Back in July, the words "Anas Sarwar, First Minister" seemed to be etched in stone. Labour had filleted the SNP at the General Election, going from one seat to 37, with the SNP losing 39 of its 48 constituencies. Mr Sarwar is arguably the most exciting and popular Scottish Labour leader since the father of devolution, Donald Dewar. Meanwhile the SNP has been in power for almost two decades, two of its previous First Ministers have been in trouble with the law, another has been in trouble with the Greens, they remain in the midst of internecine warfare, and all the while the nation’s economy and public services perform very poorly.
And yet, no. The SNP and Labour are practically tied; in actual fact SNP supporters might fairly point out to me that Labour has not topped a single Holyrood opinion poll in Scotland since that seismic Westminster victory.
So, what on earth is going on? Three factors, I would say. Firstly, Labour’s first five months in office have been traumatic, at best. The absence of enthusiasm for the Opposition version of Labour under Sir Keir Starmer has carried into government. The sunny optimism of the Tony Blair revolution in 1997 has not been replicated here; Sir Keir was destined to win because the country was desperate to rid themselves of the Tories. He has built next to no rapport with the electorate, and a Budget which will put taxes to their highest level since the war, will keep mortgage rates up, and will do very little to make the money in people’s pocket go further, presents him with an uphill struggle, and presents Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage with plenty opportunity to bring global populism to our islands.
Read more by Andy Maciver
Secondly, the Scottish Government which Mr Sarwar was opposing a year ago is utterly different to the one he is opposing now. He may yet live to regret the bandwagon he jumped on this spring, when the SNP/Green coalition was knocked out by First Minister Humza Yousaf, who knocked himself out at the same time. Mr Sarwar was not short of positive contrast with Mr Yousaf and the Greens - he was the competent centrist, ready to reform public services and inject some life into the moribund economy. Not so with the new Scottish Government leadership of John Swinney and Kate Forbes. Mr Swinney is the dependable and competent elder statesman, a calming influence both on his party and his country, while Ms Forbes is the exciting engine of economic recovery, wooing businesses and people alike, from urban boardrooms to rural tearooms. To make matters worse, Sir Keir and Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ Budget handed Mr Swinney and Ms Forbes a big box called "Barnett Consequentials’", gift-wrapped with a bow, and containing three billion ways to make the sender look incompetent (winter fuel payment, anyone?).
Thirdly, the SNP’s unpopularity in Scotland today is only relative compared to that of the Tories back in July. We are simply not in the territory, here, of Mr Sarwar being elected simply because Labour is not the SNP, in the way that Sir Keir was elected on account of not being a Tory. Whilst it is fair to accuse Mr Swinney and Ms Forbes of going too slowly (they are already six months into a two year job and not enough has changed), the direction of travel is clear enough to surmise that Mr Sarwar will not be elected in Scotland simply on account of not being "the other guy".
Nonetheless, for Labour-minded readers, the pessimism stops here. There is much they can do to render the last few months an aberration rather than the beginning of a trend. And they should start by looking at the Scotland Office of Ian Murray, the Scottish Secretary.
Mr Murray sits at a Cabinet table amongst colleagues with relatively large teams. Four, five, or six Ministers supporting a Secretary of State is typical, however Mr Murray has only one, albeit a very able one in Kirsty McNeill. He should hire more. In truth, the life of a Scottish MP on the backbenches can be rather boring, and sitting with Mr Murray and Ms McNeill in the House of Commons are several MPs who are under-utilised and are very clearly "ministerial material’".
And yes, for those of you howling at me, saying that Transport or Net Zero or Treasury are large departments with more functions to service, I hear you. But Scotland is a large and strategically significant part of the UK, and very many of its devolved functions can be influenced to one degree or another by Westminster. Parts of energy and parts of transport are obvious legislative examples, but the line between reserved and devolved functions is sufficiently blurred in other areas, too.
Mr Murray’s predecessor, Alister Jack, used city regions growth deals, as well as a variety of funding mechanisms under the banner of "levelling up", to interject the Scotland Office into day-to-day Scottish governance in a more meaningful way. It was popular, too, since it turns out nobody up here cares who pays for their stuff; they just want the stuff.
Mr Murray can take this ball and run with it. A team of, say, four Scotland Office Ministers, could form a political rival to the SNP Scottish Government. One might work on the fully reserved areas of defence and foreign affairs, another on broadly constitutional affairs, including direct funding such as city deals; another might focus on work and welfare; with another on strategic transport, the latter two of which are both part-reserved and part-devolved competencies, and all working in coordination with Michael Shanks in his critical part-Scottish role as Energy Minister. Even Dr Zubir Ahmed, in his role as Parliamentary private secretary to Health Secretary Wes Streeting, could spend time with the Scotland Office team and with the Holyrood health team, agitating on NHS reform.
The Scotland Office could, in effect, operate as a proxy Scottish Government over the next 18 months, working hand-in-glove with Scottish Labour’s shadow Scottish Government at Holyrood.
Anas Sarwar may yet make it to Bute House, but it looks uncertain, messy and unemphatic. He is not, in the final analysis, getting much help from Downing Street. But he could get it from the Scotland Office.
Andy Maciver is Founding Director of Message Matters, and co-host of the Holyrood Sources podcast
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 here