THE Scottish media is, naturally, dominated by the death of Alex Salmond. His life makes good copy: a stellar rise to almost achieving independence in the referendum of 2014 as leader of the SNP and First Minister of Scotland to a prolonged fall.

First, he announced his resignation as leader of the SNP and first minster immediately after the failure to win the referendum and then in 2020 he faced a criminal prosecution on charges of sexual assault.

The jury returned not guilty verdicts on 12 charges and a not proven verdict on a charge of sexual assault with intent to rape.

Salmond remained in politics, founding a new political party, Alba, with the aim of creating a “super majority” for independence, but Alba has, so far, failed to break through by winning any seats in any election and it barely registers in the opinion polls. 

There is less analysis of the kind of independence that Salmond sought to bring about, essentially making Scotland a safe, conservative, political adjunct to the remainder of the United Kingdom.

In 2014 the SNP produced a prospectus which offered continued membership of the EU, continued membership of Nato, continued support for the monarchy and a truncated form of fiscal autonomy — meaning an independent Scotland would continue to use sterling and significant control of the Scottish economy would, therefore, remain in London.

The leadership of Salmond’s SNP was no more prepared to challenge the political and economic disparities of capitalism than their British counterparts in the Labour Party; their strategy was only to manage them differently, through faux sovereignty.

The failure of the SNP in power in the Scottish Parliament to challenge ingrained inequality and a spiralling cost of living, indeed to exacerbate it through continuous austerity, led to an electoral breakthrough for Labour in this year’s general election. But here we are, only a few days over Labour’s first 100 days and Scottish Labour is finding it difficult to sustain its lead over the SNP in voting intentions. 

A YouGov poll in late August said more than 60 per cent of Scots believed that Keir Starmer’s government had little or no grasp of issues facing Scotland. In September an Opinium poll showed that Labour had fallen significantly behind the SNP after its decision to cut winter fuel payments. The poll also suggested that Reform would have same number of Tory MSPs, making it very difficult to predict who might actually be able to take power in the Scottish Parliament of 2026. 

There was more bad news for Scottish Labour this month: they lost the Lochee and Strathmartine by-elections in Dundee, one of which, Lochee, they should certainly have won. The Scottish Labour leadership briefed the press that the winter fuel payment cut and the Downing Street freebies scandal damaged Scottish Labour’s chances. However, Scottish Labour did hold onto the Fortissat Mossend and Holytown, seats in North Lanarkshire last week, although the turnout spoke volumes: fewer than one in five voters in both constituencies cast their ballots .

It would seem then that the evidence is incontrovertible that the sins of British Labour are being visited on Scottish Labour. Given that the Scottish Labour Party and its leader are autonomous, why does Scottish Labour not simply take a distinctive stand on those issues where it differs from the British party? 

There are two reasons; the first is that the actual difference between the British and the Scottish Labour Parties, as represented by their leaders, is small. At the Labour Party conference in Liverpool Anas Sarwar leader of the Scottish Labour Party addressed the Scottish Labour Party delegates.

They, of course, expressed concern about the winter fuel payment cuts and suggested that, for example, increased taxation might be necessary. Anas Sarwar replied to the effect that Labour was not a tax-and-spend party and that people in Scotland were already being taxed enough.

Growth would transform the Scottish economy, which, as we know, is to be supplied by private-sector investment. It was spoken like a true believer in the neoliberal ideological tradition of low taxes, small state and consequently, poor public services.

The second reason is that both Starmer and Sarwar have shown scant interest in creating a powerful Scottish Parliament capable of delivering the very growth both claim we need. They are committed Unionists. For example, the Scottish Parliament has more limited borrowing powers than a local authority.

If Scotland is really going to grow its economy it needs state investment and that investment, if it is to be directed for the good of the people of Scotland and not large corporates like Diageo, needs to be used to build a democratically owned productive, green economy. (Incidentally, Diageo is the owner of Johnnie Walker. In 2023 it posted a 7 per cent rise in pre-tax profits to £4.7 billion up from £4.4bn the previous year. The whisky industry is currently lobbying against any further taxation in Labour’s Budget.)

Indeed, far from further empowering the Scottish Parliament, as recently covered in this paper, Ian Murray appeared to be considering arrogating powers to his office to spend over the heads of Scottish MSPs. Interestingly, since the story first appeared in the Scottish Daily Record, the Secretary of State has denied it, which may suggest some kite flying on his part. 

Meanwhile inside and outside the labour movement resistance to the neoliberal status quo, wrapped in the SNP’s saltire or Labour’s union jack, grows. Brian Leishman, the recently elected Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, supported by Unite, is mounting a fierce rearguard action to stop the Grangemouth refinery from being closed, and is openly critical of the Labour Party’s leadership’s refusal to consider nationalisation. 

In the Scottish Parliament, Labour MSPs Richard Leonard and Alex Rowley voted with the SNP to call for the UK government to reverse the introduction of means testing for the winter fuel payment. They reflect a wider sense of unease and discontent growing in the Scottish Labour Party.

The Chancellor’s Budget this month, if it simply applies neoliberal dogma, may provide the basis for a reawakening of the forces that shook the Labour Party during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership from 2015 to 2019. That change was potentially much more revolutionary than Alex Salmond’s “independence” would ever have been.