The progressive left, socialist and non-socialist, is somewhat divided over Scottish independence. While long standing stalwarts like Jim Sillars and Tommy Sheridan argue alongside the Scottish Greens for a non-nationalistic "Yes" vote to deliver a more egalitarian Scotland, the Scottish Labour Party, with some honourable exceptions, has maintained a stubborn resistance to the idea.
This has of course reached a screeching crescendo in the petulant denunciations of the Yes campaign by former Nu-Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling, though his qualifications to be referred to as a progressive of any sort may be highly questionable. Somewhere to his distant left, George Galloway MP is to be found touring Scotland, having upped-sticks from his temporary base in Bradford, to caustically excoriate the independence cause, citing in its place class solidarity over nationalism - socialists should stay in the Union to fight for a more egalitarian, socialist society.
At the heart of this argument is a supposition, repeated by Laurie Penny of the New Statesman magazine on the BBC at the weekend, that (allegedly progressive) Scottish Labour MPs are essential to delivering a non-Tory Government across the UK as a whole. Ms Penny contemplated the prospect of "permanent Tory Government" in the remaining UK if Scotland was to depart. This echoes Galloway's argument and also is deployed by some in the Labour movement as a decisive reason to be against independence - vote for an Edinburgh Government, and you abandon the people of Liverpool to the neoliberal grip of the Tories and their Lib Dem Orcs.
Terrifying stuff if you live south of the border and have either a social conscience and/or personal vulnerability. How dare progressive Scots be so self-indulgent as to veer off to their communitarian Nirvana while the rUK (remainder of the UK) is mired in the social dystopia that the Coalition has summoned up.
Except, it is (nearly) complete nonsense. As with so much of the No campaign, it relies on combining fear and guilt rather than contemplating the facts.
And here they are:
Since 1945, there have been 18 UK-wide General elections.
At a UK level, Labour have won 8 of these outright: 1945, 1950, 1964, 1966, October 1974, 1997, 2001 and 2005.
At UK level, the Tories have also won 8 outright: 1951 (although Labour won more votes than them), 1955, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992.
Two UK elections - February 1974 and 2010- produced "hung" Parliaments where no one party had an outright majority. In 1974, Labour had more seats than the Tories (although this time the Tories won the most votes) and governed as a minority administration for 7 months before calling another election which they won outright by just three seats.
By contrast, in Scotland, Labour have won more than half the Westminster seats in 16 of the 18 elections. The only exceptions were 1951 when they tied with the Tories on 35 seats each and in 1955, when the Tories won outright by 36 seats to 34 . After that, the Tories declined gradually, with a decisive moment in 1987 when their seats more than halved in number after Thatcherite economics devastated swathes of Scotland. The decay continued all the way to 1997, when they finally lost their last MP in the country. They have since regained one, but remain a somewhat diminished force north of the border - and in addition to Labour, the SNP and (until recently at least) the Lib Dems have held significant levels of support to create a rather different political system and voting culture compared to other parts of the UK, a tendency further embedded by the devolved Parliament.
So Scotland has almost always elected a majority of Labour MPs (albeit their numbers exaggerated by the first past the post voting system) but on numerous occasions has ended up ruled by a Tory or Tory-led Government it didn't vote for.
What about the reverse - the claim that Scottish MPs have been so numerous on the Labour benches that they have made the critical difference for the UK, tipping the Union supposedly leftwards where, in their absence, the Tories would have held naked, merciless power?
Well, from a good look at the statistics, the answer is that Scottish Labour MPs have made the decisive difference precisely once - in 1964, their 43 to 24 lead over the Tories in Scotland trumped the results in the rUK, where the Tories led Labour by 280 to 273. This produced an overall UK total of 317 Labour to 304 Conservatives and 9 Liberals. With such a narrow majority, the Prime Minister Harold Wilson went back to the country in 1966 and won by a much wider margin and although Labour continued to dominate in Scotland, it also won outright in the rUK.
