Next UK Labour Leader

[John Lambies Doos]

Hypothetical situation. Say the SNP didn't exist and there was no nationalist movement in Scotland. There was an option of 2, Conservative or Labour. Do you think there would be a swing towards a Corbyn Labour Party in 2020 from a Milliband Labour Party in 2015, in Scotland?

It's a difficult one. I'm not entirely convinced that the SNP'S popularity is due to them actually being very left, I think it's more to do with trust. People see them as a truly Scottish party thus more likely to stick up for Scotland than others, plus independence of course. So with that in mind I don't actually think there would be a massive swing or indeed any real significant swing from milliband to corbyn (especially given the current chaos within Corbyns party). In the hypothetical absence of any nationalist movement or a desire for one, UKIP would most certainly increase their vote share quite substantially in Scotland

[DrewDon]

I think that's a very simplistic analysis. One of the reasons folk abandoned Labour was the totally ineffectual Labour leadership and campaign. Now I'm not saying Corbyn is a more effective leader than Milliband or that a campaign under him will be better. However I do believe many folk will be swayed in who they're voting for by these factors and not just the policies.

In Scotland we have seen people get behind political parties who propose more 'radical' policies if they are presented constructively and the party is able to counteract the usual MSM bias. At the last GE over 50% of those who voted in Scotland did so for parties that opposed Trident, the significance of that should not be ignored. I believe Scotland will support more radical policies than folk in rUK but there is no evidence to suggest the gulf is massively wide.

IMO the Labour Party does not have amongst its Parliamentary ranks a credible left-leaning leader. That's a terrible indictment. It is also suffering, and will continue to suffer for some time, from a PLP that is largely disconnected from its membership. That will only change if there is significant deselection over the next couple of Parliamentary elections. I don't know if Corbyn has the stomach for that fight but unless he engages in it then what's happening at the moment is no more than a short term, useless distraction that will ultimately see Labour remaining to be a watered down version of the Tories.

It likely is slightly simplistic, but I think it's a fair rebuttal to the logic that some people in England voted Conservative because Labour wasn't different or distinctive enough.

I agree with you on Miliband's leadership being essentially ineffective. I perhaps disagree on the strength of Labour's campaign. It was a more coherent and confident campaign that I was perhaps expecting. The consensus up to the election was that Miliband had grown in the months leading up to May and, by all accounts, his performances in televised debates seemed to be earning him more praise than criticism.

However, the public had made their minds up about Miliband long before this juncture. The other major issue was a lack of trust on the economy. In light of this, I think you have to ask two questions: 1) Is the current leader more effective than our previous leader, or can the voting public envisage him as Prime Minister?; 2) Is the current leadership doing a sound job of easing fears among the electorate about Labour's ability to competently manage the economy? Currently, I would answer 'no' to these questions. The polling data suggests that the voters would answer the same.

You raise a fair point on the electability of the SNP in Scotland with more 'radical' policies. I think this essentially boils down to a question of competence though. Regardless of what you think of independence or the SNP's broader programme, the Scottish electorate perceives Sturgeon as a capable and competent politician. This has taken time, but it is one of the key differences between what makes the SNP electable in Scotland and Labour unelectable in England (and elsewhere), to my mind. They have also compromised with the electorate on some of their previously more controversial positions, and I'm not sure if that is Corbyn's style. Sturgeon and the SNP, at least at the moment, are also much better at managing the media than Corbyn and Labour.

As for not having another plausible leader. Maybe. Burnham tried to be all things to all people, Cooper took far too long to hit her stride, and Kendall adopted policies massively out of line with the feeling of Labour members. Having said that, I think they would all have Labour polling higher than Corbyn does and would be more likely to win in 2020. As for who would succeed Corbyn if he resigned tomorrow? I don't have the slightest clue.

[pandarilla]

Outstanding debate on this thread now. Long, detailed, pretty respectful posts.

I think there's a north south divide in politics and wealth. The north of England have a very similar political viewpoint - which is obviously more left leaning. They don't have the independence movement and I don't think too many people there get it.

The South of England seems to have a noticeably different political tone. Much more small c conservative and 'each to their own' thatcher vibe.

Labour needs a more charismatic Corbyn, or a more left leaning Blair. But too many centre right labour MPs have to come to terms with the end of new labour. It's been thoroughly rejected by the core support of labour. Corbyn might not be the answer but tony mark II isn't either.

