Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat its mistakes, and so, viewing the stramash in the Scottish Labour Party and the surge in support for the SNP and Yes alliance parties, I think of Gordon Wilson.
Peripheral to politics now, he was once SNP leader.
Having lost a by-election in Dundee East in 1973, Wilson won the seat from Labour in the 1974 General Election. Asked how he had turned around the result, he stated that, despite losing previously by around 1,100 votes, he had acted as if he had won, setting up surgeries, attending local meetings, taking on board constituents' concerns. Come the election of February 1974, he turned that deficit into a majority of around 3,000, doubled in the October poll. It was an early lesson, that the electorate should not be taken for granted, and hard work often wins out. Perhaps this invites comparison to Scottish politics today.
The Referendum, being won, albeit by a slimmer majority than forecast, UK Labour may have felt "job done". Such a reaction betrays a woeful lack of understanding of what was happening in their Scottish 'branch'. Infighting and concern at London control had been submerged in the campaign for No, but Scottish activists knew the reality on the ground. Voters committed to "Labour values" were asking where these values had gone. Why was the Scottish Labour party limited to negative campaigning and attacks on the SNP - even on occasions when Scottish Government's policies were aligned with Labour beliefs? Where was the traditional defence of the vulnerable? "SNP Bad" is not a very sophisticated strategy, neither is it effective - as the results of the last two Holyrood elections had demonstrated. Voters are turned off by negativity and division - that is one of the truisms of politics - yet Scottish Labour seemed to have no Plan B.
The answer, of course, as Scottish Labour luminaries admit, is that they were constrained by the electoral needs of the UK party. As London Labour trimmed its strategic sails in the hopes of catching the fair wind of middle England votes, the Scottish branch were caught between the rock of Labour values and the hard place of UK Labour's electoral strategy. To the party's heartland voters it must have felt like they were being sacrificed on the altar of Westminster political aspirations.
Meanwhile, in an echo of Dundee East all those years ago, the Yes alliance and the SNP continued as if they had won the Referendum, harnessing all that energy, producing a huge surge in membership.
It remains to be seen if this rise in support will be fully maintained, but Scottish Labour would ignore this message at their peril: people want to be heard and to have an effect on their country's future. A party which is cynical about devolution - for country and for party organisation - has some serious thinking to do.
Ultimately, irrespective of constitutional arrangements, Scotland would benefit from two strong progressive parties - who could help produce a country of social justice: a beacon for similar aspirations in England.
A failure to achieve this would not only weaken democracy in the Scottish Parliament, it could also prove fatal for Scottish Labour. Scots voters want social democracy - and they will vote for the party or constitutional arrangement which they feel is most likely to provide it.
One last reference to Dundee East: in 1987 Wilson eventually lost the seat to Labour's leftward leaning John McAllion. The SNP must be vigilant - as they look like heading for a third term in office - and ensure they avoid that sense of entitlement which has separated the Scottish Labour Party from its voters. We don't want, or need a one party state - and whilst the Labour party in Scotland needs to step up to the mark, the SNP must also heed the lessons of history.
It's about the people - not the party.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article