The laddie doth protest too much
The most talked about moment of the Holyrood election campaign so far has been this clash on the Channel Four Leaders’ Debate. Reform leader Malcolm Offord said Labour’s Anas Sarwar had suggested the two parties should work together to remove the SNP. Sarwar has been denying this vehemently ever since, but I have to agree with the Daily Express’ Douglas Dickie on the Planet Holyrood podcast that he “doth protest too much”.
Another talking point has been UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting’s announcement that Westminster won’t give Scotland a referendum on independence, whatever the result on May 7. When English Green leader Zac Polanski visited Glasgow last week, he demanded: “Who the hell does Wes Streeting think he is?”
These events are damaging to Labour because they reinforce the view many Scots have of them, as members of a Unionist band whose first loyalty is to the British state. This week, I have been thinking about the crossroads when Scottish Labour set off down this path.
In May 2008, Wendy Alexander, then leader of the Scottish Labour Party, went on The Politics Show Scotland and issued a challenge to the Scottish National Party: “Bring it on.” She was calling for a referendum on Scottish independence. She said it should happen by the end of the year and that it must include a third option of devo max – more powers for Holyrood. It was a hold-the-front-page moment.
This is how Tom Gordon and Jason Allardyce at the Times reported it in 2008 in a piece headlined “Bring on the Clowns”:
Mike Elrick thought he knew all about blood, sweat and tears as he sat slumped in Holyrood Park after completing last Sunday’s Great Edinburgh Run. Then he switched on his mobile phone. As it started to beep like the heart monitor of a patient going into cardiac arrest, he was given a painful reminder of what it is to be Wendy Alexander’s principal policy adviser.
Unknown to him, his boss had just gone on live television and announced she was scrapping 100 years of Labour unionist tradition by committing the party to support for a referendum on Scottish independence. In three short words – “bring it on” – she had, unilaterally, changed the Scottish political landscape…Because of her misjudgment and political naivety, Scotland is now considering a very different future from that envisaged this time last week.
Alexander was forced out
Leaks – probably from within the Labour party machine – led to claims that donations had not been properly declared. Alexander resigned just a month later. (She later became Baroness Alexander of Cleveden and sits in the House of Lords. Her brother Douglas is Secretary of State for Scotland.)
But was her ‘naivety’ actually high-level strategy? Support for independence was low back then, Alexander was certain that a middle option of more powers would win the ballot by a large majority. She was probably right.
The middle question would also have been consistent with Labour’s long history of support for Home Rule, led by key figures like Jimmy Maxton and Jimmy Reid.
Instead, it was the Tories who granted a referendum
The SNP won the May 2011 Scottish election with the top line on their manifesto being a promise to legislate for a referendum on independence. A Conservative/ Lib Dem coalition was by then in charge at Westminster. They recognised that continued refusal would boost support for independence.
Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg wrote: “We will not stand in the way of a referendum on independence: the future of Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom is for people in Scotland to vote on.”
David Cameron demanded as a concession that there should be no “devo max” on the ballot paper. He wanted a simple Yes/No. Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, having previously said they would accept a third option, gracefully conceded the point.
Labour and the Conservatives fought side by side
The “Better Together” campaign was fought by the Conservative and Labour Parties side by side. The No vote ushered in almost a decade of rule by Conservative governments that Scotland didn’t vote for.
A key promise was that a No vote was the best way to preserve Scotland’s EU membership. But then the UK forced Scotland into a hard Brexit, despite the fact that every area of Scotland voted to Remain.
The Scottish electorate divided into two blocks
Ever since 2015, Holyrood elections have seen voters divided into two ponds, one for and one against independence. The SNP does so well in part because their pond has only got two fish in it, and one is a minnow. The other pond has got four.
But there are some signs that the wall between the ponds is breaking down. Polling on tactical voting shows that, given the choice of Reform or SNP, many Unionist voters say they would choose the SNP.
Is Labour’s flat No to another independence referendum wise?
Polls suggest the numbers are finely balanced on the constitutional question, with an underlying demographic trend towards ‘Yes’. Refusing a second referendum won’t make this go away. It will likely boost support for independence.
Labour could take a leaf out of Wendy’s book and offer an immediate vote with a third option. This would be consistent with Labour’s tradition of support for democracy and self-determination. A victory for remaining in the UK with enhanced powers, perhaps over migration as Australian and Canadian territories have, is probably more likely now than it will be in the future.
Of course, the independence side might win. Would that be such a disaster? Scotland has a strong majority of progressive, centre-left parties. Reform might come second, but it is going to get only a relatively small percentage of the vote in Scotland.
Meanwhile, Reform stands a pretty good chance of winning the next Westminster election. Wouldn’t it be better for those who support progressive politics to help an independent Scotland to secure its future now? If Labour denies one and delivers Scotland in chains to a Reform government in Westminster, how will that feel?