The only other occasions where arguably there has been a crucial impact were October 1974 where the absence of Scottish Labour would have seen the rUK with a continuing hung Parliament - this occurred in any case by 1976 when Labour lost its UK-wide majority through by-election defeats and had to survive via a pact with the Liberals. And in 2010, an absence of Scottish MPs would have produced an rUK Parliament with an outright Tory majority - though how different this would have been to the present Coalition, which has pursued the most extreme rightwing agenda in our history, is anyone's guess.
So it seems quite an act of either dissimulation or of ignorance to parrot the idea that without Scotland, the rUK would be condemned to perpetual Tory Government. All bar one of Labour's post-war victories would still have been achieved without Scottish MPs (which is not to diminish the powerfully positive contribution of many Scottish politicians to the progressive and socialist causes over the years - with some powerful contributors to the advance of the welfare state and to significant social gains in the days before Thatcherism and Nu-Labour).
But in sharp contrast, Scotland has had governments it did not vote for after the eight of the eighteen elections. It's not a happy record and is one that speaks of a country with a basically egalitarian culture that has instead been subjected periodically to ever harsher neoliberal experimentation. The UK is now by some indices the fourth most unequal country on the planet - if Scottish votes could make a difference, there is precious little sign of it; and crucially, the maths show it is an argument that really does not add up. Scottish MPs make up 9% of the total - a small minority and for much of the time an effective irrelevance in terms of any numerical impact.
The truth is that progressives on both sides of the border have nothing at all to fear from an independent Scotland but rather quite the opposite: for those to the north, there is the prospect of building a more equal society freed from much of the block on change posed by the London Establishment and its agents. Movements like the Radical Independence Campaign have been central to promoting this alternative vision of a new country.
For those to the south, there is the prospect of a neighbour powerfully demonstrating the value of a society based on the common weal as opposed to narrow personal interest. Moreover, there is indeed no reason at all to contemplate perpetual Tory Government with Scotland gone. The real challenge it to ensure that there is a genuine left wing alternative on offer to the people of the inelegantly named rUK.
And that's another matter altogether.
The stats:
*rUK - "remaining UK" - i.e., combined totals of MPs sitting for England, Wales and Northern Ireland constituencies at Westminster
Data Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland#1945
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm
This has of course reached a screeching crescendo in the petulant denunciations of the Yes campaign by former Nu-Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling, though his qualifications to be referred to as a progressive of any sort may be highly questionable. Somewhere to his distant left, George Galloway MP is to be found touring Scotland, having upped-sticks from his temporary base in Bradford, to caustically excoriate the independence cause, citing in its place class solidarity over nationalism - socialists should stay in the Union to fight for a more egalitarian, socialist society.
At the heart of this argument is a supposition, repeated by Laurie Penny of the New Statesman magazine on the BBC at the weekend, that (allegedly progressive) Scottish Labour MPs are essential to delivering a non-Tory Government across the UK as a whole. Ms Penny contemplated the prospect of "permanent Tory Government" in the remaining UK if Scotland was to depart. This echoes Galloway's argument and also is deployed by some in the Labour movement as a decisive reason to be against independence - vote for an Edinburgh Government, and you abandon the people of Liverpool to the neoliberal grip of the Tories and their Lib Dem Orcs.
Can only the Scots stop her legacy? |
Except, it is (nearly) complete nonsense. As with so much of the No campaign, it relies on combining fear and guilt rather than contemplating the facts.
And here they are:
Since 1945, there have been 18 UK-wide General elections.
At a UK level, Labour have won 8 of these outright: 1945, 1950, 1964, 1966, October 1974, 1997, 2001 and 2005.
At UK level, the Tories have also won 8 outright: 1951 (although Labour won more votes than them), 1955, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992.
Two UK elections - February 1974 and 2010- produced "hung" Parliaments where no one party had an outright majority. In 1974, Labour had more seats than the Tories (although this time the Tories won the most votes) and governed as a minority administration for 7 months before calling another election which they won outright by just three seats.
