IT WAS a win that was literally against the odds. Labour’s Davy Russell snatching victory from the jaws of universal pundit condescension. The result shows an impressive organisational strength on the part of Scottish Labour, it also illustrates a serious political weakness; and while it was certainly a defeat for the SNP, with Reform getting over a quarter of the vote, the real losers might be all of us.

Labour won but did so by turning out its own support rather than taking from the SNP. This is good enough to win a by-election, but to win nationally Labour will need to make serious inroads into the SNP vote. Until there are signs of that happening, Anas Sarwar’s declaration that Thursday’s voters have “led the way to a change of government” comes across less like contractually obligated boosterism, and more like thinking so wishful it’s been prompted by rubbing a magic lamp.

The by-election was called following the death of the SNP’s Christina McKelvie, a Scottish government minister. She held the seat with a 4,000 majority. John Swinney, having taken over after Humza Yousaf’s self-propelled departure, is usually viewed as having steadied the SNP ship following last year’s general election. They now have a healthy opinion poll lead, so a by election in a seat like Hamilton, Stonehouse and Larkhall was more an inconvenience than a concern.

Labour chose a candidate early — Davy Russell, unknown outside the constituency but, crucially as it turned out, well known locally. Those running the campaign kept Russell well away from broadcast media, realising that this was an environment where, put charitably, he would not flourish. (NB this decision played a big part in generating the media view that not only would Labour not win, but that third place was a real possibility).

The SNP had no such qualms with their candidate Katy Loudon; a cut-out-and-keep careerist from Nu SNP central casting. She did exactly what was expected of her; repeating that day’s talking points, delivered what obfuscations and evasions were necessary, and went on to lose her third parliamentary election in 20 months. (A record surely?).

With a three-way split in the vote, Labour won the seat despite a 2 per cent drop in vote share and, on a reduced turnout, 4,000 fewer votes. A mere 1,500 votes separated Labour, the SNP and Reform. That Labour came out 600 votes ahead of the SNP is being attributed to an efficient on campaign on the ground. While those involved can be pleased with their work, others should be concerned that had Reform been capable of any remotely similar effort, the result could well have been different

That such an efficient GOTV effort was essential points to an uncomfortable truth. Labour still shows no sign of being able to attract significant number of voters from the SNP. The SNP vote was half of what it was at the last Scottish Parliament elections. The decline in turnout was overwhelmingly at their expense.

This is now a pattern. At the Rutherglen by-election Labour gained a Westminster seat not through added popularity but because the SNP vote evaporated. It was a similar story at the 2024 general election where the decline in turnout and the fall in SNP support make a pretty good match. Labour gained many seats — but what increase in vote there was (and Scotland was the only part of the UK where labour gained seats and votes) seems to have come far more from disaffected Tories looking to punish incumbent nationalists than anywhere else.

And there’s the rub. There aren’t enough angry Tory votes up for grabs in Holyrood to enable Labour to win, and if Thursday night is anything to go by, those voters are finding Reform an amenable prospect. Reform swallowed the Tory vote whole, and their 26 per cent vote share indicates that they also took votes from both Labour and the SNP too.

There have been attempts to put this down to the influence of “Loyalist Larkhall,” a town whose residents are much mocked for an attachment to a “staunch” Protestant identity, Orange Order links, and red, white and blue kerbstones. This reading though fails to take into account that Reform achieved virtually the same vote share in a council by-election in Clydebank a few weeks ago.

It’s difficult to be sure what it says about Scotland that the first real challenge to the stale orthodoxy of its political Establishment, and its “civic Scotland” vassal state is coming from the (extreme) right rather than the left, but it is surely nothing good. More damning still is that they appear to be harnessing votes from the scunnered with existing parties across the indyref Yes/No divide.

Their appeal won’t be diminished by Swinney repeating his “summit” where Scotland’s great and grant-funded deliver homilies about harmony to the people they are failing. It could possibly be undermined by it as the STUC’s Roz Foyer told that event by politicians delivering on housing, jobs and public services.    

The disenchantment with the SNP from its former supporters is easily explained. What’s driven Labour’s failure to attract those voters support is equally easy to explain — it’s just harder to understand. Politics in Scotland is no longer dominated by the constitution.

Support for and opposition to independence remain pretty much where they have been for the last decade. What has changed is that now it is merely one issue among many — and for most, not the most pressing one. It’s also the case that they have no meaningful plan to achieve indy, and under Swinney haven’t been prioritising it.

This means the SNP has lost the saltire-patterned bulletproof vest shielding their record in government from scrutiny. That record hasn’t been all bad, but the failures are racking up thick and fast. It’s no surprise though that the shift from being seen as campaigners for “Freeeedom” to being revealed as New Labour in a kilt has put people off.

Sarwar after the result, astutely called attention to the SNP campaign having focused on Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage rather than a defence of the SNP’s own record in office or, he might have added, their plans for the future.  

It is though plans for the future, or rather their lack that constitute Labour’s biggest problem and a major reason those who can no longer back the SNP won’t trust Scottish Labour. Eighteen years in opposition, and four years after he took charge, Sarwar’s Scottish Labour (as he once wanted the party named on ballot papers) has no programme.

A grasp of how threadbare things are can be seen by the approach taken to the Scottish government Budget. Labour didn’t present an alternative or oppose the SNP plans but instead abstained. The argument was that the Budget couldn’t be opposed, because it contained needed extra money from the UK government but couldn’t be supported because the SNP were going to waste the money. (Yes, my eyes rolled too).

Later at Scottish Labour conference policies proposed were more a different flavour of the managerialism and gimmickry that has been the hallmark of the last decade than a breach with it. For the NHS, fewer health boards; for schools, a ban on mobile phones and — I kid you not — “a department of government efficiency.” If this is the offer, people can be forgiven for seeing a change from SNP to Labour being almost as profound as going from Diet Pepsi to Pepsi Max.

Winning nationally can’t be done merely by hoping to be the beneficiary of SNP voter fatigue —  it will mean persuading those jaded with the SNP to come out and vote Labour. To mobilise that vote will require solid radical policies and a break with the Scottish Parliament’s now 25 years of institutional timidity. This can’t be avoided. The alternative isn’t just leaving in charge a party that’s out of ideas and increasingly inept, bad as that is. If Labour isn’t going to engage and enthuse, Thursday showed us there are others who might.   

A version of this article first appeared at Labourhub.org.uk.