The Representative Paradox Plaguing Scottish Labour

This article will elicit the representative paradox in which Scottish Labour candidates purport to act in the interests of the Scottish electorate while being whipped to act in the contradictory interests of the UK Labour party.

Being perceived to be acting in alignment with ‘Scotland’s interests’ is essential for any political party campaigning in Scotland where many voters identify as predominantly Scottish. This is illustrated by the messaging utilised by the two most competitive parties in Scotland ahead of the next general election: the SNP say that they will ‘stand up for Scotland’ whereas the Scottish Labour party say that they will deliver the ‘change that Scotland wants.’ While both parties recognise the emphasis which must be placed on ‘Scotland’s interests’, they are not influenced to the same extent by the wants of the Scottish electorate when formulating policies and positions. This article will challenge the disingenuous nature of Scottish Labours messaging and elicit the ‘representative paradox’ in which Scottish Labour purport to represent both the Scottish electorate and the UK Labour Party despite their respective interests often directly contradicting each other.

The inability of Scottish Labour candidates to act in Scotland’s interests is largely structural: Scottish Labour are a minor faction of UK Labour (a ‘branch office’) and exist, at least in some capacity, to supplement and appease their Westminster superiors. The London leaders of UK Labour expect their Scottish MPs to obediently observe any orders that they issue, with those Scottish MPs being whipped to vote as directed, regardless of whether it would contradict the will of their constituents and the wider Scottish population. For example, both Scottish Labour MPs adhered with their leaders’ orders and abstained from voting on the Gaza ceasefire amendment. In the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Labour MSPs joined calls for an immediate ceasefire, whereas in Westminster, Scottish Labour MPs behaved as they were ordered to; in accordance with the interests of their leader, not the interests of Scotland.

Ahead of the next election, Scottish Labours’ Westminster candidates continue to demonstrate their susceptibility to being ‘whipped’ by their London leaders in ways which contradict Scotland’s interests. For example, despite Brexit devastating the Scottish economy and being overwhelmingly opposed by the Scottish population, Scottish Labour candidates support Brexit’s enforcement on Scotland. Those same candidates will support the planned continuation of Westminster’s austerity measures despite austerity programmes being fundamentally responsible for the decimation of the UK’s public services. They will then support retaining the two-child benefit cap which prevents some of the most vulnerable and impoverished children in society from receiving vital help. They will do all of this while telling Scottish voters that they are acting in Scotland’s interests.

In a similar manner, Scottish Labour MPs and nominated candidates contradict Scotland’s interests by adopting the position that an individual Prime Minister should be empowered to unilaterally decide whether a second independence referendum may be held, with the PM’s discretion overriding any electoral result in Scotland. Despite being representatives of Scottish constituencies, both Scottish Labour MPs voted against proposed legislation which would have devolved the power to authorise an independence referendum to the Scottish Parliament. They voted against the idea of the electorate that they represent being able to decide their own future, siding instead with the interests of their Westminster superiors.

Scottish Labour candidates are bound to a similar position ahead of the next election; Labour shadow cabinet secretary David Lammy has said that Labour will “categorically” rule out a second referendum being held in the next ten years, no matter what the Scottish electorate express. When asked about Labours “branch office in Glasgow”, Lammy said that they would agree, thus shedding light on the uncomfortable truth that to Scottish Labour, the democratic wishes of the Scottish electorate are entirely subordinate to the personal positions held by Keir Starmer.

The paradoxical nature of Scottish Labour is best highlighted by issues such as Brexit, austerity, and Scottish democracy. Amidst this paradox, Scottish Labour candidates must be asked: which comes first, Scotland’s interests or Keir Starmer’s interests? In other words, who are they really serving? In light of the positions taken on key issues highlighted thus far, it is clear that when push comes to shove, the interests of UK Labour will prevail, and Scottish Labour MPs will fall into line behind Keir Starmer before standing up for Scotland.

Scottish Labour submit to positions which negatively impact Scotland because they are bound to follow their party which now perpetually appeases centre right English voters in a bid to become ‘electable’. This approach is uninspiring yet strategically understandable; in the 2019 general election every single Scottish person could have voted for Labour without changing the result. Accordingly, to win elections, Labour must have a centrist leader who panders to the main bases of English voters and whom, so long as the approach secures the path to power, accepts any resulting implications on Scotland as mere collateral damage. From this rationale, the election of Keir Starmer as Labour leader, along with his public praise of Thatcher, endorsement of Brexit, commitment to maintaining austerity, justification of war crimes, denial of Scottish democracy and upholding of the two-child benefit cap can be more clearly understood. But while the strategic nature of Starmer’s Tory-like endorsements may be understandable, the Labour party cannot have it both ways; the positions which they are adopting vastly contradict the general will of Scotland and they are continually running the risk of their projected success in Scotland diminishing because of this. There is only so much spin that can be put on a pattern of unquestioned fidelity to the orders of a leader who is obsessed with winning Tory votes. The attempted separation of Scottish Labour from UK Labours’ Tory positions will likely collapse when the election campaign begins, and the spotlight is shone on how Scottish Labour candidates would act when serving under Starmer.

Perhaps in an independent Scotland where the positions of Scottish Labour are not dictated by their Westminster superiors, Scottish Labour may become a party which truly represents Scotland’s electorate. Until such time however, the electoral successes of Scottish Labour will be inhibited by their inability to take positions which accord with the needs and wants of Scotland. This is not to say that Scottish Labour will not achieve significant success in the upcoming election (in fact much evidence to the contrary exists), but is instead to say that a Scottish Labour party which is not bound by UK Labour would be able to exercise a newfound ability to tailor their policies and positions according to Scotland’s needs and wants.