1707-2007: A time for renewal in Scotland?

The third election to the Scottish Parliament is fast approaching. However this Labour member thinks we need a break from our hegemony to renew our vision and offer the new politics promised not so long ago

It is less than nine months until the third elections to the Scottish Parliament. This election will coincide with the tri-centennial of the Treaty of Union with England and eight years of the devolution settlement.  Recently this election is being discussed in the media by reference to our on-going leadership debate. What is not being discusses is the real debate that we need to have within the Party about what ambition we have for Scotland.  The initial enthusiasm in the referendum campaign has been replaced by ingrained cynicism. From the resignation of Henry McLeish to the fiasco over Holyrood, there has been little positive coverage in the press.

During the summer a leading MSP announced that she was not standing for re-election. Susan Deacon is a thoughtful and vision forming former Minister. Party members should be deeply concerned that talent like this is so disillusioned. What has gone wrong? The current Executive bears little resemblance the first Executive formed by the late Donald Dewar in 1999. Wendy Alexander, Sarah Boyack, Jackie Baillie, and yes..Susan Deacon are nowhere to be seen. For whatever reasons Jack McConnell had in forming his Ministerial Team he has failed to find a role for a group of Ministers who promised radical change in the first term. Whether it was the abolition of S28 or congestion charges or housing stock transfer or taking on the Catholic Church over Sex Ed, these Ministers were taking the flack in the media by offering policies that were bold and designed to build the new Scotland that we had worked so hard to see. There have some bold moves by McConnell in the form of the Smoking Ban but let's not forget who was one of the male Executive members briefing heavily against the abolition of S28 back in 2000 along with McCabe or McLeish. Other changes like the graduate endowment or the introduction of PR for local elections are measures clawed out by the Liberal Democrats. What exactly are we going into this election with apart from the promise of "better schools, better hospitals and fighting Neds"? All important and necessary (well perhaps apart from the later) objectives of a Labour Exec but hardly burning with passionate vision.

Recent opinion polls are pointing to a SNP victory in next year's election and I think we need to be thoroughly relaxed about a defeat. What I hear you say? Am I not a loyal Labour member? Yes I am but I am fed up with the current direction of the Scottish Parliament. I am fed up that talented MSPs are standing down. And I am fed up that all we can do to combat the SNP is this endless barrage about divorce being a messy business. The public are smarter than we give them credit for. There is no reason why we cannot win an election against a party that shares many of our social democratic ideals by debating them on these very policies. Let's not be disingenuous by thinking we can merely scare the electorate. Instead we should expose the other policies of the Nats, Greens, Liberals and Tories in a comprehensive manner but do so in the spirit of maturity expressed in the ambition of a "new" politics.

The public seem determined to see the institution of the Scottish Parliament and the leadership of the Labour Executive as one and the same.  Perhaps the only way we can start to rebuild public faith in the institution of the Parliament is a term out of office. A change at the top and a renewal of our ideas. More importantly we need to go back to the consensual ideas that were found in the report of the Consultative Steering Group back in those heady days between 1997-1999.

I realise most of this may be of little interest to members south of the border. In fact I myself now live in England but retain a keen interest in what happens at home. I want to see a positive discussion when I read of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. For too long all I have heard is nothing but a reel of problems in the English and Scottish press about devolution. Or in fact what impact this has on the leadership of our party at a UK level. Time for a change and time for a chance to regroup and come back in 2011 with a bold vision that engages the new politics we fought for.


Display: Sort:

Re: 1707-2007: A time for renewal in Scotland? (#1)

Any appeal to an anniversary will fail because [you omit] that in 1607 the House of Commons blocked James I union with Scotland.

if you appeal to anniversaries you will rake up anti-Scottish resentment and questions about favoritism (or peerages for favours) which Tony and Gordon may not welcome.

http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%20282%20James%20government.htm

A significant factor in James relations with his new English subjects was the resentment they felt at James' attachment to Scottish favorites and his repeated attempts to create a "perfect union between England and Scotland.

Another Scottish favorite was James Hay (1580-1636). Outrageously extravagant, Hay's family motto was "Spare naught" while his personal adage was "Spend and God will send". Hay's confidence was well-placed so far as James was concerned:  He lavished about £40,000 on this favorite and created him earl of Carlisle in 1622.

James I did not simply promote Scots favorites. He also tried to persuade the English parliament to establish a complete union between Scotland and England. Fearful of "beggarly Scots" flooding across the border, Parliament resisted all attempts to create common institutions. It even refused to recognize the title "king of Great Britain" that James assumed.

Anti-Scottish feeling was common in England and occasionally found extreme expression. Guy Fawkes stated that the Gunpowder Plot was aimed at blowing James and Scottish followers back to their northern mountains.

Re: 1707-2007: A time for renewal in Scotland? (#2)

A term out of office. Are you are Tory? Next you'll be suggesting the English could control their own legislation!

Re: 1707-2007: A time for renewal in Scotland? (#3)

Not a Tory at all but its not as if our opposition in Scotland are not fellow travellers of the left.

As for allowing the English to run their own affairs...well how could they cope without all our talented politicians? :-)))

Re: 1707-2007: A time for renewal in Scotland? (#4)

The Scottish Executive, like the Welsh Assembly Government may not be perfect.  In both instances, the respective first ministers have surrounded themselves with political friends regardless of talent, and cast more able women and men to the backbenches - or even worse, junior ministerial positions.

I can see the benefit of a spell in opposition: it frees the party from the burden of government, enabling members to renew the party and reconnect with the voters.  But it is a political indulgence. And while over last month being in government may seam like a burden, let us not forget that its is, at the end of the day, a privilege.  We can do nothing practical in opposition.  Being in opposition comes with a price: a price that will be paid by working class people up and down Scotland and Wales who will be left to suffer a Tory programme of government in Wales, and a Nationalist one in Scotland.  

While here in Wales, our Welsh Assembly Government may not be perfect, and I'd like it to do more to address some of the underlying causes of poverty rather than spending millions of pounds on new buildings, promoting the Welsh language and promoting universal initiatives like free prescriptions; on any day give me an imperfect Labour government than a perfect Labour opposition.

Maybe the party needs to look again at its structure.  Here in Wales, it's not really clear who the party leader is.  Pete Hain, the secretary of state, or Rhodri Morgan, the first minister?  Perhaps in both nations we need an elected party chair, a fulltime paid position elected annually by the membership.  A campaigner: someone who can become more of a public face for the party machine - someone quite separate from government machine.  Perhaps in a similar way to the US, where the position of Chair of the DNC, is completely separate to the position of presidential nominee?