[dorlomin]

I think there's a north south divide in politics and wealth. The north of England have a very similar political viewpoint - which is obviously more left leaning. They don't have the independence movement and I don't think too many people there get it.

Rural England votes Tory except in the SW where there is a fair bit of support for the Liberals, this goes back a long time.

Urban England votes Labour in two big ways, low income people "traditional" Labour voters and tertiary educated younger liberals who have moved back into city centers.

University seats (big student populations plus uni workers) tended to be SDP but they have largely gone back to Labour.

This leaves suburbs\new towns as you battle grounds.

Seats usually form a bit of a mix but there are many largely rural or largely urban seats that form the core heartlands of the two parties.

The kind of person is the suburb\new town seats has a family, median income, car, owns home sort of thing. (Mondeo man). The collapse of heavy industry in the old steel, mining, shipbuilding, cotton type towns has not really been anything like close to recovered (think Motherwell). The defense industry is a huge earner for the country, the aviation industry is massive, computing bigger than most realise, finance and the like are all big earning industries (seats in Edinburgh). These tend to be clustered from London along the M4 and around Cambridge.

The midlands is a middle ground with lots of light industry and obviously the ubiquitous service sector (Rolls Royce are big in Nottingham, BAe shipbuilding in places like Barrow so this is all just broad generalisations) but the industries that thrive in these regions tend to dictate the wealth of the suburbs\new town.

Milton Keynes, service sector crazy midland town MK North: Major\Blair\Blair\Howard MK South Major\Blair\Blair\Blair.

These are the kind of seats that dictate elections.

If you are picking up the midland suburban\new town seats then the country is generally going with you. You will pick up mixed constituencies and the like but these are where the trends tend to happen.

Traditional Labour seats in the north do tend to be leftish. But they are not the kind of left you see on P&B. Benefit cheats annoy them, immigration is a big worry, they would like to be aspirational but the well paid work is not around. A lot of them are vulnerable to the UKIP message.

The really liberal places are the university seats and gentrified inner cities.

Labour has to navigate through a maze of needing to appeal to immigrants who have moved to the suburbs and done well and people who live in run down towns that are largely white and fear immigration. They have to appeal to people from traditional Labour backgrounds that have done well and are aspirational while not "ditching its past" or "taking traditional voters for granted".

Its really not easy. The tories did not manage to put together a governing coalition of voters between 92-2015. Even then it was by the skin of their teeth. Blair did it three times but in doing so seems to have permanently alienated a huge tranche of traditional voters (some from the uni type constituencies over Iraq, others from the traditional seats over immigration).

I think social media has made people so used to being surrounded by their own views they are becoming disconnected from being part of a hugely diverse country. But thats me.

May 2015 30.7 million people voted.

11.3 million for the Conservatives.

9.3 million Labour.

3.9 million UKIP

2.4 million LD

1.5 SNP

1.2 Green

0.036 million for the largest far left party TUSC

15.2 million voters voted for bluekip.

Out of that total shambles Labour has to find a message that will put about 11 million people into ballot booths voting for it.

Corbyn aint that man.

[Granny Danger]

Rural England votes Tory except in the SW where there is a fair bit of support for the Liberals, this goes back a long time.

Urban England votes Labour in two big ways, low income people "traditional" Labour voters and tertiary educated younger liberals who have moved back into city centers.

University seats (big student populations plus uni workers) tended to be SDP but they have largely gone back to Labour.

This leaves suburbs\new towns as you battle grounds.

Seats usually form a bit of a mix but there are many largely rural or largely urban seats that form the core heartlands of the two parties.

The kind of person is the suburb\new town seats has a family, median income, car, owns home sort of thing. (Mondeo man). The collapse of heavy industry in the old steel, mining, shipbuilding, cotton type towns has not really been anything like close to recovered (think Motherwell). The defense industry is a huge earner for the country, the aviation industry is massive, computing bigger than most realise, finance and the like are all big earning industries (seats in Edinburgh). These tend to be clustered from London along the M4 and around Cambridge.

The midlands is a middle ground with lots of light industry and obviously the ubiquitous service sector (Rolls Royce are big in Nottingham, BAe shipbuilding in places like Barrow so this is all just broad generalisations) but the industries that thrive in these regions tend to dictate the wealth of the suburbs\new town.

