Deputy Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and First Minister Alex Salmond campaign in Piershill Square on September 10, 2014 in Edinburgh. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why Salmond's departure won't weaken the SNP

Under the talented and popular Nicola Sturgeon, the party will become stronger still. Labour is on the run. 

Those unionists celebrating the resignation of Alex Salmond should pause a moment. Salmond is certainly the most impressive politician in these islands, a visionary leader and strategist. A great bruiser and street fighter, too. But his departure won’t now weaken the SNP or the independence cause, and I’ll explain why.

The New Statesman collaborated with the First Minister several times during the campaign – on a special issue of the magazine in February – you can read his essay here - and he came to London at our invitation in March to deliver the New Statesman lecture, “Scotland’s Future in Scotland’s Hands” (You can watch the lecture and a Newsnight discussion about it here). It was then that he popularised the metaphor of London as the "dark star", inexorably sucking in resources, people and energy. I had also visited him in June last year at Bute House, his official residence in Edinburgh, where we had a long conversation about the forthcoming referendum campaign.

Over dinner with us, in London, Salmond was delightful company: candid, learned, sarcastic, generous to former opponents (he spoke particularly fondly of John Major) and remorseless in his condemnation of those he least respected (George Osborne was mentioned more than once). Under his leadership the SNP was transformed from a protest party into the natural party of government in Scotland. He smashed Labour hegemony. And he watched delightedly as the party lost the backing first of much of Scotland’s leftish intelligentsia and then began to haemorrhage support in its old heartlands. And he persuaded his party, against some fierce opposition, that it would be right for an independent Scotland to join NATO.

Yet, as I said, the SNP will be stronger without Salmond, because his successor will be Nicola Sturgeon, who is adored by the party’s grassroots. A former lawyer, Sturgeon is a social democrat, politically to the left of Salmond, who is a free marketeer (his wish to cut corporation tax is unpopular with the SNP left) with some dodgy allies on the right. Sturgeon is building a power base in Glasgow, which voted Yes to independence. She is a formidable machine politician and an excellent platform speaker and media performer. She is a fine debater who speaks in complete sentences and knows exactly what she wants to say and how to say it. Labour in Scotland has no one of her calibre – or zeal. And she emerges from the referendum campaign with her reputation enhanced and her public profile as high as it has ever been.  

I was relieved that the 307-year old Union was not shattered. But here’s the thing: 45 per cent of Scots who voted still voted for independence. That’s a lot of people who wanted to break from Britain. And there is no quick fix. Deep, structural forces are cleaving our United Kingdom. Scottish nationalism, the Ukip insurgency in England as well the general anti-politics, "stuff them" mood are all symptoms of the need not only for constitutional reform and a reconfigured Union but for far-reaching economic and social change.  

From the beginning of the referendum campaign, Johann Lamont, the Scottish Labour leader, and her colleagues struggled to win over disillusioned voters – until a desperate, late scramble led by Gordon Brown pulled some of them back into the fold. Even so, Labour was routed in many of its old strongholds in Glasgow and Dundee. It also seems as if many working class Catholics in Glasgow voted for independence and have switched allegiance to the SNP, which was once perceived to be an anti-Catholic party.

Gordon Brown’s speech in Glasgow, on the eve of the vote, was the most inspiring exposition of the values of the Union and of Britishness I have read or heard in recent times. He took the fight to Alex Salmond and the pro-independence movement with all the fervor of an old-style Presbyterian preacher. And people loved it.

Here was the passion and emotion absent for so long from the Better Together campaign, which was too arid and technocratic. At times, it was as if Alistair Darling was afraid even to speak the word "British"

Is there any chance of a Labour revival in Scotland? Not yet. It would have been unthinkable even five years ago for Labour to take such a beating on independence in Glasgow.

Yet Gordon Brown offered a glimpse of the way ahead for Labour. Because of his deep understanding of history and economics, he articulated the unique achievement of the Union: the creation of a multinational state in which not merely civil and political freedoms but economic and social rights are shared.

If it is to recover, Labour must once again become the party of the masses in Scotland. It needs dynamic leadership and willing campaigners and activists on the ground.

For now, the SNP are in the ascendant and will become stronger still under the leadership of Sturgeon, who will succeed Alex Salmond in November.

Jason Cowley is editor of the New Statesman. He has been the editor of Granta, a senior editor at the Observer and a staff writer at the Times.

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496