Better Nation

A very welcome guest post from Labour activist Yousuf Hamid:

Scottish Labour has faced complete annihilation at the polls this week and the root and branch review will now have the aim of ensuring it does not face extinction.

Today, the SNP can justifiably say that they are not just the Scottish National Party but the National Party of Scotland and in fact it could have been worse. The excellent ground campaign run from CLPs with support from very talented organisers at Scottish Labour HQ probably exaggerated our support.

Many people have already pointed the finger of blame at Iain Gray. There is no doubt that his poor performances in the debates, a lack of charisma compared to Alex Salmond and embarrassing incidents like the infamous *subway-gate* contributed to the loss.

However, this defeat was far bigger than one man.

Since Iain Gray became leader the party has adopted a core vote strategy, but not one that English readers may be used to in the 80s.

This was not an argument over tax and spend or public expenditure cuts but one of attempting to out-tough the Nationalists on crime at every opportunity and to try to appeal to our base vote at the exclusion of everyone else in civic Scotland.

In a contest which was always going to come down to swing Liberal Democrat voters, this core vote strategy was complete folly. The truth is that when I was out on the doorstep and people asked me why they should vote Labour I couldn’t give them an answer.

Psephologically speaking we lost due to the collapse of the Lib Dem vote which went to the SNP but any Labour politician who blames the result on this have their heads firmly in the sand.

Ever since the coalition was formed everyone knew that Scots would brutally punish the Liberal Democrats and yet we had an uninspiring manifesto which offered nothing to entice their voters and the messages of our campaign completely ignored them.

It is no surprise that their votes travelled wholesale to the SNP.

That is, of course, based on the policy differentials that we had left. There was clearly a last-minute panic where we adopted many of the SNP policies (many despite the bitter opposition of much of the shadow cabinet and backbenches) which meant that a large part of the campaign was based on the personality of two teams.

That was a battle where there was only going to be one winner.

We lost some great parliamentarians last night, including Andy Kerr, the former Health Secretary who would almost certainly have been the leader of Scottish Labour now if he had not lost his seat.

However, there have been MSPs who have lost their seat who would struggle to be recognised in their own streets, never mind to the wider public, and there has been a distinct lack of strategic thinkers in the Labour group.

There can be no doubt that when you compare the SNP top team to our group that they had a stronger team.

The strategy of fighting the campaign as a protest to the Westminster Government was seen as patronising and insulting the intelligent of the Scottish electorate and a sudden shift a fortnight before polling day was embarrassing.

This entire election was based on a profound misunderstanding of the Scottish public. Much is often made on the socialist history of Scottish radicals and the size of the state and the ideological position of Scotland being to the left of the UK. Much of is just a legend but as with all good legends there is some truth in it. There is a level of egalitarianism in Scotland that is greater than that exhibited down south, but is comes in many different forms.

A ‘progressive majority’ is a much derided term but it certainly exists in Scotland. Labour only focussed on the socially conservative element of that bloc to get elected and paid the consequences. It was the SNP’s ability to convince that progressive majority that they were best placed to stand up for Scotland which led to their incredible victory.

There are many lessons to be learned from this campaign and we must all now work with those Labour MSPs left but first of all we must reflect on what went so badly wrong in this election

There are two criteria for the Burdz choice for our next Presiding Officer.  That it be a woman – and a separate post on why and potential whoms is available for viewing at A Burdz Eye View.  And that it be anyone but Tavish.

And if that sounds and seems awfy personal then that is because he made it so.

Back in 2007, Nicol Stephen, then leader of the Liberal Democrats, was minded to go into coalition negotations with the newly-elected SNP Government.  But at the Lib Dem group meeting, he was met by vehement opposition from two MSPs in particular, who were smarting at Alex Salmond’s defeat of one of their own, Nora Radcliffe, in one of their heartlands.  They were so opposed to even talking to the SNP about a possible coalition that they threatened to resign if discussions went ahead.  I am reliably informed that one of them was Tavish Scott.

Further back in the mists of time, I attended one of the many receptions held in 1999 by various lobby and interest groups to welcome and of course, nobble MSPs.  This was the COSLA one and no I wasn’t elected but at the time, but was one of a handful of SNP people with experince of working with COSLA, having served on cross-party task forces.  Few knew who I was.  So I happened to be standing in a group of folk at the centre of which Tavish was holding court.  The discussion focused on the months ahead and how the new Labour-Lib Dem coalition executive would govern.  Thinking he was among friends – and how naive was that – Tavish guffawed that he didn’t care what they did so long as they stuck it to the SNP and Salmond.  I think sweary words might even have been deployed.  Everyone roared with laughter apart from the two COSLA officials either side of me who were very discomfited by such partisanship – no really – and were embarrassed on my behalf.

