MY congratulations to Keir Starmer on winning the Labour leadership contest. I’m sure we all hope he will be prepared to engage honestly and openly with all those democratic socialist, social democratic, and progressive forces in Scottish politics. In order to do that, though, the Westminster Labour leadership need to open their eyes rather than trying to project Westminster expectations onto Scotland’s reality.
Westminster and Scotland are a world apart. Whilst Sir Keir faces the unenviable task of holding together the often discordant wings of his party, the days of any comparable task in Scotland seem numbered.
READ MORE: Tony Blair calls on Scottish Labour to be more like Ruth Davidson
The root of Sir Keir’s challenge is that Westminster is still locked into a two-party system. Health. Wages. Europe. A vast and complex array of issues must be boiled down into one of two boxes. The result? An often uneasy fit. Polling suggests most voters in England must settle for a lesser of two evils. Campaigning activists may find themselves tacitly in direct opposition to their own party majorities.
Meanwhile, Scotland is adapting to an age of multi-party politics.
Look at our neighbours in Norway and Sweden. In both, elections are contested by a range of parties from left to right, each able to honestly share their real visions and contribute their ideas to the national conversation. After each election democratic socialist, social democratic, and progressive parties can find common ground on an issue-by-issue basis. Different views on wages, healthcare, and Europe are all given a voice. It’s about discussion and collaboration between representative parties, not fighting to dominate one of the two options.
READ MORE: Willie Rennie's latest call for federalism rejected by Twitter
For Scotland, devolution has heralded and advanced our progress in that direction. Look at the rainbow parliament of 2003. Six parties in the mix. All six were active in 2014 in two tripartite alliances. The SSP, SNP and Greens on the Yes side and Labour, the Tories and the LibDems on the other. A few years later, the six all grouped differently again on the question of Europe.
Going into 2021, take the SSP and SNP on local taxation. Both support independence, but cater to different views on local tax. The SNP has kept an amended version of the old council tax, whilst the SSP advocates an income-based alternative. The two can openly differ on question of tax but can still cooperate amiably on independence.
Not once has there been a need to try to stuff this complex array into two single parties as Westminster would dictate. Nor would the nation’s democratic discourse have been improved by doing so.
It’s hard to see where a Westminster Labour party which in the popular eye only gripes and bemoans news in Scotland can fit into that landscape. Without that two-party system, the age of the Scottish Labour party has passed. There are plenty of allies to be found on an issue-by-issue basis if Sir Keir is willing discuss a second referendum and to engage respectfully with our multi-party system, rather than waiting for a surprise 40% boost for the Scottish Labour party.
Will he? We’ll see. Either way we don’t need to wait for Westminster. It’s up to us all to shape Scotland’s political landscape. Let’s make sure it’s for the better.
Calum Martin
National Co-chair, Scottish Socialist Party
INTERESTING that Ronald Livingstone McNeil references the accession to power of Margaret Thatcher – whose inability to even see a “society”, far less recognise its needs, accelerated the final demise of the UK as a productive and sustaining economy – and Tony Blair – who destroyed the Labour party as we understood it – as useful results of “civil wars” in their parties.
Both these persons came to power as victories for the silent establishment that controls the UK that we must escape. Perhaps Ronald didn’t read to the end of my letter, which pointed out that the membership of the SNP have the power to decide who leads it and how. An internal collision in the SNP might be interesting and productive. The only interest that is served by a public civil war in the SNP is that of the Union.
Of more interest, however, is the Wee Ginger Dug’s burning question. Why does it appear to be that the SNP was making no effort to celebrate the 700th anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath or bring its compelling relevance, even today, to all our people? I think that is a question we can usefully put to conference.
In the meantime, coronavirus or no, it is time for the broad-based independence movement we have been promised to be put together to carry forward a vision of the better country we can build. As soon as this pandemic crisis is over we must be ready to run.
David McEwan Hill
Sandbank, Argyll
REGARDING your story “Dr Calderwood could face conduct investigation” (April 7), I believe that the GMC should investigate, as this could have destroyed confidence in the work of the Scottish Government at the height of this crisis. Dr Calderwood was the Scottish Government’s public face, advising the public of the seriousness of the situation and action essential to stop the spread of the virus. I watched announcement on TV several times, it went straight to the point, leaving no doubt in my mind that anyone who did not follow her advice could be endangering people’s lives even if they had no signs of the virus.
Fortunately the vast majority of people had the common sense to do as she had said, not do as she had done, otherwise there could have been a complete breakdown of social distancing on Sunday when her actions became public knowledge.
Why did the media not forewarn the Scottish Government, to let ministers be ready to tell the public that the message was genuine, although it was about to shoot the messenger?
It appears the media is so obsessed with its objective of discrediting the Scottish Government that it doesn’t even consider the possible effects of its actions.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
Scotland is in lockdown. Shops are closing and newspaper sales are falling fast. It’s no exaggeration to say that the future of The National is at stake. Please consider supporting us through this with a digital subscription from just £2 for 2 months by following this link: www.thenational.scot/subscribe. Thanks – and stay safe.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel