What an awful mess

 

No, hopefully not the Flag in the Wind. Although, if it is, it's only down to it being my first week on board!

 

I'm - of course - talking about the state of the Labour Party in Scotland. Across the nation, SNP members huddle in bunches to ask each other "What the **** is Wendy up to? And can she please keep it up?".

 

Now, anyone with any interest in Scottish politics couldn't have failed to notice the furore surrounding Labour's policy on a referendum. But things have moved so far, so fast, I thought it would be worthwhile doing a quick recap.

 

Things started off that the Labour Party's official agreed position was that it wouldn't support a referendum on Scottish Independence in any circumstance. This was nice and easy to understand - even the lowliest West of Scotland Labour councillor understood it - although not terribly helpful to us or fair to ra people.

 

To this end, the Unionist parties organised the Calman Commission. Made up only of unionists, including someone who was apparently only included because of a stint on Big Brother, its remit was to look at options for the future of Scotland - although the independence option was off limits to the commission from the start.

 

The wind started to change when Stephen Purcell, leader of Glasgow City Council  gave an interview to Holyrood magazine, published on 20th April, admitting that independence was a valid option in the constitutional debate. Looking back, it seems incredible now that the Labour Party argued that it wasn't! Purcell's comments signalled a seismic shift in the way some Labourites treat the independence option.

 

However, the bomb was really dropped on 4th May. After disastrous English local election results, Wendy Alexander appeared on the Politics Show and claimed the SNP were running scared from a referendum, and so causing discord and uncertainty over Scotland's future. She laid down a clear challenge to the government to "bring it on" - that is, an independence referendum. (wendy pic here)

 

There are a number of theories why Wendy would choose to announce her new policy when she did - apparently, the policy had been in gestation for nine months before it was brought into the world. The Labour Party's poor showing in the Westminster mid-term elections may have persuaded Labour at Holyrood of the need to put some clear tartan water between themselves and Brown. They also may have got tired of being junior partners to a Westminster cabinet that's lost it's grip on reality, as shown by the 10p tax rate debacle. Team Wendy may have felt the need to produce some bold new policy statements to draw a line under what's been a rocky start to her leadership; there's also the question of whether or not Stephen Purcell was flying a kite for Wendy; did she jump into a new policy before she was pushed into a leadership challenge?

 

This led to a week of Labour party figures appearing on current affairs shows making like headless chickens. First Wendy said Gordon Brown approved the new strategy; which he later denied at Prime Minister's Question Time. One UK minister said the issue was discussed at cabinet, but another said this wasn't the case. Claim met counter claim. Denial, confusion, infighting and defeat ravaged the Labour Party like the political Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

 

So, just over a week on, where are we now? The Labour MSP group appear to have grouped around Wendy's position, supporting a referendum. The Labour MPs, including Wendy's own brother, are apparently sticking with the reasoning that a referendum will play into the hands of the SNP.

 

There have been some heroic efforts by Labour loyalists to attempt to persuade us that these two positions are entirely consistent with each other. These have been entirely undermined by Labour figures, named and anonymous, tearing into each other in Sunday's papers. Wendy is a "political pygmy" and faces calls to resign. Gordon is a "ditherer", and is likely to face calls to resign soon. More importantly to the Daily Mail, Cherie announced she and Tony had a bonk when they were a guest of the Queen at Balmoral.

 

Since then, everything has gone quiet. To the Labour Party's credit, they've stopped slagging each other in the papers. To their discredit, this meant that Monday's evening Scottish news was made up of a lengthy report about Rangers fans in Manchester, followed by a story about a panda and another about a nesting seagull.

 

So, where are we now? Questions over what is and isn't the Labour party's official position remain unanswered. Gordon Brown is the leader of Labour in both the UK and Scotland. Wendy is the leader of the Labour group of MSPs; to most people, it would appear untenable for them to hold different positions on such a key issue for the future of Scotland. Scottish Labour's website maintains a mysterious silence on the referendum question - to be fair, they maybe couldn't find space for any items that were about themselves, as opposed to the SNP. Despite it's main architect backing an option it wasn't allowed to consider, the Calman Commission trundles on. Much like the guy from Big Brother, it's purpose is dubious.

 

More importantly for nationalists, there's the question of whether or not the events of the last month have brought independence closer. I would argue, yes. That the Labour Party has now split into having different Scottish and UK policies on the question of a referendum can only be a good thing for Scotland's right to self determination (so much for devolution killing nationalism stone dead!).

 

Scottish Parliament Labour are now arguing that the SNP are running scared from an independence referendum and are trying to pick a time to best suit them. But, apparently oblivious to the hyprocrisy, they argue that their pro-referendum policy announcement was timed to when it would best suit the Labour party, as that's "leadership". Labour's accusations that the SNP are afraid are hollow; after all, the SNP have had a long time to work out how to build up to an independence referendum and the debates that need to happen in both civic Scotland, the business community and, most importantly, the wider public. A full debate can only be the best thing for both Scotland and independence. The SNP have a fixed timetable that the presented as a policy in their manifesto, which it would be anti-democratic to overturn. But Labor's support for a referendum now means they would look very silly to vote against one when a bill is put to the Scottish Parliament; they wouldn't be so much doing a u-turn as making multiple turns round a roundabout. The 2010 referendum? Bring it on.

 

 

Doomsday

 

I had the dubious pleasure of going to see Doomsday, a Scottish-set blockbuster released last week.I was keen to see it because some of the film was shot in my ward, and because the film dealt - in an over the top way - with Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK.

 

For those unfamiliar with Doomsday, the premise is that there's been some sort of killer virus outbreak in Scotland which is contained by the UK authorities by re-building Hadrian's wall into a huge space-age style structure, and locking all the Scots in to die. However, the virus turns up in London, and then it's revealed by the PM's office that there are some Scottish survivors of the first outbreak. A team of crack commandoes is dispatched to Scotland to search for a cure, and finds that the Scots, cut off from the rest of the world, have descended into a primitive society where cannabalism and bad haircuts are rife. (doomsday pic here)

 

Now, that may sound like a party political broadcast by any of the unionist parties, like a sort of reverse Braveheart (apart from that, in the film, the rest of the world turns its back on Britian over the treatment of the Scottish nation, leading to mass unemployment. It also, bizarrely, leads to women on boats taking shotguns with them when they have a bath). But any sort of attempt at political relevance, even in a tongue in cheek way, is thin on the ground.

 

There was a lot of gore, however. I'm not really into gory films, so spent some of the movie staring at my feet. What made up for it was the rest of Doomsday made no sense in an unintentionally hilarious way. There is no obvious source of power or petrol, yet the Glaswegians arrange festivals with Tennants lager, motorbikes, strippers, 80s pop music, a brightly lit stage and, best of all, a troupe of fat men dancing around in cheap kilts. Herds of thousands of cows roam the countryside around Glasgow, yet none of the crack commandos notice them until they run one over.  North of the Central Belt, people decide to live like a medieval re-enactment society, apparently for no reason apart from that the filmmakers fancied having some knights in armour somewhere in the feature.

 

I won't go into it too much, in case anyone else is planning to go and see it and I spoilt the "plot" - and I use the word in the loosest possible way. But anyone who takes it seriously is as daft as the storyline.

 

 

One year on

 

Congratulations to all the councillors and MSPs who are celebrating their first year as elected representatives. Personally, I've found it a steep but manageable learning curve. I'm still really enthusiastic about being a councillor, and next year can only be better than last, as I've now had time to find my way around council committees, set up surgeries, and just generally learn more about how the council works in practice.

 

One question that I've had a couple of times is, you all believe in Independence - what's that got to do with being a councillor? Well, councillors operate on the ground in communities to build trust in the SNP. In opposition - as in Glasgow - we do our best to do a good job for our constituents whenever we can. Ok, we can't control policy, but we can listen to people and make sure we make a difference. In administration, the SNP can use the powers of local government to improve services for the local area in a bigger, but more challenging way, than they can do in opposition. Having SNP councillors out there building trust and making things happen in the community means that people are more likely to trust us on independence.

 

Belief in independent thought and decentralisation is also important to a councillor in another central way. In Glasgow, I've found that the Labour councillors tend to talk at people and tell them what they ought to want, rather than hearing what they actually have to say about what they feel could make a difference to their local area. This approach is hardly empowering to individuals or communities. Personally, I've found people appreciate having a councillor who actually listens and then forms an opinion, rather than a councillor who tries to talk over them about their personal hobby horse.