Why Scottish Labour must back away from the Westminster party

Let me pay tribute to Starmer in one very important respect. His sustained resolve to keep the UK out of direct involvement in Donald Trump’s adventurism is something we should all be grateful for, regardless of his Prime Ministerial fate.

One of Harold Wilson’s historic achievements, among many others, was to keep my generation out of the Vietnam War. A different party in government would not have done that. At the highest end of the scale, that is the difference political choices make.

Similarly, if the Tories or Reform UK had held power, they would have committed us on day one to Trump’s war. By the time Kemi Badenoch or Nigel Farage retreated from the folly of their initial utterances, the die would have been cast.

READ MORE: Iran War shows why we can't trust Reform UK to make 'big, important, once-in-a-generation decisions'

That is no small distinction, as history will in due course judge, and there is a case to be made for unspectacular steadiness in a turbulent world. For the moment, however, it is not doing much good for Starmer as he is stalked by the fallout of appointing Peter Mandelson to Washington.

I don’t believe Starmer deliberately misled anyone and I don’t have much time for the former Foreign Office chief Olly Robbins who failed in an obvious duty to share inconvenient information. These are, however, sub-plots to the central problem which is the failure to recognise dangers inherent in appointing Mandelson to anything, far less Washington. There were plausible arguments in favour, of course, but they should have been halted immediately by flashing red lights, from quite recent history.

So what’s all this got to do with Holyrood? Rationally, the answer should be “nothing at all”. In practice, it has made it even more difficult to focus on devolved issues, and for Sarwar to fight an election campaign on them.

That has been true since the disastrous decision – subsequently reversed but still spoken of – to make cuts to pensioners’ winter fuel payments the signature policy of an incoming Labour government. Again, the quality of advice around the Prime Minister, to protect him from his own political naiveté, was woeful.

So Sarwar is left in the position this week of saying: “As far as this election campaign is concerned, I’m really clear that a vote for me and Scottish Labour is not an endorsement of Keir Starmer, and it won’t be used as an endorsement of Keir Starmer.”

READ MORE: Keir Starmer accused of shunning Anas Sarwar by 'skulking' around Faslane

Again, that is entirely rational but also disappointing that a relationship which should have been Labour’s trump card in the Holyrood election has been reduced to a health warning: “Voting for me doesn’t mean you’re voting for him.”

The irony is that if personalities can be set aside, the argument in favour of securing two governments of the same political ilk in Whitehall and Edinburgh is still valid. On countless issues, Scotland would be better governed through co-operation and shared objectives, rather than a permanent search for grievance, in pursuit of another end.

Incidentally, readers will recall that last week’s ploy for seeking conflict with Westminster was John Swinney daring “a Labour government” to block his commitment to legislate for lower supermarket prices. This week, in face of universal ridicule, there was no need for anyone to block it since the whole nonsense has effectively been abandoned. At the same time, Swinney offers himself as “a strong leader”. Aye, right.

I remain hopeful that the need for change will triumph over dull-as-ditchwater continuity which is all Swinney has to offer. Either way, Scottish Labour should thereafter act decisively upon the central lesson learned and for which I have long argued. It is to become an autonomous party which is not constantly bound by the constraints of dual identity.

Coming from me, as a long-term sceptic about the relative risks and rewards of political devolution, this may seem paradoxical, but it is not. The paradox lies with those who were ardently pro-devolution but have never taken the intellectual trouble to forestall the difficulty this creates for a Scottish party that is also bound to a UK parent.

READ MORE: Kemi Badenoch smells blood as she reminds Labour MPs Keir Starmer has let them down

Within European federal systems, this is far less of a problem. Regional or state parties coalesce for the purpose of national elections but nobody can sneer at them as “branch offices”. They have their own identities and priorities which, in some cases, will be significantly different from those of the federal government or party. Our own set-up is pseudo-federal and the same principle should apply.

One obvious current example is the policy on the North Sea and the position dictated by Ed Miliband which is the antithesis of any “just transition” to clean energy. If the 37 Scottish Labour MPs had a mandate from an autonomous party to oppose that policy, the resultant negotiation at Westminster would have been very different.

This re-setting of the relationship would strengthen rather than weaken devolution because it would transcend the dividing line between what is reserved and what is devolved. It should be perfectly natural for Scottish Labour to take a different line from Westminster Labour on either side of that distinction, without childish charges of it being a “split”. Different perspectives, different conclusions… is that not what devolution is supposed to be about?

I hope Scottish Labour can address its future from a position of strength after May 7 but either way, it has to do so while the memory is fresh in mind – that all of Sarwar’s problems in this election have been created by issues that are not on the Holyrood ballot paper. Therein lies a democratic deficit.