Labour unveils Team Scotland to take on SNP

13 Scottish MPs have been charged with the responsibility of taking on the Nationalists

Labour has assembled a crack-team of 13 Scottish MPs to spearhead the fight against the SNP in the run up to the forthcoming independence referendum, which the Scottish Government has pledged to hold sometime between 2014 and 2016.

Led by new Shadow Scotland Secretary Margaret Curran, it is composed of some of the party's brightest young Scottish talent, including Gemma Doyle and Gregg McClymont, and a number of its more established figures like ex-Defence Secretary Lord Browne and former MSP and Scottish Executive minister Cathy Jamieson.

Commenting on its formation, Curran said the new group - which she described as "powerful"- would focus on the "big economic issues" and work to "hold the government at Westminster to account day in, day out". In an echo of the attack line used by Scottish Labour during its disastrous Holyrood election campaign earlier this year, she also drew a parallel between the Nationalist administration in Edinburgh and the Coalition administration in London: "These are tough times for many families caught between a Tory government cutting too hard and too fast, and an SNP government whose economic policy simply isn't working."

However, the precise remit of 'Team Scotland' is unclear. How will it relate to the party north of the border, particularly in light of the latter's efforts to distance itself from Westminster influence? What part will it play in opposing Scottish Government policy, a role which had up until now been reserved for the MSP group? Crucially, will it be accountable to the next Scottish leader or to Ed Miliband?

These questions lay bare the dilemma Labour has found itself in with regard to Scotland over the last few years. For instance, if Curran's troupe is answerable to Miliband, the SNP will, rightly, take it as confirmation that the party has failed to come to terms with the nationalist dynamics currently fuelling Scotland's drive toward greater autonomy. If not, Salmond and his supporters will cite it as evidence that the Unionists are dancing to a separatist tune and claim a further, albeit minor, victory in their bid to dismantle the British political structure. Either way, Labour comes off second best and Curran certainly has her work cut out.

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

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.