Editorial: Their thoughts fly up, our work remains below


When Henry McLeish preaches that we should ask “big questions like what kind of Scotland do we want to live in”, he sets himself apart from a Labour tradition that starts from everyday questions of work and life. When Patrick Harvie laments the discord between parties at Holyrood, his interludes drift through political divides leaving partisans unruffled. When Pat Kane insists Green-Left social planners will reform Scotland by creating high-skilled engineering work to solve global energy problems, many will be curious how the planners intend to access the economy’s commanding heights and guide this high-level reform, even once a Yes vote brings certain powers to Scotland’s government.

Are we surprised that demands find no echo when they are made outside the material world of people and parties and movements? Is it any wonder that ideas fail to grip the masses when our language is of justice and nations, consensus and neoliberalism?

Odes to prosperity and fairness, and theories of conflict resolution based on reaching common ground, are the political pastimes of a class with nice lives and accumulated resources, people who use their education or creativity to teach or plan or develop the prospects of others, people once interested in left ideas who found a place to settle and a public-serving job to satisfy their conscience. Members of this elite are not oppressed but like the gentry of old Scotland they skip around the world and delve inside the their own minds and others’ to try and cure their boredom and frustration. Fuelled by mindfulness and trips to the country, they believe in consensual solutions to everything. When they come together in their Hegelian huddle to proclaim a Common Weal, the masses just see an incredible muddle.

The point of these remarks is to suggest that the pro-independent Scottish Left is too idealistic, too set on consensus, determined that employers and employees can work in harmony. It’s an unrealistic vision for ordinary people who see an economy ruled by a rich elite that shirks taxes and places blame on the backs of the poor. Leftist mapmakers need to remember that workers see how much power the employer holds – enough to ignore the interests of employees, enough to sack you or reduce your hours at the drop of a hands-free telephone device. The bosses will not give up power without a fight, which is precisely what the merry bands of social consensualists are so determined to avoid.

Consensual politics are the preserve of a certain class, alien to those who struggle through work and everyday life, and they are an ineffective politics for the oppressed, who may nevertheless assume them to be acceptable and settle for passive consent. Meanwhile those who see through this Left, chiefly in the labour movement, and who understand that consensus is not a route to workers’ betterment, find themselves ignored because they lack the connections, eloquence, and other accumulated resources this class has in abundance.

Sometimes confidence in Left intellectuals on the part of the masses can lead to a kind of passive reform, but only if the Left is both seriously equipped and willing to challenge the enemies it is bound to face. This Left is neither, and even with power it could not help working people attain what they need. Its insistent consensualism is tantamount to deception – or, worse, it’s a sub-conscious method of bringing about the kind of harmony that would allow a privileged class to enjoy the moral contentment and stature of a progressive liberal elite. Like our political class, this elite would ask nothing of those it is meant to fight for, but will assure people that things will improve, with blithe and sickly optimism that is ultimately counterproductive; for the optimism of a political elite that delivers nothing will inspire in the masses more pessimism than hope, and perhaps even a kind of learned helplessness. Unless something is done, this risks being the legacy of the pro-independent Left.

So what is the alternative? The kind of dogged pessimism characteristic of parts of the labour movement does at least start from the attitudes of those it seeks to represent. Miliband is ready to admit his policy to equalise the wages of agency and regular workers is just a method to prevent the race to the bottom. Likewise Brown’s warnings about the instability of the minimum wage after independence strikes a sober chord for those who rely on New Labour’s main achievement. And while the Record is right that Labour’s vote against free school meals leaves a bad taste, some people do see honour in Lamont’s priority of policies that help the poor over those that benefit the whole population.

The Labour Party in Scotland has been battered by a flood of nationalistic optimism, and may remain submerged by the waves we expect this year. Lacking tough defences, our Party has also seemed too pessimistic about the prospects of effective social or economic change in Scotland, which is no way to stir support from those who seek a better life. But it may be that Labour’s stasis, its realistic pessimism, could pay off when the nationalist beacon starts to die, and people look around at the state they’re in.

When they do, Labour has the advantage that it starts from the work people do, the wages they earn, the decisions they make about their lives and their children’s lives, the condition of public services, access to jobs, level of education, ability to travel, and so on. Where the SNP starts with the wealth of Scotland and looks downwards – aspiring that all of our wealth trickles down and out and through the hands of Scotland’s people – Labour starts with the worth of the people and their challenges, and looks up to see what government can do. It fights against homelessness, hunger and hardship, knowing that in the face of all these, the dreams of the nationalists are no solution. It believes social justice means a better life for the mass of ordinary people in a world where work doesn’t pay, being female is a burden, and those in illness or want are neglected.

It should be no wonder that Labour, which has lost favour among the political class, retains a solid and growing support-base among ordinary working people. These supporters may be frustrated by the party’s pessimism but stick to Labour because of their realism and determination. As long as Scottish Labour is passive, they will wait; but they will be the activists if Labour grasps the full powers that a Yes vote could bring in the years to come. It is why we, who support independence from within the party, believe Labour not only has within it the instincts and politics to stir a people to change, but that, after we have won, our Party will be the one to achieve social justice in an independent Scotland.


