Labour's revival could sink Scottish independence

When it comes to the Union, Miliband matters.

There has been almost as much speculation about the timing of the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) referendum on independence as there has been about the outcome of the referendum itself. One common interpretation is that the autumn 2014 date was chosen because it roughly coincides with the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn. Ask any SNP politician and they’ll tell you this is nonsense. The real explanation is that SNP strategists believe Scottish voters will become increasingly susceptible to the appeal of complete political separation from England the closer they get to a Westminster election the Conservatives look likely to win.

The problem for Alex Salmond and his allies in the Yes Scotland campaign is that the odds on David Cameron achieving a second term seem to be steadily diminishing. When the SNP leader revealed his referendum timetable back in January, the Tories enjoyed a lead of five per cent over Labour. The slump in Labour support was precipitated by a string of weak performances by Ed Miliband at Prime Minister’s Questions and a damaging spat with the unions over cuts. Today, following George Osborne’s disastrous budget and the British economy’s slide back into recession, the situation is transformed, with Labour leading the Conservatives by as much as 13 points. What’s more, the confidence of the British public in the Conservatives to manage the economy effectively - an important indicator of any government’s success - has been shattered.

All this bodes well for Labour, but it should be equally encouraging for supporters of the Union: a sustained revival in the party's electoral prospects could seriously damage nationalist hopes of securing independence in two years time. Scottish political culture is to a large extent defined by its anti-Conservatism. Scots see Labour as the most reliable safeguard against the Tories at Westminster and, these days, the SNP as the most effective advocates of Scottish interests from an Edinburgh base. This translates into the constitutional sphere as well. The decisive factor in the reversal of Scottish attitudes towards devolution between 1979 (when just over 50 per cent of voters backed a Scottish legislative assembly) and 1997 (when nearly 75 per cent did) was 18 years of Tory government. This means that if the prospect of an extended period of Tory rule continues to deteriorate over the next 18 months or so, the nationalist argument that independence is a necessary bulwark against the English right could begin to lose its force.

Yet, in terms of the bare politics of the referendum campaign, Labour continues to make bad tactical and strategic errors. Two weeks ago, Miliband - displaying a remarkable disregard for Scottish political sensibilities - said he was “sure” Tony Blair would play a significant role in the fight to save the Union. But nothing would delight nationalists more: by 2007 Blair’s unpopularity in Scotland was so great it helped propel the SNP to power at Holyrood for the first time. The continued support of both the UK and Scottish Labour leaderships for Britain’s Clyde-based nuclear deterrent hands the SNP another campaigning advantage. Most Scots oppose the renewal of Trident, and Alex Salmond will be sure to place his pledge to remove it from Scottish waters at the centre of his case for secession. Finally, and above all, Labour’s refusal to articulate a radical devolutionary alternative to independence leaves the nationalists free to dictate the terms and conditions of the constitutional debate. Scots will be more likely to vote to leave the UK if the unionist parties fail to explain how they want the next phase of devolution to develop.

The challenge for Miliband is to incorporate his party's defence of the Union into a wider narrative of Labour renewal. Recent successes notwithstanding, the party still seems uncertain about how it should reconstruct its identity in the post-Blair era. A commitment to fully modernise the British constitutional system, including fiscal autonomy for Scotland and significant new powers for the Welsh assembly, might be a good way to start. Nevertheless, some members of Scottish Labour may be left wondering why they should look to Miliband and the UK leadership, rather than to Johann Lamont and her team, to secure Scotland’s future as part of the UK. The reality is that for as long Scottish Labour remains a subordinate and attenuated version of British Labour, it will always be a secondary player in the battle against the SNP.

A sustained revival in Labour's fortunes could seriously damage the independence campaign. Photograph: Getty Images.

James Maxwell is a Scottish political journalist. He is based between Scotland and London.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, the battle in Momentum isn't about young against old

Jon Lansman and his allies' narrative doesn't add up, argues Rida Vaquas.

