LABOUR MSPs have anonymously attacked the election of Jim Murphy as party leader in December 2014, following Johann Lamont’s decision to stand down from the job following the referendum in September that year.
“We turned to Jim Murphy, which sort of put us in the worst of all worlds,” said one Labour MSP.
A second said: “Jim was a lifeboat strategy. People think the ship’s sinking so let’s rush to the nearest lifeboat. The only problem with a lifeboat is it can end up taking you into even deeper, unknown waters.”
Their views emerged in an academic presentation given last week that analysed last year’s General Election results, in which the party lost 40 MPs to be left with a single Scottish MP amid a massive swing towards the SNP.
One of the Labour politicians predicted the disastrous impact of Better Together when he spoke to a researcher two months before polling day in May.
“I never stood on a Better Together platform. I stood on a platform of solidarity, or redistribution. Some of the best cases I heard against independence were in old miners’ clubs on a Sunday afternoon. We spent decades telling everyone the Tories are toxic, and then we campaign with them.”
He then asked the researcher: “Do me a favour, you’re researching this, right? If you ever find out who made the decision to go with Better
Together, and how they made it, let me know. Because I’ve never met anyone who knows.”
Two months after the May election another Labour MSP told the research team: “It seems to be the case that the referendum did something. I mean it was the moment where a lot of people who maybe weren’t so involved in politics got involved. In that sense it was a moment that forced a lot of change that had been building up over time. And for a lot of people, I’m afraid to say, the lasting memory is of us lined up with the Tories.”
The research was compiled by leading academics, including Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University and Professor Lindsay Paterson of Edinburgh University, and delivered in a presentation at Edinburgh University last week.
A copy of the document was obtained by The National. Discussing Murphy’s leadership, one Labour MSP told a researcher in June last year: “We’d sided with the Tories in the Better Together campaign.
“We’d lost our leader in a really embarrassing way. We were sinking like a stone in the polls. And what did we do? We turned to Jim Murphy, which sort of put us in the worst of all worlds.
“Not only did we look indulgent, talking to ourselves about our next leader when there was a f****** election around the corner, but we then picked a leader who was a poster boy for so many of the attack lines we were getting.”
At the time of the independence referendum campaign, Labour appeared enthusiastic partners in the Better Together alliance, frequently sharing platforms with Tory politicians.
After the September 2014 vote, Lamont insisted it had been the right decision. However, within weeks she stood down after accusing the UK party of treating Scotland like a “branch office” following her attempts to reform the party north of the Border.
Following the massive election defeat last May, the party’s new UK leader, Jeremy Corbyn, conceded involvement in Better Together had damaged Labour in Scotland. After being elected leader last year, Kezia Dugdale tried to soften her approach towards independence, saying she would not stand in the way of Labour MSPs who wished to argue for it.
Responding to the study, an SNP spokesman said: “Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But despite Labour’s new-found regret at siding with the Tories in the referendum they’ve hardly changed their tune – just yesterday Labour MSPs voted with the Tories in opposing record funding for the NHS, a living wage for care workers and investment to close the attainment gap between rich and poor in education.”
Last night, Labour declined to discuss the findings of the study.
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 here