4 thoughts on “Editorial: Their thoughts fly up, our work remains below

  1. “It should be no wonder that Labour, which has lost favour among the political class, retains a solid and growing support-base among ordinary working people.”

    Whilst the first part of this sentence is true I can’t help but feel that the second is pure fantasy and not something I see any proof of. Labour is no longer the party of “ordinary working people” but is as much a part of the City of London as the coalition. Miliband, with his “one nation” line, has even adopted the same approach as wet Tories and is even now playing the race card when Scotland needs immigration and has proved how far apart we are as a nation.

    “It is why we, who support independence from within the party, believe Labour not only has within it the instincts and politics to stir a people to change, but that, after we have won, our Party will be the one to achieve social justice in an independent Scotland.”

    This shows just how removed you are from grass roots Labour. Just spend a short time in most Labour controlled councils and you’ll hear unthinking opposition to independence, backed up by the nonsense which Better Together peddles, as well as a total rejection of anything which the SNP government does, irrespective of any positive social benefits. Yes, the white paper isn’t radical enough, but it’s a start and one which would never come about under Labour with Lamont in charge.

    So, sit tight and eventually Labour will come back into power but don’t expect any moves towards social justice unless there’s a total change in leadership and direction which certainly looks unlikely as Westminster dictates the continual drift of every party to the right.


  2. Thanks for your comments. Let me take them in turn.

    Is there any proof of a solid and growing support-base among ordinary working people? As far as the polls go, Labour edged ahead of the SNP in constituency and list intentions early December. They’re on a good run in byelections, and I expect Cowanbeath will show a solid or increased lead. This indicates that, despite their negativity and poor presence, people want to vote Labour; they are doing so even now when Scottish Labour has very little to say, so will do so definitely when SL have a programme. The Ashcroft research also found that the Scottish public feels more favourable towards the Labour party than towards the SNP.

    This leads to your second question: Is Labour part of the City, and has Miliband adopted Tory language? You are right, to the extent that ‘Labour’ is a right-leaning party close to the City. But, as we’ve written elsewhere, this is more down to the malfunction of Labour into a Westminster party than to some essential grassroots right winged-ness. Believe me, most members of my CLP resist and resent this move. Part of the point of independence is to reclaim and reconstruct Labour for other ends than winning under the right-wards pressures of Westminster and the City.

    Likewise, the ‘race card’ shows how far we are from the South-East of England, and most members I know would oppose Miliband’s playing it. It shows how Scottish Labour has no policy platform of its own, partly due to hierarchy, but also because Scottish Labour will not talk about reserved issues like migration and economics. This will change with independence, and I think Scottish Labour’s policies would be better than the SNP’s on this ground.

    As for my being ‘removed’ from the grassroots, in my CLP there is great opposition to Miliband’s direction. Every meeting the strongest and clearest voices debate and challenge the position of the party from a left perspective – on immigration, trade union links, health privatisation, business connections, and so on. Of course some members have the unthinking opposition to independece you describe, and think I should not be allowed in the Party. But many others among the grassroots hear my perspective and we debate it in the pub after meetings in the pub.

    At council and careerist level the party line rules, but grassroots debate is growing. Most are put off independence because they think we will end up with an SNP-run pro-business Scotland, defenseless against the torrent of global capital flows. They think the White Paper proposals indicate too much concession to business.

    I share their fear that the SNP would run Scotland for a long time, and they are frankly pessimistic about Scottish Labour’s prospects after independence. The problem with their argument is what you attribute to me – they see things in terms of sitting tight and waiting for Labour to win again. I see it in terms of grassroots members revitalizing the party and winning after independence. You’re right, we will not get social justice under a Westminster leadership, which is why Scottish Labour needs to become independent, and to fight for social justice here in Scotland.



    1. “Labour edged ahead of the SNP in constituency and list intentions early December”

      Are these the same polls which showed Labour winning an outright majority at the last Holyrood election?

      “They’re on a good run in byelections”

      mid-term with low turnouts and single digit leads. Not totally convincing, is it?

      “…and I expect Cowanbeath will show a solid or increased lead”

      That will be an interesting one, given the slim majority so we’ll revisit it on the 24th.

      “..grassroots debate is growing”. Sadly, it’s suppressed. Take a look at http://councillorstephenmccabe.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/a-momentous-year.html to see what it really says.

      It strikes me that there are three possible paths we can take: do nothing, sit around in the pub talking to people who share our beliefs or we can actively campaign for a Yes vote. Only LfI, who you seem to be very disparaging of and who I am a member of, are doing the last one and it’s by education that “Don’t knows” become “Yes” voters – just watch the various debate videos to see this happening.

      What I envisage happening is after a Yes vote and successfully becoming independent the SNP will fragment, since it’s purpose has been removed. This will give the Labour party the chance to occupy the position which has abandoned and once more become the party it was created to be. But it will need a change of leadership.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s