"The question I ask Labour today is this: what is more important to them – the short-term future of the Labour Party or the long-term future of the United Kingdom,"A question posed by the Scottish Conservatives' leader Annabel Goldies; if I were her I wouldn't stake my house on the answer being the latter option:
"Will the Labour Party ignore the Unionist mandate and descend into the type of nationalism that so blighted their past?"The situation facing the Labour Party in Scotland and Wales today is much different than that of the 1980s and 90s when the "Celtic Rebel" anti-Westminster card could be played with impunity; they would be damaging their own party's long-term future as much as that of the United Kingdom to play it again. The question, however, with the inevitable chaos post the inevitable demise of Brown (the one Labour figure who, for purely selfish political reasons, has needed the Union to remain a viable entity): how much long-term strategical thinking will be taking place in Scottish and Welsh Labour circles?
She accused them of doing so in the 1980s and 1990, but argued the UK is a "constant" that transcends any individual election result.
Not for the first time, there is a risk of Scottish Unionism knocking in a couple of own-goals...Goldie's reinstatement of the likely Salmond line of attack in the event of a Conservative UK government doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know:
The Conservatives currently hold one of the 59 Westminster seats north of the Border, and are predicted to win only a few more in the forthcoming general election.That's a cast-iron certainty- more importantly, what then will be the Conservative and Unionist counter-attack? Nothing much on that from Ms Goldie.
Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Tory leader, said she expects the SNP to use this to claim Mr Cameron has no democratic mandate in Scotland if he is elected Prime Minister.
4 comments:
Will the Labour Party ignore the Unionist mandate and descend into the type of nationalism that so blighted their past?
Labour? Nationalist? Auntie Annabel is starting to lose it. Labour's over-riding desire in the 80's and 90's as both a party of oppositon and government was to stop nationalism in Scotland. Devolution was meant to, "kill it stone dead", and to swing voters away from the SNP and back to Labour and the Union. Labour has always been very much a party of the Union.
The situation facing the Labour Party in Scotland and Wales today is much different than that of the 1980s and 90s when the "Celtic Rebel" anti-Westminster card could be played with impunity...
The idea of Labour playing the, "Celtic Rebel", is laughable. In the 80's and 90's when Labour held 50 seats in Scotland they were known as the, "Feeble Fifty", who said not a lot and did even less to stop Thatcher. The only threat they could use to try and defend Scotland was the threat of nationalism and since they are inimically hostile to nationalism they threatened nothing and achieved nothing. The Conservatives ignored them. They would regularly denounce Thatcher but that was as far as it got.
The question, however, with the inevitable chaos post the inevitable demise of Brown (the one Labour figure who, for purely selfish political reasons, has needed the Union to remain a viable entity): how much long-term strategical thinking will be taking place in Scottish and Welsh Labour circles?
Unionism, the UK and the Labour party are indivisible. Brown is not out on his own at all, he just embodies the unionism in the party. The members of British Labour in Scotland are not renowned for strategic thinking and they won't have any strategy apart from a policy of clinging to the union.
Alex Salmon will certainly use the poor showing in the polls for the Conservatives in Scotland as a lever to try and swing disillusioned Labour voters to the SNP but to expect a strategy from the British Conservatives in Scotland is as futile as expecting one from Labour.
Auntie Annabel is starting to lose it. Labour's over-riding desire in the 80's and 90's as both a party of oppositon and government was to stop nationalism in Scotland.
Not to prevent an "English" Conservative party ever governing Scotland again? If they had foreseen a Salmond-led adminstration would they have gone ahead with devolution? Despite Robertson's quote, to keep the I think it was the fear of a Thatcher Mark 2 not a salmond Mark 1 which frightened them.
Brown is not out on his own at all, he just embodies the unionism in the party.
Not really what I was wanting to get at.
Brown's Unionism, in my opinion, is self-serving not conviction.
Did he not sign the Scottish Claim of Right in 1987; was it not he who was the architect of devolution, the constitutional vandalism which has done more than anything or anyone else to weaken the UK?
How much attention has he personally played to the constitutional position of those other 2 integral parts of the UK, Wales and NI?
When did his apparent ardent Unionism start to manifest itself?
It's when he saw his position as a Scottish PM in jeopardy due to the rise of the SNP and antipathy towards himself in England.
The members of British Labour in Scotland are not renowned for strategic thinking and they won't have any strategy apart from a policy of clinging to the union.
With you right up to that very last word, no strategy apart from a policy of attempting to regain power in Scotland and if that involves weakening the Union, then so be it.
...but to expect a strategy from the British Conservatives in Scotland is as futile as expecting one from Labour.
Unfortunately, it appears you're right on that one.
Part of the reasons that Labour was so keen on devolution was that in the event of a Thatcher Mark 2 they assumed that they would control the devolved parliament and assembly in Scotland and Wales which would give them power-bases and official status as a regional government there whatever happened in Westminster but the overriding reason was as means to neutralise any nationalist threat which means it is doubtful that they would'e gone ahead with devolution if they thought that the SNP would ever gain control.
A Thatcher Mark 2 or a Conservative run Westminster is a lot less frightening to Labour than losing Scotland. They prefer a conservative run UK to an independent Scotland.
The "Claim of Right" which was signed by Brown was never a statement of independence. At best it was a statment which gave Scots the right to any form of Government they liked as long as it was in the UK, pretty much as in the Lib-Dem constitution. There were no official representatives or leaders from the SNP at the signing as the Scottish Constutional Convention specifially refused to discuss independence or to have it as an option on any referendum. The Convention was so embedded in unionism that they didn't feel the need to addd the phrase, "within the UK", into the text of the Claim.
What they thought they were signing should have read:
We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs within the UK, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount. (My bold and addition)
Devolution was always designed to preserve the Union not to split it. Brown's ardent unionism has only manifested itself as the threat of nationalism has risen. He's never had to state it before in such blunt terms because it's never been such an issue. Labour have always fought the SNP tooth and nail in Scotland so it's not something new.
DtD
I've had a quick check of the Claim again:
We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.
We further declare and pledge that our actions and deliberations shall be directed to the following ends:
To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland;
To mobilise Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme; and
To assert the right of the Scottish people to secure implementation of that scheme.
No mention, as you say, of "within the UK" there. The sovereign right of the Scottish people could lead to any "solution" including departure from the Uk- not precluded from the Claim. How many Conservatives signed it?
Re the geuniness or otherwise of Brown and Scottish labour's Unionism- let's just and wait and see the reaction to an "English" Conservative win at the GE. If this blog is still running in a year's time I fully expect to have done at least one post on Labour separatism!
Post a Comment