Mark Lazarowicz, MP for Edinburgh North and Leith from 2001 to 2015
THE big victor in Scotland in the general election was, of course, Ruth Davidson’s Conservative Party.
But Scottish Labour did see a modest three per cent increase in votes, which the vagaries of the electoral system produced a more substantial increase in seats. What is interesting is that much of the extra Labour support (with some notable exceptions) evidently came not from tactical voting, but from SNP voters who decided they liked the policy package and personality of Jeremy Corbyn.
I’ve always believed that the strategy of placing a heavy reliance on tactical votes, or vote transfers, from other Unionist parties was a dead end for Labour. It might win a few seats, but it’s not the way to win back support from former Labour voters who’ve moved to the SNP. In a competition to show which party is the most unionist, Labour will always be outflanked by the Tories. What the general election result does is to give Scottish Labour is a chance to reposition itself in Scottish politics. As well as having a radical policy agenda, Labour could make clear its commitment to the principle that the relationship between Scotland and the other UK nations should be that of a partnership between equals. That could include new constitutional arrangements to ensure that the principles of the devolution settlement cannot be overruled by any UK government. They could also provide that fundamental changes in the UK’s international relationships should require consent of all the nations within the UK.
Labour could also back a reconsideration of the rushed conclusions of the Smith Commission, and establish a much more coherent ‘devo-max’ settlement. Obvious candidates for that would be a devolution of responsibility for the welfare system as a whole to the Scottish Parliament; and the power for Scotland to develop immigration rules to meet its needs, something which already has widespread support in Scotland.
Such an agenda could win cross-party support, which might even make it possible to get the necessary legislation through the current UK ‘hung Parliament’.
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 here