You’ve got to have a slogan if you crave success in politics and over the years there have been some memorable ones. “Britain Isn’t Working”, “It’s Scotland’s Oil”, “Education, Education, Education” and my personal favourite: “I Didn’t Realise It Was a Party, Officer”. But the latest slogan, this time from Labour, is not in the same class at all. It is not very good. It will not do.
The slogan was unveiled by the Labour leader Keir Starmer in his speech to his Scottish party conference in Glasgow. Labour, he said, could win a general election and Scotland could choose to replace the Tories with a Labour government. And then he hit us with it: “A new Britain that Scottish people aren’t just part of, but are proud of.”
Sir Keir used the slogan to close the speech too in a bit where he was talking about a contract he wanted to make with the people of Scotland. “It is my solemn promise,” he said, “that their priorities are again the priorities of the Labour party.” He also sought – in a more subtle way than others have tried – to link war and the dodgy state of the world with the British constitution. We have a common language and inheritance, he said, and face the same threats to our way of life.
All of this kind of stuff is perfectly fine as far as it goes – indeed, we’ve heard it before from Labour leaders who need to turn their heads Linda Blair-style to take in different audiences: Scottish nationalists, English nationalists, Brexiters, Remainers, lefties, righties, and so on. The bit about being part of something bigger also makes sense – it’s why a lot of people support No. However, the part that really bothers me is what he said about pride.
I can see why he was doing it: Sir Keir is proposing a future in which British government and policy would be fairer and more liberal and his hope is that Scots disgusted by the Tories and tempted by independence would therefore be happier to be part of the United Kingdom. They would, in other words, be proud to be part of it instead of embarrassed or angered by it and, framed in this way, it’s designed as a tactic against Scottish nationalism.
But an apparently benign form of British pride as a weapon against an apparently dangerous form of Scottish pride – one form of nationalism against another – is problematic. Firstly, the most committed Scottish nationalists will not be tempted by even a cuddly version of British nationalism – a country we can be part of and proud of. But the concept of national pride itself is also a problem: we shouldn’t be proud of our country or its government, we should be realistic about it.
Politicians should also be careful about sticking a poker into the fire of national pride , even with good intentions like Keir Starmer, because the flames can be hard to control. The constitutional debate in Scotland is often pretty ugly and it’s undoubtedly because people feel that their pride in Scotland has been offended or is threatened. Politicians and leaders, from the best like Starmer to the worst like Putin, can use that sense of pride and sense of hurt with good or bad intentions. But they cannot always control it.
The point is that appealing to a sense of national pride is too close to appealing to nationalism, which is the main reason the UK is in this mess in the first place. In fact, Sir Keir had some much better lines of attack in his speech including the idea that the establishment in the UK is represented not only by the Tories but by the SNP as well. “Decades of power between them,” he said, “and neither the Tories nor the SNP has done enough to secure the jobs and industries of the future.”
He also had some good stuff to say about further devolution – “pushing power away from parliaments and towards people” as he put it – and this seems to me to be a much better strategy. Pride in your country leads to touchiness and aggression and sometimes violence. Much better to be proud of what you’ve actually done yourself.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.
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