For years, Tavish Scott has harboured an inexplicable but visceral, almost pathological hatred of the SNP and of Alex Salmond in particular.  For these reasons alone, he cannot be allowed to become Presiding Officer.  Oh he’s entitled to hate whom he likes, but a Presiding Officer needs to have very little baggage or at least not wear his true feelings on his sleeve.

George Reid infuriated the SNP by being amenable and even friendly to people from the other parties.  He had worked on the Group that put in place the procedures and structures for the new Parliament, working closely with Henry McLeish, its convenor, amongst others.  And he set his sights on becoming Presiding Officer and behaved accordingly from 1999 onwards.  As Presiding Officer he was as harsh on the Nats as on others whom he deemed to have transgressed.  But he did the job that was required of him and he did it well.  I doubt that Tavish Scott who has shown few such avuncular tendencies over the years could do likewise.  Leopards do not change their spots.

But there are other reasons, just as pertinent.  This is a man who has just led his party to its biggest electoral defeat in years.  Yes, the coalition with the Tories down south did not help – at all – but as I blogged at Bella Caledonia, the Scottish people punished the Lib Dems for breaking their compact with them too.  And now he wants to be rewarded for such ignominious failure with the second biggest job in Scottish politics?

Moreover, if he steps into the non-political Presiding Officer role, he leaves his rump of Lib Dem MSPs utterly without influence or role.  To secure a place in the Parliamentary Bureau which determines the business of the Parliament and where deals are struck to ensure business flows, a parliamentary group must have five members.  A Lib Dem group of only four MSPs would lose its entitlement to any say whatsoever in the day to day goings on at Holyrood.

You might argue, plausibly, that with 69 MSPs the only group going to have any say in what happens at the foot of the Canongate for the next five years is the SNP.  But Alex Salmond has already said publicly – whatever plans and thoughts he may have privately – that the SNP will be inclusive and wants to win hearts and minds.  With such a large majority – he has more MSPs than all the other groups put together – he can afford a little magnanimity in triumph and also during the lifetime of the Parliament.  The Bureau is likely to be where deals can be brokered on opposition debates and even on members’ bills.  The SNP will not be averse to business coming forward from other party manifestoes that fits well with its own commitments.

Given that the Liberal Democrats are the only other party to support local income tax, they could become the policy’s parliamentary champions and members’ business might be a way of testing the waters and teasing out some of the issues surrounding a change to local taxation.  That might suit the SNP very well.

But without a seat at the table, the Lib Dems will not be able to put such a proposal forward, nor shape any part of the next five years.  Reduced to a rump, they will become increasingly irrelevant and meaningless.  At the next election, without any exposure through parliamentary and media activity, they might disappear altogether.

Tavish might be minded, given the events of the last few days, to start looking after number one, but the burd reckons he owes his party and its members more than that.

We’ve been having a bit of a chat in the Better Nation team about the possible contenders for Presiding Officer.  It is a pivotal post, the public face of the Parliament, and it really does matter who gets to sit in the big chair at the head of the Chamber.  So we thought we’d post our thoughts – or at least Malc and the Burd did.

First up Malc’s views:

Thinking about the role of the Presiding Officer (PO), obviously there are no hard and fast rules here.  Its a non-whipped secret vote and candidates are on their own in seeking support.  Historically, we’ve had a Lib Dem PO (with SNP & Lab DPOs) in 1999, an SNP PO (with Tory & Lab DPOs in 2003) and a Tory PO (with SNP & Lab DPOs) in 2007.   Contrast this with Wales, where Plaid peer Lord Daffyd
Elis-Thomas has held the PO’s seat since 1999.

Historically then, three of the “big four” (can we still include the Lib Dems as a “big party”?) have held the chair – so I suspect that it probably should be Labour’s “turn” to provide the PO.  However, they were burned pretty badly on Thursday, and lost a lot of experience from their benches, replacing some of the class of 1999 with new list members.  There may then be some reluctance to give up an experienced MSP to the PO’s chair, preferring to keep their experience to help some of their new intake get used to the new job.

That said, I think they have a really strong candidate for PO in Patricia Ferguson.  She’s experienced – she’s been in Parliament since 1999.  She has experience of the PO’s job, having served as DPO in the first parliamentary session.  And, perhaps just as importantly – she would be the first woman to take the job.  I think she’d do it well and do it fairly, which is pretty much all I’m looking for in a PO.

I’ve heard a couple of other names mentioned in connection with the job.  Tavish Scott has apparently been touting himself (though with a party of 5 at Holyrood, that’s surely unlikely).  Roseanna Cunningham has been touted by some Nats – and with a majority, it may well the easiest thing for the PO to come from them.  It also may help smooth over some of the legal issues with the referendum bill… but I’m sure that thought hasn’t crossed their minds!

I’ll leave my contribution there.  Any other ideas?