Will a Scot ever lead Labour again? You might think that’s a strange question. Of the 17 men elected as Labour leader since 1906, eight have been Caledonians. This includes Labour’s first five leaders and its last three: Smith Blair and Brown.
But the party is becoming less Scottish. This is an imprecise science; but just think back to Tony Blair’s first cabinet in 1997. Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Donald Dewar, Gavin Strang, George Robertson, Alistair Darling and Derry Irvine. Scots abounded.
Yet the new shadow cabinet contains just three Scots: Jim Murphy at defence, Douglas Alexander at transport and Ann McKechin at the Scottish office. Meanwhile, the biggest casualty of the shadow cabinet elections was Pat McFadden, although he is an anomaly: a Scot representing an English seat.
Perhaps another way of putting it is that Labour is becoming more English. The leadership contest was a case in point. It was a Scot-free affair. Diane Abbott represents a London seat; Eds Miliband and Balls, Yorkshire; Andy Burnham, Lancashire; and David Miliband, the north east. You have to go back to Anthony Greenwood’s 1961 challenge to Hugh Gaitskell to find the last leadership contest fought entirely between English-born candidates representing English seats.
Political geography is crucial for Labour. It can credibly claim to be the only real party of the union with strong representation in England, Scotland and Wales. The realpolitik, of course, is that shorn of its 41 Scottish and 29 Welsh MPs, the prospect of Labour winning a majority of seats in England alone is a fearsome challenge.
But there seems to be a nagging sense that Scottish devolution, the Barnett formula and the ever-prescient West Lothian question make electing a Scot especially problematic for Labour these days. Ipsos Mori found that steadily rising support for an English parliament is boosted to four in ten English voters once the settlements in Scotland and Wales are levered into the conversation.
Gordon Brown’s frequent shoe-horning of Britishness into his political narrative always seemed like a response to this concern; as though he felt the need to guard his flank by reassuring English voters, potentially angry that they might be missing out, that he was “one of them”, by finding a common denominator. Not having been elected prime minister in his own right probably compounded that nervousness; but, either way, the appeal always felt clunking and unreal, a nebulous, catch-all response to a more complicated question about national identity. Cameron was right to say we don’t do flagpoles in our gardens in this country.
But there is something more prosaic too, a sense that the tail is wagging the dog. At an elementary level, of course, it is. This union is not an arrangement of equals. Never mind the historical iniquities, look at the figures. 51 million of Britain’s 61 million inhabitants live in England, just 5 million in Scotland. On that basis, only two of Labour’s leaders should have been Scottish, rather than eight. In reality, British politics means English politics. Arguably, it always has. John Bright’s oft misquoted remark was, after all, “England, Mother of Parliaments”. And Walter Bagehot’s famous study of it, The English Constitution.
Repeated claims back in the late 90s that devolution to Scotland and Wales would strengthen the union always seemed over-egged. The union between these countries is an English headlock. Any relaxation of the grip weakens the point of having it at all. The fact that we are not further along the path to an independent Scotland owes as much to the incompetence of Alex Salmond’s tartan Tories in failing to convert their various opportunities as it does to the enduring appeal of the union.
Either way, we should be glad. Labour’s support among the Celtic nations means the difference between the possibility of electing a British Labour government or the reality of getting an English Tory one. It is not just because Scotland and Wales have large urban centres with lots of working-class people; there is something in the national character. The Scots and Welsh are more egalitarian, more rebellious than the English; an obvious fit for the centre-left.
So a self-denying ordinance of avoiding Scottish leaders in the future would rob Labour of a wellspring of political talent. Many of the party’s most admirable figures over the last century have been from north of the border. Their successors should not be consigned to the realm of provincial Scottish politics.
Of course, the broader question is whether there is a decline of Scots in British politics per se. The evidence is mixed. Two of the last three Lib Dem leaders were Scots (Kennedy and Campbell), as are two of their five cabinet ministers (Michael Moore and Danny Alexander).
Despite repeated attempts to reboot their political fortunes in Scotland, the Tories, however, remain effectively Mcbarren. David Mundell is their sole MP, out of 59 seats. No change from 2005. Or 2001 for that matter. Yet as recently as 1983 there were 21 Scottish Tory MPs. Tellingly, the Scottish saltire stretches across Mundell’s website masthead. The union flag is nowhere to be seen.
So, back to the question: will a Scot ever lead Labour again? Yes. There is too much talent for that not to be the case. And the sheer number of Scots in prominent media roles helps to normalise the notion that their countrymen and women should remain at the top table of British public affairs.
Labour’s Scottish decline may just be cyclical. All parties that change leader opt for someone different. In looks and style, Ed Miliband is chalk to Gordon Brown’s cheese. As indeed Brown was to Blair. And Blair to John Smith.
