A NEW broom at Scottish Labour could mean only one thing – time to sweep out people with the wrong opinions! The question now is how long this spring cleaning session will last and who will still be standing when the dust settles?
Hollie Cameron was the Labour candidate for Glasgow Kelvin until Anas Sarwar decided she was a potential trouble-maker. It turns out she had some funny ideas about the people of Scotland having the right to another say on how their country is governed. She even suggested Sarwar was in agreement with her about this, and their only difference of opinion was about the timing.
She wasn’t telling anyone how they should vote in a second referendum, or even asserting that she would personally vote Yes again, having done so in 2014. She was merely saying Scots should be given the chance to have a say.
READ MORE: Scottish Labour MSP says party 'heading for a mess' over candidate deselection
This will not do! Sarwar wants his branch office to put on a united front. He says he needs a “unified Labour Party serious about rebuilding our country”. The only way to unify, it seems, is to first divide into two camps – those who believe the Scottish people have the right to a second referendum, and those who wish to align with the Scottish Conservatives by campaigning on a “no to indyref2” platform. Then, like Simon Cowell in the early stages of an X Factor series, Sarwar can announce to everyone in the first camp that they haven’t made the cut and are going home. A Take That song about ruling the world can later be dubbed over footage of him celebrating unity with a fist-pump.
The only slight problem with this divide-to-unify approach is that some well-established Scottish Labour folk did not get the memo in time. Lothian MSP Neil Findlay, who is standing down before this election so cannot be ditched, said it was “absolutely outrageous” that Cameron had been bombed out despite being the candidate chosen by local members, pointing out that he and Monica Lennon also shared her position on indyref2.
Former shadow chancellor John McDonnell tweeted in support of Cameron (below), saying “the flame of internal party democracy [is] being slowly but systematically extinguished”.
Some might suggest it’s a little unfair for the man brandishing the fire extinguisher to ditch a young, unknown constituency hopeful but not bump a sitting MSP off the regional list. If Cameron and Lennon are both guilty of the same supposed crime, why the difference in approach? Surely it’s not a case of switching principles on and off based on a ruthless calculation of electoral chances? The SNP’s Sandra White won around 11,000 votes in Glasgow Kelvin in 2016, while the Labour candidate managed fewer than 6000 and was bumped into third place by Patrick Harvie of the Greens.
If the policy is being applied selectively, how can anti-indyref Labour voters be sure they aren’t letting any other pro-democracy types in through the back door?
Mercedes Villalba, the party’s Dundee City West candidate, has also weighed in on the unceremonious dumping of Cameron, saying “if Scottish Labour members who support another Scottish independence referendum are ineligible to stand as candidates, that could exclude 57% of the membership”. With comments like that, she’d better watch her flame doesn’t shine too brightly – it’s one thing to back indyref2 (and in Sarwar’s view, that’s one thing too far), but quite another to actually back independence. It almost sounds as if Villalba is suggesting Scottish Labour should try to represent the interests of those among its members who reckon “rebuilding our country” might be best achieved by unshackling it from Westminster.
Will the branch office be setting up an interrogation room to quiz her about the extent of her sympathies? If so, I suggest she wears a shower-proof anorak.
READ MORE: Anas Sarwar 'failed first test of leadership' in dropping Holyrood hopeful for backing indyref2
Meanwhile, Sarwar has been demonstrating his commitment to diversity by bumping himself down the regional list. When it comes to putting together their rankings, Scottish Labour uses a process known as “zipping” candidates, but before you ask, no, this does not imply their hopefuls are all fastened up the back – what an uncharitable thought for you to have. Instead it means they alternate having male and female candidates in pole position. In line with the principles of the STUC’s “Step Aside, Brother” campaign, Sarwar has given up his top spot on the Glasgow list to Pauline McNeill. The fact that Labour currently have four Glasgow region MSPs means the net result is very unlikely to be affected, but as a symbolic gesture it is nonetheless to be welcomed.
However, it’s a bit odd to hear him talk about how Scottish Labour “must do more in future to empower and encourage a greater diversity of candidates”, while torpedoing a woman candidate using the selective application of rules about diversity of opinion. He must surely understand that Unionism is an increasingly tough sell for those who hold what used to be call “Labour values”, including many – like Cameron – who voted Yes in 2014. Will his “united” party branch convince them? It seems doubtful.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel