Did you wait up for Jim Murphy?
Doubtless that was the question asked by many SNP voters after the deluge. It was a strange feeling for many of us who, up until this point, have been habitual Labour supporters and voters. Ending any habit is hard particularly when it represents breaking faith with previous generations who worked and suffered within the Labour movement to win a better deal for working people.
But enough is enough. Some time ago I asked myself what is Labour for? Would a vote for Labour improve the lot of ordinary Scots? To coin a phrase: hell, no. I might have stuck with Labour had they offered a radical alternative to the injustice and unfairness of the past five years. But no, they went down with nary a whimper. For some reason the words of La Pasionaria, albeit in a rather more desperate situation, kept running through my head:"It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees."
Labour has become part of an establishment that constantly and unashamedly loads the dice in its favour. Owen Jones in his book The Establishment convincingly details how the ideas of neo-liberals who at one time, in the Prime Minister's words, might have been described as "fruitcakes", have become accepted wisdom. A network bordering on conspiracy, of politicians, sections of the media, financiers, lawyers, accountants and industrialists enrich themselves and blame others when their greed and incompetence lead to disaster. It was a Labour chancellor who took financial deregulation to its illogical and ultimately disastrous conclusion.
The SNP at least offered the prospect of a strong and loud voice at Westminster to challenge the accepted and nonsensical wisdom that the wealth of Peter Mandelson's "filthy rich" will somehow trickle down to the poorest in society; not when that wealth is hidden in foreign tax havens, it won't.
Yet the nature and size of the SNP's triumph may well be problems in themselves. The 2011 election gave them an overall majority at Holyrood despite a voting system designed to prevent that very thing happening. There are no more gains to be had at Westminster. Without wishing to be a wet blanket, there's only one way to go from here. It will be a good trick to keep all the plates spinning for next year's Scottish Parlaiment elections.
Does the party have a big enough pool of talent to take its programme forward at Holyrood and fulfil the expectations that it has created for Westminster? The youth and inexperience of many of the victorious candidates were striking. Party discipline may also be an issue when keeping an enlarged group in line.
Of course, there is already a tendency towards "control freakery". I have experienced this at first hand. Several years ago I wrote a piece for The Herald cautioning the former SNP First Minister, Alex Salmond, that he was getting too close to Donald Trump and it was likely to end in tears. At that time I was a part-time and minor employee of the Scottish Government. It didn't take long for a message to be delivered via a then-junior minister that I should think carefully before putting another finger to the keyboard.
Those of us who voted SNP to challenge the Westminster economic, social and political consensus didn't do so to have a parallel Scottish establishment take its place. Already the same names and faces appear time and again, running through Scottish public life like the lettering in a stick of rock. The former First Minister has form. There was the ill-advised dalliance with "The Donald", lionising (roaring or not) now-disgraced bankers and there is Rupert Murdoch. If it wasn't Murdoch wot won it, he played a big part. The old one-two north and south of the Border ensured that Labour was on the ropes.
Yes, I understand how realpoitik works and keeping News Corporation sweet undoubtedly helped the SNP in the short term. However, the SNP cannot become a prisoner of an establishment in which Murdoch and his like are key players. Tens of thousands of new SNP voters will not allow it. In Stewart Hosie's words: "We will hold their feet to the fire."
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