But Labour needs to be mindful of defending the principle that all MPs must remain equal as it navigates the obstacle course of the modern British constitutional settlement, opposing any drift towards two-tier status for Scottish MPs.
So to tinker with the maxim of that famous Scottish philosopher, Private Fraser, the fortunes of the Scots in Labour politics may be taking a dip, but they are not doomed.
Kevin Meagher is a campaign consultant and former adviser to Labour ministers.
Tags: constitution, Keving Meagher, Scots, Scottish leaders, Union
It would be illogical for Scots to hold ministerial posts in departments whose remit is English or English and Welsh, so immediately half of the ministerial jobs on offer and half the cabinet posts should be unavailable to Scots.
So hopefully we’re moving towards a situation where Cabinet Government is biased towards English members and Scots are prevented from cutting their political teeth in Health or Education, and consequently not finding their way to the top.
Preferably, at least until there is an English parliament, a Scot should never again be prime minister, particularly not one who is heavily reliant on the votes of non-English MPs as Gordon Brown was.
This is the punch line “But Labour needs to be mindful of defending the principle that all MPs must remain equal as it navigates the obstacle course of the modern British constitutional settlement, opposing any drift towards two-tier status for Scottish MPs.”
It translates as “on no account must there be English votes on English Laws”.
In fact, of course, Scottish MPs already have a separate tier status since, unlike English MPs, they no longer have full parliamentary responsibility for the affairs of their constituents.
One theoretical solution to this is the establishment of an English Parliament. Scottish UK MPs would then once again be fully equal at Westminster. However, just as, for partisan electoral advantage, the Labour Party is determined to deny a return to full electoral equality for English voters by blocking English votes for English Laws, it rejects an English Parliament, from exactly the same sectarian motive. When English voters fully wake up to this they will not forgive the Labour Party.
Your comment “we should be glad. Labour’s support among the Celtic nations means the difference between the possibility of electing a British Labour government or the reality of getting an English Tory one” is outrageous.
What you are saying is that the choice of the government of England – for the government of England is controlled by the British governed – must be in the hands of people from outside England!
And your statement “Labour needs to be mindful of defending the principle that all MPs must remain equal […] opposing any drift towards two-tier status for Scottish MPs” is nonsensical. It was the Labour government which destroyed the principle that all MPs should be equal, and created two-tier status for English MPs. At present, individuals in Westminster from outside England can vote on both matters reserved to the UK and also English devolved matters, even though no one in England voted for them, while devolved matters in their own countries are decided by their own parliament/assemblies, while MPs from England vote on UK reserved and English devolved matters, but not on devolved matters outside England. This undemocratic situation has resulted in individuals for whom no one in England voted, swinging the votes on English devolved matters against the wishes of English MPs, thus making English MPs second class as regards English matters.
Dear, oh dear. I was enjoying this article until I read,
“Political geography is crucial for Labour. It can credibly claim to be the only real party of the union with strong representation in England, Scotland and Wales”.
Alas, in all other respects Labour falls flat on it’s face in relation to the union. For one thing the union does not end with England, Scotland and Wales. Those of us who share and support the Labour Party’s ideology, and only the Labour Party’s ideology, here in Northern Ireland, are frankly gobsmacked by the party as it presently refuses to allow its members here to fight elections. Pity the party didn’t feel equally as shy when it comes to membership fees.
You have to hand it to the Tories, abysmal though their politics generally speaking tend to be, they allow their members to run in elections in all parts of the UK and they and they alone can claim credibility in representing the union in this respect.
The Labour party has used anti English bile in Scotland for years for political advantage.
They also used anti Southern English bile in the North East England referendum for a regional assembly in 2004,unsuccesfully. Instead of asking where all the Scots have gone you should be asking where have all the English gone?.
New Labour only did well in Scotland at the election because Brown’s policies had no remit in Scotland. If they did you would have seen labour wiped out and the SNP romp home. Scottish votes on English Laws ,a parcel o rogues in a nation.
It’s rare for the Left to acknowledge,”…steadily rising support for an English parliament” although the author does pick on one of the lower supporting surveys. Calling the Tories ”Mcbarren’ is a term of genius.
Curiously, though, while jogging the Labour party and the left generally to remember England, and boldly facing up to the ‘English Question’, the author falls short of offering any possible solution. I happened to catch bit of an absurd programme on TV yesterday in which two talking birds at the seaside were facing the wrong way could not see the sea. When finally one got a view of it, he said it was not the sea but the ocean. It’s a bit like the Labour party and England – it has seen England but doesn’t want to admit it. The tide is coming in!
Will a Scot ever lead Labour again?
Which Labour would that be? A Scot leading Scottish Labour. Odds on. A Scot leading Welsh Labour. No I’d bet a Welshman or woman would hold that post. So will a Scot lead English Labour? That would be Englishman or woman wouldn’t it? Unfortunately there is no such thing as English Labour. So, are you referring to British Labour? Say so if you are, please.