Richard Walker: It’s time to bust two Labour and SNP narratives

It seems the much-heralded and much-delayed Scottish Labour revival is a thing, even if it is based only on the evidence provided by the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election – flimsy but at least more substantial than the wishful thinking of political pundits powering previous predictions which, lest we forget, came to nothing.

There’s still nothing conclusive to explain that by-election result beyond the fact that the Labour vote remained steady, while the SNP vote didn’t show up.

That hasn’t stopped endless predictions, pontifications, extrapolations, fabrications and simple flights of fantasy at events up and down the land where such minutiae is endlessly pored over.

Let me treat you to some of the theories which have been dragged into the public domain, inspired by two main narratives which are not troubled by the need for checkable facts to gain traction.

READ MORE: Owen Jones - We owe Humza Yousaf gratitude for his stance on Palestine

The first is that Labour have rediscovered their mojo north and south of the Border as they emerge from years in the wilderness as the only alternative to the useless, cruel and incompetent Tories. The second depicts the SNP as out of ideas, energy and vigour – a party whose time is very much running out.

Neither bears much analysis but they do need to be challenged just in case they actually influence voters in the crucially important elections which lie ahead of us, which really would be a disaster.

Let’s start with Labour. Could anyone seriously argue that the party has embraced exciting new policies which are inspiring the public? I certainly can’t see them. Can you name them?

What I can see is a party furiously ditching what’s left of its principles for fear of alienating the centre-right, which is currently fleeing the numpties in Rishi Sunak’s inner sanctum as if they have the new strain of Covid currently doing the rounds. Keir Starmer is afraid to adopt any policies at all.

It’s not Labour policies that Starmer thinks will win the General Election – it’s Tory policies cleansed of the toxic Tory brand. Labour’s message to voters is this: “There isn’t too much wrong with what the Tories have actually done. It’s just the Tories themselves we need to change. Rishi Sunak is too rich. James Cleverly is too pompous. Suella Braverman is too stark-raving bonkers. Vote Labour and we get rid of that lot but keep all that stuff you obviously love. Like Brexit. Like the rape clause. Like heartless immigration restrictions.”

There is one truth in the Labour revival story. They actually are the only alternative to the Tories capable of getting elected. The trouble is ... that’s not really something to celebrate. Nevertheless, someone has to get the Tories out. The chances of a new party in England emerging with the ability to capture enough support within a year are nil. It’s Labour or no-one. But does Scotland really have to involve itself with this?

One theory I heard last week suggested that the more likely a Starmer government looks at Westminster, the more Scotland will decide to vote Labour. It seems to me that the opposite is true. Labour have nothing to offer Scotland in the way of policies or initiatives. Their only purpose is to get the Tories out.

READ MORE: Crispin Blunt reveals he is Tory MP arrested on suspicion of rape

If they can achieve that purpose without Scotland’s votes – and remember, it’s very rare for the Labour Party to rely on Scotland to win power – we can absolve ourselves of the responsibility of voting for them just to remove the Tories.

After all, what do we have to gain by doing so? It’s almost impossible to be sure what the message of Scottish Labour is and how much it is shaped by their leader in Scotland Anas Sarwar, who is continually overruled and contradicted by Starmer.

Sarwar is at least smart enough to understand that policies such as support for the rape clause do not play well north of the Border but his attempts to distance himself from them are continually thwarted by his boss.

One of the top priorities he has laid out is reforming the House of Lords to make it a “democratic” institution.

“We have to accept that every layer of our government is broken and every layer of our democracy is broken,” he said as recently as Tuesday. Starmer, on the other hand, looks like he wouldn’t touch that issue – or indeed any constitutional issue – with the proverbial barge pole. He has other fish to fry when “constitutional legislation takes time and it drains energy”.

Sarwar has recently planted his flag on territory more normally associated with the SNP. He “feels more Scottish than British”. He wants to reclaim the Saltire, which he wants flown above the UK Government’s Scotland Office, which operates as “the eyes and ears of the UK Government in Scotland” rather than standing up for the country. He seems not to have noticed that the recent Labour Party conference was awash with more Union flags than Buckingham Palace. What message does that send, Anas?

NOWHERE is the split between Scottish and British Labour more apparent and deeper than in attitudes to Israeli action in Gaza. Starmer, despite later attempts to deny it, clearly told an interviewer on LBC that Israel has the right to withhold power and water from Gaza. Sarwar considers it a breach of international law to do so. Which Labour Party would Scotland be voting for in the General Election? Come on ... you know the answer to that one.

Labour have traditionally tried to guilt-trip Scots into voting for them on the grounds that it is somehow selfish to leave England to its own devices when it comes to deciding who should have power over it in Westminster. We should rescue it from its unfortunate tendency to vote Tory.

But wouldn’t it be better to lead by example? To show our friends in the south that progressive, left-wing policies can create an economically successful country that prioritises people over profit, humanity over greed? Wouldn’t it be better to offer an alternative to years of slightly tweaked centre-right policies until England goes back to the Tories once more? Isn’t the better aim to get rid of the Tories not just for five years but forever?

Let’s turn now to the argument that the SNP have run out of steam, that they have done nothing to bring independence closer and squandered every opportunity to do so. Adversarial politics means parties – particularly parties in government – are quite rightly continually challenged and under fire.

The SNP have been in power for some time. Yet their recent conference could hardly be described as an ideas desert. The Scottish bond. Reduced public transport costs. The council tax freeze. More money for the NHS ... and the arts. This is not a government with no fuel left in the tank.

However, what is worrying is that the “anti-SNP feeling” argument is gaining credence within sections of the independence movement itself. There are some who argue that the SNP deserve a bloody nose in the shape of a bad General Election result, which would then put them under pressure to “refocus” on independence.

This is dangerous territory. It would deliver a major election blow – inflicted after the party has declared itself refocussed on independence and vowed to place “Vote SNP for Scotland to become an independent country” on page one, line one of the party’s General Election manifesto. How do you think a significant loss of SNP MPs would be interpreted in the media? How could it be understood as anything other than a reduction in independence support?

This election is too important to indulge in gesture politics. It would take years to recover lost ground. I cannot in all honesty imagine a world in which this would be the best result for the Yes movement.

Surely it would be better to recommit ourselves – party and movement, politicians and grassroots activists – to vigorously campaigning in all its many forms.

The struggle ahead of us is not easy. Simply announcing ourselves to be independent is not going to work while the proposition does not enjoy sustained majority support. Our opponents believe they can block the mechanism for proving that support. I believe they are wrong.

What is needed now is not “unity” in which fundamental differences are brushed under the carpet. There should be diversity of opinion within the independence movement ... that’s pretty much the point.

We don’t need to agree on all the details of what independence should look like – just that it gives the power to shape our country to those who live here, no matter where they came from.

That will not happen without a concerted campaign. Surely we should be asking ourselves how we can contribute to that, rather than sniping from the sidelines?