Plus ça change

Another Scottish Parliament election, and it's plus ça change. The phrase coined by the French critic, Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr in 1849, suggests that despite superficial alterations or reforms, underlying fundamental issues often remain unresolved. As none of the parties in this election even attempted to address the fundamental issues facing Scotland, this seems apposite. Turnout was dismal, but no lower than pre-2021 levels, so the voters have been 'scunnered' for a long time.

It is often claimed that the Scottish Parliament's voting system was designed to stop any party from having a majority. Sadly, this is a myth. The Labour establishment at the time offered a nod of recognition of the need for some proportionality, but thought their dominance of the FPTP seats would deliver a Labour majority, or at least something close to one. They didn't envision the current circumstances, where it delivers an SNP majority. 

Vote share

But what about tactical voting? Yes, that can work in a by-election when the electorate can roughly work out their options. It can also work in a two-party circumstance, such as the last general election. It doesn't work in a Scottish election when the anti-SNP vote, on constitutional or other issues, is split three or four different ways. I was delivering a tactical voting leaflet to a Tory voter this week. He was genuinely confused about the FPTP system and the outcome I accurately predicted in my constituency. He wasn't a stupid person, as the long drive and three BMWs probably meant he had earned a decent living before retirement. In fairness, if he had just said, I'm a Tory, and I am voting that way anyway, I would have understood. I have voted Labour, even when they stood no chance. As I have no strong view on the constitution, if there wasn't a Labour candidate, I would vote SNP before I voted for the Tories or their reincarnation as Reform Ltd.

The constitution may be less of an issue than it was after 2014, but it remains the default position for many voters. It is going nowhere after this election, much to John Swinney's private relief. There will be some performative noise, and then it will be back to business as usual. It is a lot easier to win elections when you can blame someone else. I was the Chair of Scottish Labour when Wendy Alexander did her 'bring it on' stunt. I thought she was right then, as it certainly shook Alex Salmond as much as it would John Swinney today. However, he can rest easy, as UK Labour will take the same position it always has. There will be no break from the constitutional logjam unless there is a viable route to a referendum. That is tactically and democratically the right approach, but it won't happen.

As one commentator put it this morning, "The SNP victory was made in Downing Street by a hapless Prime Minister." That is possibly true, although I think the UK Government gets insufficient credit for the positive aspects of its record, particularly reforms to the railways and employment rights. I voted for Keir Starmer, and although I recognised he may be a bit dull, but after Johnson and Truss, dull looked good.  What I didn't appreciate was how bad a politician he would be. I expected to disagree with the new government on aspects of economic policy. I knew it wouldn't be as radical as I wanted, but I didn't think it would be politically incompetent. They are also learning that the billionaire media, which has now reached parts of the BBC, will go after a right-wing Labour leadership, nearly as much as a left-wing one. All you can do is try not to present open goals, as this government has done, just as Jeremy Corbyn did.

The same commentator also said, "Sarwar could have promised voters twenty grand each and they still would have shouted at him about the Prime Minister and voted SNP or Reform." Quite possibly, but there were major homegrown errors as well. If you are going to use the slogan 'change' when the voters have several options for change, you had better have a plan for what that change looks like. The Scottish Labour manifesto was yet another piece of managerial tinkering. This left Anas trekking the country, spouting slogans without anything to back them up. Instead of a radical plan that would distinguish Scottish Labour from the pack, it dissolved into platitudes that convinced no one. The outcome was Scottish Labour's lowest vote in the party's history as a national party, with 19.2% in the constituency vote and 16% in the list vote. The Scottish Greens won more list votes than Scottish Labour in Glasgow. 

This has nothing to do with the myth that Scottish Labour policies are set by 'London'. I have been closely involved in most of the manifestos since devolution, and Westminster influence has declined in every one. The rules give Scottish Labour absolute autonomy over devolved issues, and attempts to influence that, even when there was a UK Labour government, were largely rebuffed. The best example is the rejection of a marketised NHS in Scotland, when Blair was taking England in another direction. The problem is the mindset in the Scottish Labour establishment since 2007. I was at the parliamentary group meeting after the 2007 election, and with some honourable exceptions, most of the MSPs were not prepared to shift into opposition mode. Ever since then, it has been the same. Leaders have acted as if the ministerial Mondeos will turn up the next day (Kias and Volvos today), and have gone to the electorate with bland, no-risk policy platforms.

If Scottish Labour want's to climb out of the hole it has dug for itself, it needs to become a radical insurgent party. UK Labour also needs to change as well. I am less focused on personalities than on the need for policy and strategy changes, but there is little in this morning's missives from both Labour leaders to give me much confidence that real change is likely.