If the SNP's historic victory tells us anything, it is that a leader who is a charismatic big-hitter can add an irresistible momentum to a campaign.
The problem Scotland now faces (and even SNP die-hards admit this) is that democracy is ill-served by one-party rule and yet that may be what confronts us, thanks to the degree of disarray in all three main opposition parties.
I’m not a member of any political party but nor am I the only person in Scotland who hasn’t fallen under the spell of El Presidente Salmondo. In fact, his victory speech at Prestonfield House reminded me of a slightly sinister morphing of Margaret Thatcher’s pseudo Biblical victory speech in 1979 (“Where there is discord, may we bring harmony”). Yes, an impressive 45% voted for the SNP but that still means that a majority of the electorate rejected their brand of nationalism. Who is going to speak for them?
If the Labour party is to make any sort of comeback, its first requirement is a leader who is capable of taking on the First Minister. Where is such a political heavyweight to come from? To many this may sound more like a nightmare but over the weekend I dreamed that the man confronting Alex Salmond across the debating chamber at Holyrood was none other than a certain Westminster backbencher called Gordon Brown.
Perhaps this idea is not so crazy as it first appears. David Cameron is hell bent of preventing him becoming the next head of the International Monetary Fund and it seems unlikely that his constituency and domestic duties are capable of absorbing his considerable energy.
The list system offers an opportunity. It might not take much to persuade a Labour list MSP – perhaps one who was not expecting to be elected – that it is not feasible for them to take their seat. In which case, another candidate – perhaps a Mr G Brown from North Queensferry – could be persuaded to step in.
It is increasingly clear that the constitutional debate won’t be about complete independence versus the status quo but rather shades of separation. There is space in this debate for an articulate and passionate politician to put the case for non-secessionist nationalism, or what Wendy Alexander called home rule within the Union. It is closer to devolution max than independence and I suspect it’s the position that would command a majority. Holyrood is also in need of a formidable economic brain to subject the SNP’s spending plans to forensic examination.
Given that electoral reform is now off the Westminster agenda, outright Scottish independence would condemn England to permanent right-of centre governments and leave Scotland with a surly neighbour over whom it has no control. That is why fixing Scottish Labour and liberating it to reclaim the position that stands for fair redistribution of opportunities and wealth, should be on the top of Ed Miliband’s to do list. It would require altruism on all sides but if there is one Labour politician capable of taking on Mr Salmond on his own ground, it is surely our battle-scarred former PM.
The late Donald Dewar once told me he considered Scottish devolution to be a huge act of political altruism on the part of the Labour Party. He was referring to the way the Additional Members System gifted a solid presence in the new Scottish Parliament to the SNP and the Scottish Conservatives, both marginal players at Westminster. Last Thursday that political altruism looked more like political suicide.
Labour gave devolution to Scotland but then failed to adapt to it. Now it must adapt or face oblivion in Scotland and permanent opposition in England. Devolution required the renegotiation of the Union. If Labour is to survive, it must recognise Scotland’s new political status and stop sending the best and the brightest to Westminster. Labour’s appointment of three Westminster MPs to conduct the post-mortem is, in itself, a symptom of the party’s failure to follow the logic of devolution. Labour needs to go back to the drawing board. Mr Brown, your party needs you.
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