The resignation of Johann Lamont reflects the mess the Scottish Labour party are in.
The referendum underlined Labour's desperate position. The party seemed under the thumb of the Westminster shadow Cabinet and co-operated with the Tories to defeat the Scots who wanted independence.
Yet many working class supporters, traditional Labour voters, voted for independence particularly in the poorest areas. Since then the membership of the SNP, the Greens and the Scottish Socialists has multiplied while that of Scottish Labour is static at best.
The national Labour Party under Ed Miliband is also in deep trouble. Experienced MP John Mann has declared: "If Ed Miliband does not broaden the Labour coalition to better include working class people then it cannot win a majority government." I look to Labour's 41 Scots MPs to radicalise the party. This may seem strange given that most went along with Labour in supporting the Government's huge cuts on welfare. But I believe they could be a separate Labour entity which might challenge a party that is hardly Labour let alone socialist.
A report, Speaker's Conference on Parliamentary Representation, compiled by 16 MPs in 2010, shows that the Commons is increasingly dominated by those drawn from the tiny minority who attend public schools and/or Oxbridge. It concluded: "There is little sense that members understand or share the life experiences of their constituents."
But the 41 Scots MPs do not follow this trend. Only one went to Oxbridge and two to private schools. Some have had experience of jobs such as steel worker, glazier, technician, shipyard worker, engineer, coal miner and plant operator.
One-quarter have been local councillors and a similar proportion had close links with trade unions, not just as members but as representatives and officials. So different from Mr Miliband and Ed Balls, who keep trade unions at a distance in case they offend affluent voters. Moreover, the Scottish MPs include those with radical trends. Jimmy Hood led disputes in the miners' strike of 1984-85. Michael Connarty was chairman of Tribune, the left-wing group of Labour MPs.
Cathy Jamieson opposes Trident and is secretary of the Parliamentary CND Group. Katy Clark has written in the Scottish Left Review that the party must not ignore "class, poverty, social justice and austerity which were the major issues throughout the referendum campaign." Shadow Scottish Secretary, Margaret Curran has written: "The socialist principles of equality, redistribution and social justice need to shape our policies as much today as they did when I joined the party."
Of course, there are a handful who would do nothing to imperil their parliamentary careers. They are typical of many in the Labour Party but are a minority among Scots MPs.
They have been torn between radicalism and loyalty to their party. As a member for more than 50 years, I see no point in not challenging the party's policies that serve capitalism, maintain gross inequality and have little interest in working class people except as vote fodder. For the sake of a better society, I ask them to do the following: urge a reversal of the decline of working-class MPs; encourage the Labour leadership to co-operate more fully with trade unions; reflect the opposition of many Scottish people to Trident; and, above all, insist that Labour withdraw their support for the Government's £1 billion cuts to the welfare budget.
In 35 years of working in deprived areas, I have never seen such insufficient benefits, low wages, huge debts, lack of children's clothing and sheer hunger.
Labour need to re-commit to their radical roots for only this will enable the party to win future elections.
Next year will mark 100 years since the death of Keir Hardie, the Scot who was a main founder of the Labour Party. A Keir Hardie Society in Scotland is led by Ms Jamieson. I urge the Scots Labour MPs to form a branch in the Commons. Hardie was a socialist whose objectives were equality and peace. If the Scots MPs fail to transform the Labour Party within the present system, the only alternative will be for them to back independence, like Hardie.
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