SCOTTISH Labour leader Kezia Dugdale has apologised to senior colleagues for her comments during the Holyrood election campaign that she could “possibly” back independence.
She said sorry to her party’s governing body at the weekend for remarks believed to have harmed Labour’s chances at the ballot box.
At the same meeting, her deputy Alex Rowley was criticised for suggesting the party should have backed home rule as an alternative to independence.
Read more: Kezia Dugdale says she could vote for independence to keep Scotland in the EU
Labour came third behind the Tories on May 5th after a difficult campaign that saw Ms Dugdale struggle to get a foothold in a debate still dominated by independence.
The SNP received strong backing from Yes voters, while Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson successfully wooed No supporters by firmly rejecting a second referendum.
Ms Dugdale, whose party support also came disproportionately from voters who rejected independence, was believed to have handed the Tories a gift during an interview with the Fabian Review.
Asked whether, in the context of a vote for Brexit, she could argue against the Union with the UK, she replied:
“Possibly. It’s not inconceivable.”
Ms Dugdale later clarified her remarks, but the interview put Labour on the backfoot on the constitution for a large part of the campaign.
At a meeting of Scottish Labour’s Executive on Sunday, held at the party’s Bath Street headquarters, she opened with a mea culpa about the interview.
It is understood her apology was accepted and the meeting quickly moved on to other business.
BACKGROUND: Inside Labour's Holyrood election campaign
Mr Rowley, elected as Ms Dugdale’s deputy in August, was challenged at the meeting about remarks he made to the Herald days after the election.
The List MSP claimed his party struggled due to a failure to come up with a distinctive offering on the constitution.
He said at the time: "We need to define a positive case for the future of Scotland, built around home rule for Scotland. That's where I believe we should be, and where we should have been. But a decision was taken early in the campaign that we weren't going to focus on the constitution because some people believed we needed to put the case for moving on.
"The country hasn't moved on and it looked like we didn't know where we stood. It left us in a position where every time the constitution came up, we looked very uncertain."
Picture: Mr Rowley
It is understood Mr Rowley tried to clarify his statements to the Executive by saying he had been contacted by a journalist, rather than the approaching the reporter himself.
A senior party source told this newspaper: “It was not his place to make this sort of comment. He is the deputy, not the leader.”
It was agreed at the Executive that all potential Labour candidates in the future would undergo an interview before making it onto the official panel.
Read more: Kezia Dugdale launches Scottish Labour’s bid to remain in EU
The new rule applies to candidates standing for local government, Holyrood, Westminster and the European Parliament.
A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives said: “It’s no wonder Kezia Dugdale apologised for this incredible admission. It proved just how weak on the union Labour are, and they paid for it at the ballot box.”
Jackie Martin, Chair of Scottish Labour said: "The Scottish Executive Committee met to discuss the outcome of the Scottish election. Coming so soon after a general election where we lost all but one seat we knew that the Scottish elections would be difficult. We recognise the challenges Scottish Labour face did not appear overnight and are fully confident that the correct steps are being taken by Kezia Dugdale to renew our 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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel