Robin McAlpine argues that the next four years will be crucial in determining whether the future of Scotland is shaped by the right or the left

The more thoughtful Scottish politicians always recognised that devolution wasn’t an event, it was a process. If there was anyone left who doubted that, May 1 2003 should have put them straight. The establishment of the Scottish Parliament was often touted as a means of bringing politics closer to the people, but this view often contained the underlying assumption that it would somehow be the same politics which were closer. Well, it turns out that the fairer electoral system along with the closer public scrutiny led the Scottish public to choose a different kind of politics. The dominance of the political scene by a tiny collective of big parties was largely dismantled at this election and it seems perfectly likely that the old model will not return.

In the first election people discovered – perhaps by chance – that they could elect politicians from parties which were previously considered fringe parties. This meant that Scotland gained the experience of four years of a Parliament with a Green, a Socialist and an independent. People learned that in Scotland, unlike in Westminster, this was possible. So, four years later they elected 17. This will change the Parliament again. There is little doubt that on environmental issues the last Parliament was basically well meaning but pretty inactive. The Parliament was also attacked over and over by the business lobby for not spending enough time addressing their concerns. That’s fine, they’re a lobby group and that is why they exist. But they put the parties on the defensive and were probably too effective in shifting the agenda away from social issues. It is difficult to imagine the big parties being allowed to let these things happen again with the Greens and the Socialists breathing down their necks. The same applies to John Swinburne and the plight of the forgotten pensioners and to Jean Turner and the health service. The nature of the Parliament has changed and everything it does it will now do differently.

The question for those on the left is what now? A collective pat on the back for shifting Scottish politics to the left? A season ticket to the public gallery to see what happens? A well earned holiday?

To answer the question we need to think what the other side is doing. Will the voices which favour free markets over social welfare shrug, admit that their time has passed and move on? No, of course not. The right-leaning media in Scotland (i.e. most of it) will spend the next four years doing everything they can to destroy the SSP. Parts of the media spent much of the last four years doing this, but we can expect to see a frightening escalation. They will also try to hem in the Greens. Too many people still don’t understand that Green politics is about more than the environment. Patrick Harvey’s attempts to raise the issue of recognition for non-marriage partnerships, including same sex relationships, was met with outrage. ‘You were elected to save the whales Greenie, stop messing in politics’ was the immediate response. In fact, one right-wing commentator recently complained that the Greens and the Socialists were disgracefully trying to hijack the agenda of the Parliament (hijack BACK the agenda of the Parliament would be a bit more accurate). This comment is astounding; what do they think the role of a politician is? There will be a concerted campaign to discredit the Socialists and force the Greens ‘back into their box’. And it will be pursued with vigour and with massive resources behind it.

Devolution is a process and the next stage has not yet been decided. Things being equal the next four years would probably continue the process of resting the political agenda back from business and returning it to people. But things are not equal and it is perfectly possible that the concerted efforts of the right will stall that progress. People often pick a moment in time and ascribe to it the power to change things forever, and it is usually wrong to do so – nothing is irreversible and nothing is inevitable. But if the 2007 election continues the trend of the 2003 election it is likely that we will see a permanent transition in Scotland from the politics of a few parties and big majorities into the politics of many parties expressing many views – Scotland will drift away from London and towards Copenhagen, Stockholm and Oslo. This should be a welcome development for anyone interested in transparent, accountable government. Only those with a desire to control the agenda of the Parliament from outside and with no scrutiny have anything to fear from diversity in politics. And that is why they will be determined to make sure it doesn’t happen.

So what does this mean for the left? Well, it means that we need to take the next four years very seriously indeed. The Parliament will start to shift the terms of the debate in Scotland. Everyone will need to get use to words such as poverty and equity being a central part of politics. But this shift in Parliament must be both supported and extended outside the Parliament. The media, civic Scotland, public sector Scotland, corporate Scotland; everyone must be made to feel the pressure of this new agenda. In 2002 every statement on public life was met with a reflexive ‘what about productivity/economic growth/individual freedom of choice/the sanctity of the family’. By 2007 those who would make Scotland their care must be made to answer ‘what about poverty/environmental integrity/ community/equality’. The language of public Scotland needs to alter. The self-image of public Scotland has to alter. The anger of public Scotland has to alter. People sent a clear message this May that they wanted the Parliament back for them and their communities. The left needs to deliver this.

How? By working together. The success of the free-marketeers has stemmed from their impressive level of organisation. They have worked collectively and taken a vice-like grip of global politics while the left has failed to organise. This is not about party politics – the right has learned that getting hold of Labour or the Democrats can be every bit as effective as getting hold of the Tories or the Republicans. There is every potential for the broad left in Scotland to be every bit as effective. Any two corporations can be in bitter commercial competition but can come together and recognise that lower tax on business helps both of them. In Scotland the left must realise that just because there are many things it disagrees on there are things that are in its collective self interest. For example, it has become clear that the proportional element of the electoral system in Scotland is too small. Too many parties are fighting over too few seats and it is preventing the electorate from expressing its wishes. Everyone on the left in Scotland ought to be able to find common cause in calling for the First Past the Post element to be reduced to the 52 Westminster seats and the proportional element be increased by the extra 21 seats. Even the left in the Labour Party ought to be able to recognise that in the long term this will be the best thing for their party too, in terms of quality if not quantity.

So what might the targets of an organised left be? Here are three broad areas:

Pressure on the parties

All three of the left-leaning big parties in Scotland (Labour, SNP, Lib Dems) are in varying degrees of existential crisis. The Labour Party was in difficulty well before this election with issues such as public service reform and the war causing great discomfort for many members. The SNP shifted to the right over the last four years and would appear to have paid the price. The Lib Dems may be happy to have held their position, but the lack of progress will worry them and many still worry about how to differentiate the party from Labour. All three will be greatly worried by the drift of so much of the electorate away to the left. The right-wing press has conned political parties into thinking that the only way to win is to move right and produce glossier leaflets. The left must consistently put pressure on the parties to force them to recognise that they are now on the right of the electorate.

Develop communication

It is healthy to have diversity in policy and vision; it is not healthy if people who are close on specific policies and share similar visions don’t talk (and work together where possible). Nor is it healthy if there is no engagement between those who are on the broad left but disagree on specific issues. This is not meant to mean political activists alone but also those involved in every aspect of Scottish life who have progressive political interests. The various networks which developed around the anti-war movement showed how groups such as the churches can make common ground with political activists on single issues. As well as increasing communication, increasing awareness and knowledge is also essential – this is how the Scottish Parliament and the political parties can be held to account. The interaction and engagement which brought about the Parliament in the first places needs to be recreated. Modern technology can make this relatively straightforward. The Scottish left must start talking across its barriers.

Change the debate

As discussed above, the agenda has not been set by the left in Scotland, but there is now enormous scope to change that. Embedding ideas in the political process forces people to confront them. Altering the language of politics changes the content of discussion. Challenging free-market assumptions at every opportunity prevents them from becoming received wisdom quite so easily. A more open climate encourages others to come forward with their ideas and thoughts and relieves the pressure on others to keep quiet or toe the line. And there are loads of things which can be done which will make a difference; changing the debate in the political parties, focused campaigning, imaginative projects, encouraging and supporting thinking and writing.

And so Scotland is approaching a crossroads. The left can stay fragmented and allow others to chose the direction taken. Or it can find common cause for change. It is not a marginal decision. Either way, we have much less than four years to make the choice.

Robin McAlpine is Deputy Editor of the Scottish Left Review