Milton Keynes, service sector crazy midland town MK North: Major\Blair\Blair\Howard MK South Major\Blair\Blair\Blair.

These are the kind of seats that dictate elections.

If you are picking up the midland suburban\new town seats then the country is generally going with you. You will pick up mixed constituencies and the like but these are where the trends tend to happen.

Traditional Labour seats in the north do tend to be leftish. But they are not the kind of left you see on P&B. Benefit cheats annoy them, immigration is a big worry, they would like to be aspirational but the well paid work is not around. A lot of them are vulnerable to the UKIP message.

The really liberal places are the university seats and gentrified inner cities.

Labour has to navigate through a maze of needing to appeal to immigrants who have moved to the suburbs and done well and people who live in run down towns that are largely white and fear immigration. They have to appeal to people from traditional Labour backgrounds that have done well and are aspirational while not "ditching its past" or "taking traditional voters for granted".

Its really not easy. The tories did not manage to put together a governing coalition of voters between 92-2015. Even then it was by the skin of their teeth. Blair did it three times but in doing so seems to have permanently alienated a huge tranche of traditional voters (some from the uni type constituencies over Iraq, others from the traditional seats over immigration).

I think social media has made people so used to being surrounded by their own views they are becoming disconnected from being part of a hugely diverse country. But thats me.

May 2015 30.7 million people voted.

11.3 million for the Conservatives.

9.3 million Labour.

3.9 million UKIP

2.4 million LD

1.5 SNP

1.2 Green

0.036 million for the largest far left party TUSC

15.2 million voters voted for bluekip.

Out of that total shambles Labour has to find a message that will put about 11 million people into ballot booths voting for it.

Corbyn aint that man.

I'm fairly sure that opinion polls had those who were voting UKIP for the first time as being fairly evenly split between former Labour voters and former Tory voters. Maybe slightly more the latter but not by much.

[sparky88]

Bullshit.

Not according to the institute for fiscal studies.

[pandarilla]

Rural England votes Tory except in the SW where there is a fair bit of support for the Liberals, this goes back a long time.

Urban England votes Labour in two big ways, low income people "traditional" Labour voters and tertiary educated younger liberals who have moved back into city centers.

University seats (big student populations plus uni workers) tended to be SDP but they have largely gone back to Labour.

This leaves suburbs\new towns as you battle grounds.

Seats usually form a bit of a mix but there are many largely rural or largely urban seats that form the core heartlands of the two parties.

The kind of person is the suburb\new town seats has a family, median income, car, owns home sort of thing. (Mondeo man). The collapse of heavy industry in the old steel, mining, shipbuilding, cotton type towns has not really been anything like close to recovered (think Motherwell). The defense industry is a huge earner for the country, the aviation industry is massive, computing bigger than most realise, finance and the like are all big earning industries (seats in Edinburgh). These tend to be clustered from London along the M4 and around Cambridge.

The midlands is a middle ground with lots of light industry and obviously the ubiquitous service sector (Rolls Royce are big in Nottingham, BAe shipbuilding in places like Barrow so this is all just broad generalisations) but the industries that thrive in these regions tend to dictate the wealth of the suburbs\new town.

Milton Keynes, service sector crazy midland town MK North: Major\Blair\Blair\Howard MK South Major\Blair\Blair\Blair.

These are the kind of seats that dictate elections.

If you are picking up the midland suburban\new town seats then the country is generally going with you. You will pick up mixed constituencies and the like but these are where the trends tend to happen.

Traditional Labour seats in the north do tend to be leftish. But they are not the kind of left you see on P&B. Benefit cheats annoy them, immigration is a big worry, they would like to be aspirational but the well paid work is not around. A lot of them are vulnerable to the UKIP message.

The really liberal places are the university seats and gentrified inner cities.

Labour has to navigate through a maze of needing to appeal to immigrants who have moved to the suburbs and done well and people who live in run down towns that are largely white and fear immigration. They have to appeal to people from traditional Labour backgrounds that have done well and are aspirational while not "ditching its past" or "taking traditional voters for granted".

Its really not easy. The tories did not manage to put together a governing coalition of voters between 92-2015. Even then it was by the skin of their teeth. Blair did it three times but in doing so seems to have permanently alienated a huge tranche of traditional voters (some from the uni type constituencies over Iraq, others from the traditional seats over immigration).

I think social media has made people so used to being surrounded by their own views they are becoming disconnected from being part of a hugely diverse country. But thats me.