By contrast, in Scotland, Labour have won more than half the Westminster seats in 16 of the 18 elections. The only exceptions were 1951 when they tied with the Tories on 35 seats each and in 1955, when the Tories won outright by 36 seats to 34 . After that, the Tories declined gradually, with a decisive moment in 1987 when their seats more than halved in number after Thatcherite economics devastated swathes of Scotland. The decay continued all the way to 1997, when they finally lost their last MP in the country. They have since regained one, but remain a somewhat diminished force north of the border - and in addition to Labour, the SNP and (until recently at least) the Lib Dems have held significant levels of support to create a rather different political system and voting culture compared to other parts of the UK, a tendency further embedded by the devolved Parliament.
So Scotland has almost always elected a majority of Labour MPs (albeit their numbers exaggerated by the first past the post voting system) but on numerous occasions has ended up ruled by a Tory or Tory-led Government it didn't vote for.
What about the reverse - the claim that Scottish MPs have been so numerous on the Labour benches that they have made the critical difference for the UK, tipping the Union supposedly leftwards where, in their absence, the Tories would have held naked, merciless power?
Well, from a good look at the statistics, the answer is that Scottish Labour MPs have made the decisive difference precisely once - in 1964, their 43 to 24 lead over the Tories in Scotland trumped the results in the rUK, where the Tories led Labour by 280 to 273. This produced an overall UK total of 317 Labour to 304 Conservatives and 9 Liberals. With such a narrow majority, the Prime Minister Harold Wilson went back to the country in 1966 and won by a much wider margin and although Labour continued to dominate in Scotland, it also won outright in the rUK.
The only other occasions where arguably there has been a crucial impact were October 1974 where the absence of Scottish Labour would have seen the rUK with a continuing hung Parliament - this occurred in any case by 1976 when Labour lost its UK-wide majority through by-election defeats and had to survive via a pact with the Liberals. And in 2010, an absence of Scottish MPs would have produced an rUK Parliament with an outright Tory majority - though how different this would have been to the present Coalition, which has pursued the most extreme rightwing agenda in our history, is anyone's guess.
So it seems quite an act of either dissimulation or of ignorance to parrot the idea that without Scotland, the rUK would be condemned to perpetual Tory Government. All bar one of Labour's post-war victories would still have been achieved without Scottish MPs (which is not to diminish the powerfully positive contribution of many Scottish politicians to the progressive and socialist causes over the years - with some powerful contributors to the advance of the welfare state and to significant social gains in the days before Thatcherism and Nu-Labour).
But in sharp contrast, Scotland has had governments it did not vote for after the eight of the eighteen elections. It's not a happy record and is one that speaks of a country with a basically egalitarian culture that has instead been subjected periodically to ever harsher neoliberal experimentation. The UK is now by some indices the fourth most unequal country on the planet - if Scottish votes could make a difference, there is precious little sign of it; and crucially, the maths show it is an argument that really does not add up. Scottish MPs make up 9% of the total - a small minority and for much of the time an effective irrelevance in terms of any numerical impact.
Radical Independence - ideas for a new society |
For those to the south, there is the prospect of a neighbour powerfully demonstrating the value of a society based on the common weal as opposed to narrow personal interest. Moreover, there is indeed no reason at all to contemplate perpetual Tory Government with Scotland gone. The real challenge it to ensure that there is a genuine left wing alternative on offer to the people of the inelegantly named rUK.
And that's another matter altogether.
