lacking the legitimacy of a directly elected head of state or the credibility of the British Sovereign.

Alex Salmond regularly asserts upon swearing his oath that he believes in the “ancient Scots Constitutional Principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign” (though where in our present constitution he finds that principle is beyond me) – why, therefore, would we design a system where sovereignty appears to flow from the top? There is no basis in popular sovereignty for the concept of “crown prerogative” and yet that is precisely what this constitution provides for.

Turning to the legislature, the Constitution provides for a single chambered parlaiment with committies similar in character to those in the present Scottish Parliament. It attempts to stymie the power of the majority in the legislature by providing that any measure can be delayed for 18-months by a two-fifths majority in Parliament. This, surely, simply means that governments will force through their least popular legislation legislation early in the parliamentary session and and the tail-end of any session could well end up being gridlocked. Furthermore, the committees appear to have no greater role than they do in the present Scottish Parliament. While the work of some of the committees over the past 12 years is to be commended they have not, on the whole, proved to be the effective check they were supposed to be.

Insofar as local government is concerned the draft constitution says little, but what is does say contradicts itself. It guarantees local government “genuine autonomy” from central government, yet in the same clause gives parliament a general power to legislate for local government – presumably including to potentially scrap it. Surely genuinely autonomous local government would be prescribed by the constitution, with its powers, functions and revenue guaranteed therein?

I offer these merely as illustrations of the various questions that surround Scotland’s constitutional future. Nationalists propose independence as a means of delivering a new Scotland, but you barely have to scratch the surface to see that what’s on offer hardly differs from the Scotland we’ve got. Political parties need to fully engage not simply with the question of whether or not Scotland should be independent but of what that independent Scotland would look like. For the nationalists it’s a chance to paint a new picture, of a daring new political structure where sovereignty genuinely flows from the people. For the unionists it’s a chance to highlight how shallow the change that’s on offer really is. Which ever side of the debate does this first will likely win the argument.

How the Scottish Labour Leadership contest should look (but won’t)

Perhaps the greatest service Tom Harris has ever done for the Scottish Labour Party is to try to flush out contenders for the Scottish Labour Party’s leadership, by declaring that if no one good stands – he will. While Deputy Leader Johann Lamont is widely expected to run others potential contenders like Ken MacIntosh, Jackie Baillie and Hugh Henry seem to have gone off the idea – and who can blame them?

Despite resistance from some MSPs the expectation is that the review led by Jim Murphy and Sarah Boyack is to recommend that the leader of the Scottish Labour Party can be drawn from elected representatives in The Scottish Parliament, Westminster, or the European Parliament. In theory that could mean a busy leadership contest with a wide variety of candidates, and a genuine debate about the future of the party – but I fear that may be wishful thinking. Here’s who I think should run, but probably won’t:

David Martin MEP

David is one of the most senior Members of the European Parliament, having been elected for the Lothians Constituency in 1984. He was Vice-President of the European Parliament and is currently a senior member of the Parliament’s influential Trade Committee. He could certainly take-on Salmond in Statesmanliness, having been one of Scotland’s overseas representatives for the best part of 30 years.

Now based in Bearsden David straddles the East-West divide quite nicely. He’d make an ideal candidate for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, as well as the West of Scotland list. Though he can often appear decidely middle-class he’s imbued with the sort of thoughtful socialism which the party has sorely lacked in recent years. He also appears to be well regarded by the press which, if this year’s election taught us anything, is a must.

Duncan McNeil MSP

My real outsider. A former colleage once said to me of Duncan McNeil that “along with Frank [McAveety], he has the very best grasp of ordinary voters out of everyone in the Scottish Parliament” – I couldn’t but agree. Absolutely no-one is suggesting Duncan as a potential leadership candidate but in my opinion, they should be.

Though he’s not necessarily a household name, Duncan is popular and often father-like figure within the Labour Group in the Scottish Parliament. A former organiser with the GMB, he was Government Chief Whip under Jack McConnell and was elected Chair of the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Party in the last Parliament. Duncan also played a prominent role in the recent Inverclyde by-election, and I’m pretty certain that were it not for his personal popularity Labour would have lost Greenock and Inverclyde to the SNP in May.

At 61, Duncan is unlikely to have the appetite to run, however were he to do so he’d bring a much-needed dose of reality to the debate about the future of the party.

Margaret Curran MP

Margaret Curran has been touted as a potential leader of the Scottish Party since she was Communities Minister in Jack McConnell’s Government. She was one of the favourites to succeed Wendy Alexander until she was harangued into running in the Glasgow East by-election, all-but ending any change of her ever leading the party. With the north-east of Glasgow losing a seat in the Scottish Parliament Margaret’s eventual election to the House of Commons helped avoid a messy selection battle between herself, Paul Martin and Frank McAveety.

Though she’s only been an MP for little more than a year Margaret has settled well into the Commons (and eventually got out of the habit of call the Speaker “Presiding Officer”!) Word on the street is she’s Ed Miliband’s go-to-gal on matters north of the border, and should receive the backing of Westminster if she were to throw her hat in the ring.

In government and in opposition the Party’s media team carved out a highly unpleasant “attack dog” image for Margaret, which in my opinion put-off more voters than it impressed. Since leaving the front bench Margaret’s managed to soften her image somewhat to reflect the warm and witty character that she is in reality. She has the experience and fortitude to be credible against Salmond. In addition to being popular with activists (in particular Young Labour and Labour Students) she has the vigour required to shake the party up internally, something which is sorely needed.

While Tom Harris may not be alone in wishing Douglas Alexander or Jim Murphy would stand, they’ve set their sights on senior jobs in the UK Government. If the party wants MP as its leader, it has to be Margaret Curran.

Ken MacIntosh MSP

In the days that followed the election in May Ken emerged as an early favourite for the leadership, though as I mentioned above he seems to have gone off the idea. He recorded an impressive result in May, regaining his notionally Tory Eastwood Constituency and turning a notional 2,000 vote deficit into a 2,000 vote majority – though it must be noted that in a Tory/Labour marginal Ken was fighting a very different fight from most seats in the country.

Prior to his election Ken was a producer with BBC News in London. His experience with the media is immediately apparent, and he impressed many with his witty-yet-considered stint on BBC Scotland’s election coverage. Yet despite his being the Labour Group’s star-performer with the media Ken’s talents have seldom been acknowledged by successive party leaders. Overlooked for ministerial office, the only post he ever held in government was as an unpaid parliamentary aide – a position from which he resigned over hospital re-organisation. Though having never been a minister could actually work in his favour.

From a tactical perspective, I believe that Alex Salmond would find it difficult to work out how to handle Ken. With his cheery persona and ‘family-man’ image (six kids, and counting) Ken could deflect the bluster of Alex Salmond far more effectively than anyone else. If the MSPs are determined to be led by one of their own then they should be doing everything they can to make sure Ken runs.