May 2015 30.7 million people voted.

11.3 million for the Conservatives.

9.3 million Labour.

3.9 million UKIP

2.4 million LD

1.5 SNP

1.2 Green

0.036 million for the largest far left party TUSC

15.2 million voters voted for bluekip.

Out of that total shambles Labour has to find a message that will put about 11 million people into ballot booths voting for it.

Corbyn aint that man.

Intensive and impressive detail - cheers.

But much like a lot of football analysis I think part of the problem is overcomplication. The idea of spads working with pollsters around the clock to somehow satisfy all of these different target groups has numbed people.

There has to be something better than this stage-managed-to-the-nth-degree politics.

I'm also a massive believer in the circumstances of the other lot being a bigger factor than is given credit for. I don't think any tory leader could win against Blair in his prime - and the same could be said for thatcher.

Tom devine summed it up nicely for me in the run up to the referendum : Westminster and a large majority of England's population seem to have bought into a neo-liberal mindset for Britain - whilst Scotland and a few other parts still prefer the social democracy that existed up until the 80s. New labour ditched that and as a result started to lose touch with Scotland - slowly but surely.

[DrewDon]

Tom devine summed it up nicely for me in the run up to the referendum : Westminster and a large majority of England's population seem to have bought into a neo-liberal mindset for Britain - whilst Scotland and a few other parts still prefer the social democracy that existed up until the 80s. New labour ditched that and as a result started to lose touch with Scotland - slowly but surely.

I think this depends on when you think New Labour died. Tony Blair's most ardent supporters would say it died in 2007, when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister. Some others would argue that it happened when Ed Miliband was elected in 2010, and he essentially declared he thought New Labour needed to be abandoned when campaigning for the role. Jeremy Corbyn's supporters would argue that it only died upon his election, and it still manifests itself among large sections of (backbench) MPs.

Labour performed well in 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2010 in Scotland. How much of this was down to fear of the Tories or the lack of a strong alternative in these years is a separate debate. But I'm unconvinced by the argument that New Labour repelled voters in Scotland.

[DrewDon]

You're right. Scotland wasn't repelled by New Labour initially. There was a lot of optimism surrounding Tony Blairs appointment in Scotland also. But as the years past, people in Scotland begun to see the true face of Blair. His cruel international policies, deregulation of the banking sector, introducing wicked work fitness assessment firms into the benefit sector and other hard right policies really began to change the attitude towards labour in Scotland. This changed Labours argument in Scotland from social justice to "vote for us or you'll get the even nastier tories". This worked for them for a while, but we were really just waiting for an alternative.

Even then, Labour did extremely well under Brown in Scotland in 2010. Given that Labour had been in office since 1997 and the negative projections for their results across the country, winning 41 seats was an excellent feat. At least two clear alternatives were on the ballot paper - the SNP and the Liberal Democrats - but people in Scotland stuck with Labour. This doesn't suggest that New Labour was a failure in Scotland, but perhaps that the immediate alternatives weren't as immediately attractive or as effective at campaigning as they are now. That certainly applies to the SNP if not the Liberal Democrats.

As for what's happened since then, there doesn't appear to be one satisfactory answer. Even approaching the referendum, Scottish Labour won by-elections for seats at Holyrood with fairly handsome majorities. The collapse of Scottish Labour and the subsequent rise of the SNP, or the extent of it, I don't think anybody could have seen coming in September 2014.

[Ira Gaines]

Thoroughly enjoying reading this. Kudos folks.

[pandarilla]

Even then, Labour did extremely well under Brown in Scotland in 2010. Given that Labour had been in office since 1997 and the negative projections for their results across the country, winning 41 seats was an excellent feat. At least two clear alternatives were on the ballot paper - the SNP and the Liberal Democrats - but people in Scotland stuck with Labour. This doesn't suggest that New Labour was a failure in Scotland, but perhaps that the immediate alternatives weren't as immediately attractive or as effective at campaigning as they are now. That certainly applies to the SNP if not the Liberal Democrats.

As for what's happened since then, there doesn't appear to be one satisfactory answer. Even approaching the referendum, Scottish Labour won by-elections for seats at Holyrood with fairly handsome majorities. The collapse of Scottish Labour and the subsequent rise of the SNP, or the extent of it, I don't think anybody could have seen coming in September 2014.

