Matters of war and peace are not devolved, but they have nevertheless become the most powerful weapon in the SNP’s armoury as it seeks to fight back against a resurgent Scottish Labour party. Of course, given the nationalists’ record of misjudgement and appeasement in foreign policy, it is perhaps little surprise to see its motion to the Scottish parliament on Tuesday supporting an immediate, condition-free ceasefire.
By supporting an immediate ceasefire, the SNP has put Scottish Labour – bullish after its victory in the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election – and particularly its leader, in a difficult spot. There is no doubt the motion is also good domestic politics for the nationalists, even if the SNP’s present folly follows a long line of former follies.
When faced with a choice between blind loyalty to the UK leadership, or party unity in Scotland, Sarwar has plumped for the latter.
After all, we shouldn’t forget that the nationalist party is the same one that branded the humanitarian intervention in Kosovo an ‘unpardonable folly’. It is the party whose former leader Alex Salmond even had his own show on Russian state broadcasting channel RT. And it is also the party that wants to scrap the UK’s nuclear deterrent. For many years, the SNP even opposed membership of Nato. And yet while Tuesday’s ceasefire motion comes from a party with a questionable track record on foreign policy, it may see success in dividing the opposition.
The ceasefire dilemma for Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar is both personal and political. Personally, he is inclined to support an immediate ceasefire and it is not a great leap to assume that, had he still been an MP, he may well have joined the significant number of Labour rebels voting against Sir Keir Starmer’s position. But Sarwar is also loyal to his friends and has therefore defended both Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland Ian Murray and by-election victor Michael Shanks, who both abstained on the SNP’s recent House of Commons motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. Thus, while he privately backs an immediate ceasefire, he has also defended those who don’t.
This ambiguity on Sarwar’s personal position is compounded by political considerations. The Scottish Labour leader is reluctant to publicly break with or rebuke Starmer, with whom he has a strong working relationship but who supports only ‘humanitarian pauses’ rather than an immediate ceasefire. That is why Scottish Labour sought to amend the SNP’s ceasefire motion in the Scottish parliament so that it recognised, entirely correctly, that ‘all sides [need] to comply’ for it to work.
But Sarwar has also recognised that supporting the UK Labour leader’s position wholeheartedly would be a political gift to the SNP. The nationalists are determined to cast the Scottish party as a ‘branch office’ that lacks autonomy and will not represent the interests of Scottish voters. Equally, were Sarwar to have wholeheartedly backed Starmer’s position, it would have risked causing serious splits in his Scottish parliament group. Thus, when faced with a choice between blind loyalty to the UK leadership, or party unity in Scotland, Sarwar has plumped for the latter.
In itself, Scottish Labour’s confusion over a ceasefire is unlikely to damage its comeback, particularly as much of the political capital SNP leader Humza Yousaf has gained has been immediately spent protecting his embattled Health Secretary Michael Matheson, who tried to charge taxpayers for an £11,000 data bill run up by his children while on holiday in Morocco.
But there is no doubt Sarwar’s dilemna around a ceasefire has been a much-needed political gift to the SNP, as well as a useful reminder to Scottish Labour that its resurgence is not inevitable. Ultimately, while the Scottish parliament debate on a ceasefire will have a negligible impact on the situation in the Middle East, that does not mean its impact on Scottish politics will necessarily be negligible too.
Comments