Whatever the result of
the referendum on September 18th, Scottish Labour will never be the
same. Over the past two years it has caused irreparable damage to its own
reputation, estranging and insulting both its target middle-voters and its most
loyal supporters. Many of the once proudly Labour Scottish left are divorcing
themselves in favour of pastures new in the Scottish Greens, SNP and, curiously,
UKIP.
Labour’s adamant,
almost ruthless determination to remain with the union has come at an
unprecedented cost. It is the only remotely left party which has sided with No,
and its public image is inextricably linked with Tory politics; the policies of
staying in the UK. One, potentially catastrophic, failure of Better Together
has been their awful communication of No’s positive arguments. Labour, as not
only an integral member of Better Together but its foreground, are seen as
culpable in the ‘Bedroom Tax,’ NHS privatisation, welfare reform and food bank
endorsement. They are considered ‘Red Tories,’ scoffing at the notion that life
in the UK will only deteriorate without offering a whiff of a constructive
alternative. The widespread feeling in Scotland is that this is a party very
much centred, a party absent of the spirit of Keir Hardie, Clement Attlee and
Aneurin Bevan, and many Labour voters have had enough.
Labour have reverted to
scare tactics, and in many ways it has backfired considerably, the notorious
#BTPatronisingLady TV advert being a recent example. By propagating fear and pessimism
rather than countering Yes’s message of hope they have disenchanted No voters
as well as Yes; voters who were expecting their individual campaigns for the UK
to be supplemented by Better Together’s impassioned plea for union rather than
thinly veiled threats over post-Independence. They are an incoherent, divided,
contradictory mess, their empty promise of ‘further devolved powers’ in the
event of No ringing hollow.
This in turn connotes
one of Labour’s biggest weaknesses; an appalling lack of leadership. Starting from
the top, Johann Lamont-SLP leader. After the SNP delivered on their manifesto
of continued free higher education after their election in 2011, Lamont, a year
later, publically condemned their policies in September 2012; parenthetically,
condemning the dogma of a centre-left party. In her September speech she claimed
that social democracy, a political structure similar to Norway’s, was impossible
without higher taxes. Her tone was critical of the SNP, but this form of social
democracy is a fundamentally Labour ideal. She then refrained to comment that such
control of tax regulation would require further powers. This was one of the
first major indications of her personal ineptitude, and her, and Labour’s, leftie
retreat. A symbolic misstep which suggested that Scottish Labour’s politics
were overtly Neo-Liberal. This has been fairly symptomatic of her guise for the
past two years; delicately ironic Westminster subservience and resolute Holyrood
disapproval.
Onto Alisdair Darling, the face of Better Together. As Chancellor
of the Exchequer for Gordon Brown’s three years as PM, he oversaw Britain’s
financial collapse, backed excessive public funding to bail out a private firm
(Northern Rock), and administered the 2008 Budget’s 10% income tax band, which
many argue to be the first spark of recession austerity measures. Indeed, it
was the 2008 Budget which initiated Labour cynicism for many voters. He was
also, infamously, complicit in an expenses scandal in 2009 where he allegedly
changed the location of his second home four times in four years, which
provided him with the funds to furnish his Edinburgh house, and buy a London
flat.
Expanding on the theme of expenses frauds, we come to Jim Murphy, Shadow Secretary
of State for International Development and one of BT’s most dedicated champions. In
2012 it was reported that Murphy was one of 27 MPs involved in an expenses row,
after it materialized that he had been receiving income from rented properties
in London while claiming £20,000 a year in expenses. Though not technically
illegal, it triggered outrage that he, a supposed man of the people, was exploiting
the Commons for profit while his constituents suffered severe austerity agencies.
That he is also a Zionist, a passionate defender of the Iraq War, and that he never
turned up to vote against the ‘Bedroom Tax,’ does not paint a favourable
picture for Labour voters. The party and its public figures have lost the
support, but more importantly the trust, of concrete Labour voters, regardless
of their Indyref propensities.
Though they’ve injured
their reputation with Nos, they’ve mutilated it with Yes’s. Lamont, Darling,
Murphy, and the likes of Alistair Campbell and Douglas Alexander, refer to Yes
supporters, with an empirical thoroughness, in the pejorative terms ‘nationalists’
and ‘separatists’. Social Media Yes supporters are ignorantly pidgeonholed as ‘cybernats,’
grouping each and every single Yes twitterer as seething, vile, angry
low-lifes. No supporters are, incidentally, ‘patriots’. The word is
representative of their general attitude towards Yes advocates. Through a
calculated and collective demonization process, Labour have systematically
alienated over half of their electors. Twenty years ago, most Yessers were
dedicated Labour voters; now they’re told on a daily basis by their party’s major
members that they’re deluded and ill-informed for aspiring to a true social democracy,
and that they’re inherently sinister for wanting to break up the union. I doubt
most Yes’s will forgive them unless there’s significant change after the
referendum. I won’t.
If Scotland votes Yes,
Scottish Labour has an opportunity to rebuild, reassemble, and possibly
reassert itself as the workers’ dominant party; this, obviously, imports a
comprehensive shake-up of personnel, a Labour Party befitting of Old Labour,
but the current structure as we know it would be defunct. If Scotland votes No,
Scottish Labour could in all likeliness fade into Lib-Dem obscurity, even its
most centre-left devotees abjectly disillusioned with a party who have
pitilessly betrayed their foundational principles to remain with the British
establishment.