Yeah plenty predicted the demise of labour in Scotland before the referendum.

I also think the 2010 general election result also reflects the two different attitudes to two different parliaments. Many voters still didn't see the snp as a Westminster alternative in 2010 - but by 2015 the pissed off yes voters were willing to be as reckless as possible to Westminster.

[LongTimeLurker]

Labour's decline in Scotland started with Holyrood elections with the SNP winning seats in the central belt FPTP in 2007 and winning more votes overall. Think Labour's main problem in that arena was that they didn't actually know what to do with the Scottish parliament given the Westminster branch looked down on it as being no more than "local government" and had only agreed to it as a way to curtail SNP support. They also believed their own propaganda about the SNP being a bunch of irrational nutters. The SNP minority government from 2007-2011 was supposed to implode because of that in a hand them enough rope sort of way but instead proved capable of doing a reasonable job, which significantly boosted the SNP's overall credibility setting the scene for the landslide in 2011 after the Lib Dems foolishly went into coalition with the Tories at Westminster.

[jmothecat]

Labour's decline in Scotland started with Holyrood elections with the SNP winning seats in the central belt FPTP in 2007 and winning more votes overall. Think Labour's main problem in that arena was that they didn't actually know what to do with the Scottish parliament given the Westminster branch looked down on it as being no more than "local government" and had only agreed to it as a way to curtail SNP support. They also believed their own propaganda about the SNP being a bunch of irrational nutters. The SNP minority government from 2007-2011 was supposed to implode because of that in a hand them enough rope sort of way but instead proved capable of doing a reasonable job, which significantly boosted the SNP's overall credibility setting the scene for the landslide in 2011 after the Lib Dems foolishly went into coalition with the Tories at Westminster.

I think Labour's attitude in 2007 was that the electorate had made a mistake. Always a dangerous path to go down. It meant changes that needed to happen then weren't being made. Now Labour have realised how dire the situation has become but it's too late. Labour don't know how to break the SNP's dominance. The current tactic of trying to out-left the SNP I think shows how misguided they are about the SNP, the Scottish electorate and what has gone wrong for the party over the past eight years.

[Glenconner]

I've spoke to a number of ex Labour MPs since last May.

None of the 40 MPs has broke ranks and said they were secret YES men

They were all unionist to the core.

[Alan Stubbs]

Convincing the public that you're "centre ground" seems to be far more important than actual policy. I don't believe the Conservatives actually are centre ground in the true sense of the word. What they are good at is constantly saying it. That and smearing others.

Labour have been absolutely terrible for years at managing the debate. Across three leaders now, they've seemed apologetic, confused and massively contradictory.

The Tories will fail eventually, possibly sooner than we might've predicted. If the economy starts going backwards again after years of blaming everyone else for Britain's failings, they're going to look like an absolute joke. I'd be surprised if they emerge from this EU situation looking fantastic either, regardless of how the vote goes.

Labour need to find a position and some nuts pretty soon.

[Alan Stubbs]

...on the last few posts, I don't think Scottish Labour being Unionists is their biggest problem. They've actually given off a vibe of not wanting Scotland to succeed at all, which is a much bigger problem. Most of the chat about oil since the referendum appears more like bragging than useful debate. This does not go down well when people are losing their jobs. The Lib Dems are even worse for this.

The SNP have successfully presented themselves as the Party (and as an actual Party, which helps) which cares about Scotland. The others have played into their hands.

[Granny Danger]

The biggest factor for Labour both in Scotland and in the UK as a whole is that several months after a defeat of seismic proportions they still have no idea how to address the very serious problems they are facing in Scotland. Unbelievably they are still following the SNPbad line despite everything showing that this is not working.

They are not helped, of course, by the total ineptitude of Dugdale, however you would have thought by now there would have been signs of some coherent strategy to win back their core vote.

FWIW I don't think Labour has the capacity to gain ground, they're dependent on the SNP screwing up and as things stand there's no indication this will happen. The real test will be when Scotland has greater revenue raising powers.

[Dunning1874]

...on the last few posts, I don't think Scottish Labour being Unionists is their biggest problem. They've actually given off a vibe of not wanting Scotland to succeed at all, which is a much bigger problem. Most of the chat about oil since the referendum appears more like bragging than useful debate. This does not go down well when people are losing their jobs. The Lib Dems are even worse for this.

