Best Case Scenario - Labour and the Indy Conundrum

Nicola Biggerstaff - 14 July 2022

I couldn’t help but rage slightly as I watched resignation-geddon from my sick bed last week. Riddled with Covid, all the snowflake-lefty in me wanted to do was go out and toast to the ensuing chaos and uncertainty, even if I was still slightly too feverish to fully comprehend the consequences.

Was today the day the government would fall? Judging by the defiance displayed by Boris Johnson that night, his metaphorical fingernails digging into the doorframe of No. 10, it appeared this was just another scandal he would attempt to brush under the carpet by pretending it didn’t happen. By Thursday morning, he finally saw the writing on the wall that most of us spotted on the first day of his premiership, pledging to step down from office by the Conservative party conference in October.

Many options now lay in front of us, none of them good. At the time of writing, a no confidence motion tabled by Sir Keir Starmer has been blocked by the Tories for making reference to Johnson’s tenure following his resignation. It is possible for this to be amended, removing all reference to the Prime Minister and filing no confidence in the government as a whole, to force an early election in the – now less likely – event of the motion being successful (Editor: Since writing, the government has called a vote of no confidence in itself!).

However, even in the most optimistic estimates, where the Tories are ousted from government after twelve years in power following a General Election, this still leaves us with a pro-union, anti-reform government who will only serve to stagnate progress and delay the inevitable. Having already ruled out collaborating with the SNP, Labour are playing a dangerous game with their support across the border, with some obvious implications for Scottish Labour support as well as increasing the polarisation of the independence question. With my colleague, Craig, discussing the implications of a Tory leadership contest and a new Prime Minister from within the currently elected government, I thought I would tackle the supposed ‘best-case scenario’, and show how the complete change of both government and leadership some of us have been craving may not work out as we hope. 

As much as we don’t want to admit it, a government drowning in controversy and incompetence was our best chance at making the case for independence. As I have previously suggested, they were the easiest to refute, and the real challenge would come when a more competent, sophisticated leader came along to provide a real challenge to the Scottish Government’s mandate, rather than dismissing it outright because it’s easier. Our last chance of drawing a sympathetic ear at the top of UK Labour was lost at the last Labour leadership contest, in which only a single candidate, Rebecca Long-Bailey, claimed that it would be in the democratic interest to allow a second referendum if the Scottish Parliament requested to hold one, with a refusal risking the alienation of their pro-independence supporters and their defection to the SNP. However, after drawing in less than 28% of the final ballot votes, it was clearly an unpopular stance among the Labour membership, or it simply didn’t matter to them.

Starmer’s anti-independence stance, on the other hand, has solidified in the years since his leadership campaign. From not ruling it out completely before his election to just a few days ago pledging that he, just like Johnson last week, would also reject a Section 30 order from the Scottish Government. While disheartening, it’s important to remember that strategists such as Starmer are always thinking at least three months ahead, how the next thing he says will sit with the media and the public, not the words currently coming out of their mouth. He has been contingency planning for a successful no confidence motion triggering an election, and has been eyeing up the Red Wall, pandering to the traditional Labour vote lost to the illusion of moderate Conservatism in 2015-19. Those English voters who, in an ideal world, would rather see a strengthened union under a Labour government. Problem is, the independence question is not for these voters to decide, and this attempt at moderation risks the worst comparison of all: has Labour gone Tory? Would they really rather get into bed with their ideological opposites than hold constructive discussions with their ideological equals? It doesn’t look good.

And yet, despite all of this, there is still a part of me doesn’t find Starmer completely awful. However, I can never be sure if that’s because I actually admire him as a leader, being naturally drawn to him by my personal leanings, or because I maybe despise him slightly less than Johnson. He may know all the right words to say at the right time, but this also rings alarm bells. Beware of the too-slick politician, the type who thinks he’s infallible simply because he’s better than the alternative, failing to realise that this alone will not cut it in the age of populist politics, and we only need to look at every failed US Democrat election campaign to see that. This polished image is not only clearly fake, it’s grating.

But the idea of the imperfect, relatable leader with all their quirks and humours being able to run the country for the benefit of the majority is exactly how we ended up with Boris. Where is the middle ground? Is it within a Sturgeon-esque character, where mistakes are made, and apologies for said mistakes are entrusted as a guarantee for improvement, but can also show true, level-headed leadership in times of crisis? Perhaps, but it’s also important to consider, when discussing SNP leadership, a lack of comparative localised party politics. Compared to Labour UK-wide, there is less pressure to please as many of the electorate, across as many regions, as possible to win their vote by pandering to the widest possible margins on important issues. In the case of the SNP, an arguably single-issue party, this pressure is not relevant. Since the issue of independence is so popular in Scotland, the one region in which they campaign, the pressures are different. In larger parties, cracks in the party line are always a risk.

However, Scottish Labour are also categorical in their anti-independence stance. Following the suspension of two Labour councillors in Edinburgh last month after they refused to make a coalition deal with their Tory counterparts, the priorities of the party are clear: keep the SNP out of power by any means necessary, including the sacrifice of our basic principles, and the independence issue will go away. These same principles, which led to the infamous Aberdeen Nine case of five years ago for doing the exact opposite, when they did make a deal with Tory councillors to obtain a majority, which was against the party line at the time.

It beggars belief the lengths they will now go to bow to pressure from their Westminster overlords. Lock the SNP out of power at any given opportunity, sweep independence under the carpet. It is shocking, particularly in the post-Corbyn era which now shuns the very rebellious nature which caused their surge in support at the time. Despite appearances, such as Anas Sarwar last month defying Starmer’s party-wide order to join the RMT picket, it is clear that both Scottish and UK Labour have lost their roots, and cannot be relied upon to help build a truly fair and equal post-independent Scotland.

Everyone needs to make small compromises here and there, and an outright refusal to co-operate with another party based on a single-issue disagreement does not leave us with much faith that Labour will participate enthusiastically in any negotiation framework in the aftermath of a Yes vote. While disheartening, there is still a case for independence yet. It’s just going to be a slightly more difficult than we already anticipated. But we are ready, we have a plan, and we have the resources to make this work.