A LABOUR local election candidate who has come under fire for supporting independence for Scotland - despite the party's pro-union stance has stood down from taking part in the council ballot.
Scottish Labour came under fire for fielding Debbie Boyd, who supports an independent Scotland, as a candidate for Airdrie South in May's local elections despite the party leader saying in January that all representatives would all be union supporters.
A tweet announcing that Debbie Boyd was a Scottish Labour candidate in Airdrie South remained on social media last night. A pinned social media post from October 20, last year said it was a "privilege to be selected" adding: "Can't wait to be back on the campaign trail to get the Labour message out."
Labour sources state that she will no longer be standing for Scottish labour at the council elections and that she removed her candidacy some weeks ago due to personal issues.
She highlighted her support for independence in a series of social media posts up to June, last year.
She revealed to social media followers that she is a "pro-Indy socialist", and that she supports a second referendum saying in March 2020 that if there was a second one tomorrow "i'd vote yes".
She complained about other Labour members saying the party should take a hard line in support of the Union "when SO MANY Scottish Labour people are pro-independence", and once told her followers: "I don’t support the British state."
The Airdrie and Shotts Labour Party vice chairman's pro-independence stand stretches back to September, 2019 when she said: "You are an idiot if you don’t know that everyone voting for independence is de facto a nationalist. But.. you are assuming here that i am against independence which i am not..."
At the start of the month the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said that Labour candidates must support the union.
Earlier this year comments attributed to a source close to Keir Starmer suggested Labour could allow its parliamentary candidates to back independence. Mr Sarwar quickly dismissed the remarks made in January.
He said: “On the question of candidates, we will be a pro-UK party standing for a reformed and renewed UK, and all our candidates will be expected to abide by that manifesto, so we can have a prime minister that is for the whole United Kingdom.”
He said this policy would also apply to May’s council elections in Scotland and also the next Holyrood election, which is not due to take place until 2026.
But he did say there would still be a welcome for candidates who had previously supported leaving the union in the 2014 independence referendum but had since changed their mind.
“There is clearly a difference between candidates, individuals, who supported independence in 2014, and want our country to move on, want our country to reform and renew, whether that is across the UK or indeed within Scotland," he said.
The Scottish Tories, which have beaten Labour in recent elections north of the border, have said none of their local authority candidates will support independence.
Scottish Conservative MSP for Central Scotland, Graham Simpson said: “If Labour was truly the pro-UK party they claim to be, this candidate would never have been selected in the first place. Anas Sarwar must now urgently clarify whether any other pro-independence candidates will indeed be standing for Labour in May.
“This is yet more proof that Scottish Labour can't be trusted on the union."
“Pro-union voters in my area, and across Scotland, know that the Scottish Conservatives are the only party ready to stand up to the SNP and deliver on their local priorities."
A senior source told of Labour's overall position in the Sunday Times in January: “Yes we are a pro-Unionist party but we are a broad church. That means you could have candidates who back independence. You don’t have to have a binary position; you can have people with different stances.”
Those comments - rejected by Mr Sarwar - were quickly seized on by the Tories with the party committing to only standing “pro-UK candidates in May’s local elections.”
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