The stats:
Election date
|
Labour (seats won)
|
Conservative
(seats won)
|
Liberal & successors
(seats won)
|
Others
(seats won)
|
1945 Scotland
|
37
|
27
|
0
|
7
|
1945 UK
|
393
|
210
|
12
|
25
|
1945Ruk*
|
356
|
183
|
12
|
18
|
1950 Scotland
|
37
|
31
|
2
|
1
|
1950 UK
|
315
|
298
|
9
|
3
|
1950 Ruk
|
278
|
267
|
7
|
2
|
1951 Scotland
|
35
|
35
|
1
|
0
|
1951 UK
|
295
|
321
|
6
|
3
|
1951 Ruk
|
260
|
286
|
5
|
3
|
1955 Scotland
|
34
|
36
|
1
|
0
|
1955 UK
|
277
|
345
|
6
|
2
|
1955 Ruk
|
243
|
309
|
5
|
2
|
1959 Scotland
|
38
|
31
|
1
|
1
|
1959 UK
|
258
|
365
|
6
|
1
|
1959 Ruk
|
220
|
334
|
5
|
0
|
1964 Scotland
|
43
|
24
|
4
|
0
|
1964 UK
|
317
|
304
|
9
|
0
|
1964 Ruk
|
274
|
280
|
5
|
0
|
1966 Scotland
|
46
|
20
|
5
|
0
|
1966 UK
|
364
|
253
|
12
|
1
|
1966 Ruk
|
318
|
233
|
7
|
1
|
1970 Scotland
|
44
|
23
|
3
|
1
|
1970 UK
|
288
|
330
|
6
|
6
|
1970 Ruk
|
244
|
307
|
3
|
5
|
1974 f Scotland
|
40
|
21
|
3
|
7
|
1974 f UK
|
301
|
297
|
14
|
23
|
1974 f Ruk
|
261
|
276
|
11
|
16
|
1974 o Scotland
|
41
|
16
|
3
|
11
|
1974 o UK
|
319
|
277
|
13
|
26
|
1974 o Ruk
|
278
|
261
|
10
|
15
|
1979 Scotland
|
44
|
22
|
3
|
2
|
1979 UK
|
269
|
339
|
11
|
16
|
1979 Ruk
|
225
|
317
|
8
|
14
|
1983 Scotland
|
41
|
21
|
8
|
2
|
1983 UK
|
209
|
397
|
23
|
21
|
1983 Ruk
|
168
|
376
|
15
|
19
|
1987 Scotland
|
50
|
10
|
9
|
3
|
1987 UK
|
229
|
376
|
22
|
23
|
Ruk
|
179
|
366
|
13
|
20
|
1992 Scotland
|
49
|
11
|
9
|
3
|
1992 UK
|
271
|
336
|
20
|
25
|
Ruk
|
222
|
325
|
11
|
22
|
1997 Scotland
|
56
|
0
|
10
|
6
|
1997 UK
|
418
|
165
|
46
|
30
|
1997 Ruk
|
362
|
165
|
36
|
24
|
2001 Scotland
|
55
|
1
|
10
|
5
|
2001 UK
|
412
|
166
|
52
|
29
|
2001 Ruk
|
357
|
165
|
42
|
24
|
2005 Scotland
|
41
|
1
|
11
|
6
|
2005 UK
|
356
|
198
|
62
|
30
|
2005 Ruk
|
315
|
197
|
51
|
24
|
2010 Scotland
|
41
|
1
|
11
|
6
|
2010 UK
|
258
|
306
|
57
|
29
|
2010 Ruk
|
217
|
305
|
46
|
23
|
*rUK - "remaining UK" - i.e., combined totals of MPs sitting for England, Wales and Northern Ireland constituencies at Westminster
Data Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland#1945
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm
Why do commentators persist in lumping the Labour Party in with "progressive" & "left"? They represent the interests of global capitalism (imperialism) as a fifth column within the labour movement: they oppose Scottish independence because in independent, left-leaning Scottish state would be against the interests of imperialism.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good question John - as stated above "allegedly progressive" Scottish Labour MPs (third para). In the context of the article, it is more about the attitude of Scottish voters than of the Labour Party. An independent Scotland would provide an opportunity for an entirely new party system to emerge, hopefully with strong left wing alternative - or alternatives - in the running.
Delete