The SNP have successfully presented themselves as the Party (and as an actual Party, which helps) which cares about Scotland. The others have played into their hands.

You're spot on. It's easy to come across as a raging 45er when making this point, but it's not so much the fact that they do support the Union as the way they express their support for it.

There shouldn't really be a reason that a party which campaigned for a No vote are automatically going to have all Yes voters hating them. Of course you'd have had a dogmatic, seething section of Yes voters who would never vote for them again anyway, but just as No voters who aren't seething Britnats will still happily vote SNP at Holyrood, Labour should have been able to campaign for a No vote without losing the votes of Yes supporters forever. However, they approached the referendum in such a way that they have lost them for every election for the foreseeable future.

Without wanting to go over the referendum arguments themselves, the way Labour made their arguments is what's put them in such a mess and they're still doing the same thing. As you say, they make it so spectacularly easy for the SNP to accuse them of 'doing Scotland down' that the electorate entirely believe it. Rather than reservedly constructing a case when bad economic news arrives of where the SNP are failing and what Labour would do differently if in power at Holyrood to rectify whatever the problem is, you get the impression that they really are actively celebrating bad news as it gives them a stick to beat the SNP with - exactly the tribalism they accuse the SNP of. When, for example, poor oil forecasts are released you can genuinely sense utter glee from the likes of Baillie, rather than a recognition that regardless of it being a vindication of their arguments of overly optimistic forecasts, it's bad news for ordinary people who work in the industry and you shouldn't actively revel in it.

It all stems back to their attitude towards the referendum in the first place. All the rhetoric about 'Scotland on pause', about how holding the referendum and having a debate about constitutional issues was just a gigantic waste of time, a distraction from real issues, was spectacularly stupid. In the wake of being pumped in 2011 they should have looked at it as an opportunity. Here was a chance to have a debate about the very fundamental issue of what politics should actually be for and how it can influence a society, with the opportunity to get people who had long lost or never had any interest in politics engaged and listening to you.

What better opportunity are they ever going to have to make an argument about how Labour can represent ordinary people and improve their lives, how they believe the best way to do that is as part of the UK and actually have people listen to them? Instead of taking that chance and constructing a vision of how the UK can change and be improved, how Labour could be central to that, they just mumbled status-quo, shouted about currency and pensions, described their opponents as a 'virus', started using 'foreigner' as a dirty-word and responded to all bad news with glee.

One of the best examples of it for me was Asda saying they would have to put prices up in an independent Scotland. The very next day a smiling Johann Lamont appeared in front of an Asda for a photo opportunity with senior members of Asda's management, while Labour activists held up posters declaring how much prices would increase. Think about what that actually says. The leader of the Scottish Labour party was actively celebrating the fact that a supermarket were going to increase prices on a spurious basis. The message that sends to normal people is 'a subsidiary of the multi-billion multi-national Walmart corporation have announced they are going to pass costs onto ordinary Scottish people while we're recovering from a recession, while they still make profits in the billions and pay their staff minimum wage. We in Scottish Labour think this is brilliant news!' Is it any wonder people have rejected them entirely?

Their whole campaign was built on negativity and that's why they've suffered so much since. They could have just had perma-seething XBL types hating them. Instead they've lost the vote of pretty much every Yes voter in the country for the foreseeable future.

[DrewDon]

...on the last few posts, I don't think Scottish Labour being Unionists is their biggest problem. They've actually given off a vibe of not wanting Scotland to succeed at all, which is a much bigger problem. Most of the chat about oil since the referendum appears more like bragging than useful debate. This does not go down well when people are losing their jobs. The Lib Dems are even worse for this.

The SNP have successfully presented themselves as the Party (and as an actual Party, which helps) which cares about Scotland. The others have played into their hands.

I pretty much concur with this. It would have been slightly bizarre for the second largest political party in the country not to have a definitive position on the defining political issue of our time. I somehow doubt it would have been beyond Alex Salmond's wit to profit from Scottish Labour allowing elected representatives to rebel on independence, or Scottish Labour boycotting the Better Together campaign. In all honesty, whilst the "shoulder to shoulder with the Tories" line has undoubtedly resonated, I'm sure it would have been effective regardless of whether or not Scottish Labour joined the official cross-party campaign.