If you examined the recent coverage around Momentum, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was headed towards an acrimonious split, judging by the vitriol, paranoia and lurid accusations that have appeared online in the last couple days. You’d also be forgiven for thinking that this divide was between a Trotskyist old guard who can’t countenance new ways of working, and hip youngsters who are filled with idealism and better at memes. You might then be incredibly bemused as to how the Trotskyists Momentum was keen to deny existed over the summer have suddenly come to the brink of launching a ‘takeover bid’.

However these accounts, whatever intentions or frustrations that they are driven by, largely misrepresent the dispute within Momentum and what transpired at the now infamous National Committee meeting last Saturday.

In the first instance, ‘young people’ are by no means universally on the side of e-democracy as embodied by the MxV online platform, nor did all young people at the National Committee vote for Jon Lansman’s proposal which would make this platform the essential method of deciding Momentum policy.

Being on National Committee as the representative from Red Labour, I spoke in favour of a conference with delegates from local groups, believing this is the best way to ensure local groups are at the forefront of what we do as an organisation.

I was nineteen years old then. Unfortunately speaking and voting in favour of a delegates based conference has morphed me into a Trotskyist sectarian from the 1970s, aging me by over thirty years.

Moreover I was by no means the only young person in favour of this, Josie Runswick (LGBT+ representative) and the Scottish delegates Martyn Cook and Lauren Gilmour are all under thirty and all voted for a delegates based national conference. I say this to highlight that the caricature of an intergenerational war between the old and the new is precisely that: a caricature bearing little relation to a much more nuanced reality.

Furthermore, I believe that many people who voted for a delegates-based conference would be rather astounded to find themselves described as Trotskyists. I do not deny that there are Trotskyists on National Committee, nor do I deny that Trotskyists supported a delegates-based conference – that is an open position of theirs. What I do object is a characterisation of the 32 delegates who voted for a delegates-based conference as Trotskyists, or at best, gullible fools who’ve been taken in.  Many regional delegates were mandated by the people to whom they are accountable to support a national conference based on this democratic model, following broad and free political discussion within their regions. As thrilling as it might be to fantasise about a sinister plot driven by the shadow emperors of the hard Left against all that it is sensible and moderate in Momentum, the truth is rather more mundane. Jon Lansman and his supporters failed to convince people in local groups of the merits of his e-democracy proposal, and as a result lost the vote.

I do not think that Momentum is doomed to fail on account of the particular details of our internal structures, providing that there is democracy, accountability and grassroots participation embedded into it. I do not think Momentum is doomed to fail the moment Jon Lansman, however much respect I have for him, loses a vote. I do not even think Momentum is doomed to fail if Trotskyists are involved, or even win sometimes, if they make their case openly and convince others of their ideas in the structures available.

The existential threat that Momentum faces is none of these things, it is the propagation of a toxic and polarised political culture based on cliques and personal loyalties as opposed to genuine political discussion on how we can transform labour movement and transform society. It is a political culture in which those opposed to you in the organisation are treated as alien invaders hell-bent on destroying it, even when we’ve worked together to build it up, and we worked together before the Corbyn moment even happened. It is a political culture where members drag others through the mud, using the rhetoric of the Right that’s been used to attack all of us, on social and national media and lend their tacit support to witch hunts that saw thousands of Labour members and supporters barred from voting in the summer. It is ultimately a political culture in which our trust in each other and capacity to work together on is irreparably eroded.

We have a tremendous task facing us: to fight for a socialist alternative in a global context where far right populism is rapidly accruing victories; to fight for the Labour Party to win governmental power; to fight for a world in which working class people have the power to collectively change their lives and change the societies we live in. In short: there is an urgent need to get our act together. This will not be accomplished by sniping about ‘saboteurs’ but by debating the kind of politics we want clearly and openly, and then coming together to campaign from a grassroots level upwards.

Rida Vaquas is Red Labour Representative on Momentum National Committee.