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.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.