To my mind, Scottish Labour's main problem is ambiguity over what they stand for. In a sense, they have completely failed to adapt to the changing political weather and they are suddenly in serious danger of becoming irrelevant. I don't mean that solely in the sense of losing yet more MSPs, but having almost nothing important or worthwhile to say regarding Scotland's future. I say this as a Labour member, too.

[Alan Stubbs]

You're spot on. It's easy to come across as a raging 45er when making this point, but it's not so much the fact that they do support the Union as the way they express their support for it.

There shouldn't really be a reason that a party which campaigned for a No vote are automatically going to have all Yes voters hating them. Of course you'd have had a dogmatic, seething section of Yes voters who would never vote for them again anyway, but just as No voters who aren't seething Britnats will still happily vote SNP at Holyrood, Labour should have been able to campaign for a No vote without losing the votes of Yes supporters forever. However, they approached the referendum in such a way that they have lost them for every election for the foreseeable future.

Without wanting to go over the referendum arguments themselves, the way Labour made their arguments is what's put them in such a mess and they're still doing the same thing. As you say, they make it so spectacularly easy for the SNP to accuse them of 'doing Scotland down' that the electorate entirely believe it. Rather than reservedly constructing a case when bad economic news arrives of where the SNP are failing and what Labour would do differently if in power at Holyrood to rectify whatever the problem is, you get the impression that they really are actively celebrating bad news as it gives them a stick to beat the SNP with - exactly the tribalism they accuse the SNP of. When, for example, poor oil forecasts are released you can genuinely sense utter glee from the likes of Baillie, rather than a recognition that regardless of it being a vindication of their arguments of overly optimistic forecasts, it's bad news for ordinary people who work in the industry and you shouldn't actively revel in it.

It all stems back to their attitude towards the referendum in the first place. All the rhetoric about 'Scotland on pause', about how holding the referendum and having a debate about constitutional issues was just a gigantic waste of time, a distraction from real issues, was spectacularly stupid. In the wake of being pumped in 2011 they should have looked at it as an opportunity. Here was a chance to have a debate about the very fundamental issue of what politics should actually be for and how it can influence a society, with the opportunity to get people who had long lost or never had any interest in politics engaged and listening to you.

What better opportunity are they ever going to have to make an argument about how Labour can represent ordinary people and improve their lives, how they believe the best way to do that is as part of the UK and actually have people listen to them? Instead of taking that chance and constructing a vision of how the UK can change and be improved, how Labour could be central to that, they just mumbled status-quo, shouted about currency and pensions, described their opponents as a 'virus', started using 'foreigner' as a dirty-word and responded to all bad news with glee.

One of the best examples of it for me was Asda saying they would have to put prices up in an independent Scotland. The very next day a smiling Johann Lamont appeared in front of an Asda for a photo opportunity with senior members of Asda's management, while Labour activists held up posters declaring how much prices would increase. Think about what that actually says. The leader of the Scottish Labour party was actively celebrating the fact that a supermarket were going to increase prices on a spurious basis. The message that sends to normal people is 'a subsidiary of the multi-billion multi-national Walmart corporation have announced they are going to pass costs onto ordinary Scottish people while we're recovering from a recession, while they still make profits in the billions and pay their staff minimum wage. We in Scottish Labour think this is brilliant news!' Is it any wonder people have rejected them entirely?

Their whole campaign was built on negativity and that's why they've suffered so much since. They could have just had perma-seething XBL types hating them. Instead they've lost the vote of pretty much every Yes voter in the country for the foreseeable future.

Your point about the Referendum being a missed opportunity is an interesting and valid one. There was a lot of "we want to see Scotland and Britain strengthen together" type statements but they literally never came with any examples of how this might happen. The actual argument offered was that this is as good as it possibly gets. That can work in a two option vote but who wants people with such a lack of ambition running anything?

They haven't done anything to combat that view of them since either. Apart from spending the air passenger duty cash (see mansion tax for UK Labour) a million times over, I have no idea what their ideas are. I think the "SNPBad" line can be a bit of a cop-out for the SNP when it comes to shrugging off criticism and I fucking cringe when people like Pete Wishart use it. But when you've had a leader in place for six months, who's been constantly in the papers in that time and nobody knows what her policies are; it's fair to say a constructive, alternative vision is not forthcoming.

And aye, the whole Asda thing was legit jumping the shark territory. To be fair to Lamont, she gets some credit for being the only person without a massive cheeser on her face about the supposed risk of crippling food prices.