Voices from the debate – new left directions in Scotland?

Responses to Stuart Fairweather’s article about prospects for the new party project which Zarah Sultana will co-lead have been lively and varied, generating email, telephone and in-person debate between this website’s followers. We were pleased to see it picked up and discussed by Mike Small on Bella Caledonia.

Here we publish a few of the observations we’ve received from Democratic Left Scotland supporters and other friends. Though they raise more questions than answers, it is clear that there’s great interest in how new energy and direction could be applied to cohere and give impetus and practical expression to progressive politics.

Paddy (Edinburgh)

I’ve felt for some time that the issue of independence for Scotland (which I support) would need a fundamental realignment in Scottish politics for it to come about, in order to resolve the long-standing rift between the labour and national movements. One important thing to keep in mind is that it’s not really a historic rift, Labour at its origins having supported Home Rule at least. But one of the weaknesses of the 2014-based movement was the lack of a strong, organised pro-independence voice within the Labour movement. I know lots of once-Labour people have flocked to the SNP, but that does not quite do the trick, as this lacks the cultural coherence and organisational weight of the labour movement. We need some kind of ‘historic compromise’ between the labour and national movements (and perhaps I should add the environmental movement to the mix).

I hope that the announcement of a new party emerging out of Labour heralds such a move. But this will depend crucially on what position it takes on independence, and also on autonomy: I hope it will be a confederation of English, Welsh and Scottish organisations rather than a centralist structure. We shall see. But it could have the potential of becoming a game-changer.

Jim (Dundee)

I would certainly back a pro peace, anti-monarchy, anti-establishment socialist party … but challenging Starmer & Farage will be difficult with MSM (the mainstream media) supporting their anti-immigration rhetoric. Let’s wait and see if any of our trade unions support a new left party? I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Cathie (Edinburgh)

I think any debate about a left agenda is a welcome opportunity and was a bit dismayed when the first comments I saw from The National represented it as a threat. On the party as a structure, I would be reluctant to see another branch of a party based in London or Westminster. We need a politics rooted here and which reaches outwards. I’d have to be convinced that any new formation was serving Scotland better than the SNP plus the Greens.

If debate about the need for new directions and energy nurtured left discourse within both parties, I’d welcome that. Perhaps it could it articulate the movement for self-determination and bring parts of the labour movement into this debate? 

Ronnie (an email from afar)

In general, large parties at their most popular are formed as indicators of solidarity. In most cases this solidarity speaks to underlying and undeniable class antagonism. The Labour Party was (but is no longer) a classic case.

That the Conservative Party is now facing fragmentation from the racist Right is not a surprise, it was a long time coming, but that the challenge from the racist Right includes significant previous Labour support is rather shocking and will be difficult to contain in Brexit Britain.

The Left is always split, the importance of ideology and methodology makes that inevitable - but outright fragmentation has generally been avoided. Starmer has changed that, with his relentless marginalisation of the Labour left … here is a leader who will be seen as the one who finally brought US politics to the UK.

Fragmentation within a party system may or may not represent fragmentation within a popular political culture. However, where it results in the destruction of an electoral system from the inside, there will be significant consequences.

In Scotland specifically, there now exists a fragmented Left and, unusually, much of it is Nationalist in nature. It will be a challenge to threaten he Labour and Scottish National parties at the same time as the right-wing Reform party seems to be stronger than most thought or hoped. 

There will be significant consequences for Scotland’s political culture if/when the Scottish centre collapses.

Paul (Fife)

I'm all for a new party of the left.

The Labour Party is a busted flush, and the past year has shown them to be a deeply pro establishment party. The experience with Corbyn being undermined, traduced and effectively having his character assassinated by the right of the Labour Party has shown us again the limits of the present Labour setup. We need a democratic Party where everyone can be held accountable. A party that is pragmatic enough to use the electoral system positively by not standing against other progressive candidates. A party that could take support and affiliations – and suggestions - from the trade union movement. A party that is internationalist in its outlook. Finally, a party that could attract a wide spectrum of progressive groups like pro Palestine groups, climate campaigners, LGBTQ+ activists and housing campaigners etc.

Will such a party undermine support for the Labour Party? Yes, I think it will. 

Mark (Edinburgh)

I agreed with Stuart’s point that “candidates and the organisations that put them forward at the forthcoming elections need to ensure lived connections to communities and workforces if they are to gain votes and make a difference.”

I think this is central to the challenge that any new socialist party in Scotland faces - and it was the failure to develop these connections that led to previous efforts failing, like the RISE coalition in the 2015 election.

There is a space for a political agenda in Scotland that addresses class issues head on.

Environmental issues will always be at the core of green politics and independence is the reason for existence and unifying belief of the SNP.

Who speaks for Scotland’s working-class communities? 

However, translating this into a viable political project is very challenging.

For one thing, it’s hard to carve out a distinct political agenda. In practice, the RISE manifesto of 2016 was a slightly more radical version of the Scottish Greens policy programme. Why would people vote for a new and untried left party when an electorally successful Green Party appears to offer a similar programme.

Of course, there are those who have criticised the Greens for being too focused on liberation issues like trans rights, and not focused enough on independence. But Alba’s mixture of left-wing economics, social conservatism and ultra-nationalism means there is little space here either.

The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) may well end up as a central part of the new left party, but despite their foundation by Bob Crow, the then-general secretary of the RMT, as a party of the trade union movement, this ambition has never really turned into reality.

Even the RMT disaffiliated from TUSC at their 2022 AGM. While TUSC did have a distinct policy agenda on the EU - “Vote no to the EU, no to the Tories, and yes to workers’ unity and real international solidarity” - the left-wing but pro Brexit vote seems quite small in Scotland.

However, I think the lack of a clearly distinct political agenda is part of a wider issue for any pop-up party, and this issue is about its relationship with wider social movements. Declaring a new party just feels like an attempt to do movement building the wrong way round. The statement says “we want to be more than just an electoral alliance for Scotland’s left; we want to be the link to a wider progressive social movement”. But parties don’t create movements - movements create parties. There is a green movement in Scotland and an independence movement, which sustain the parties of those movements. While RISE could make a claim to be the party of the radical independence movement in 2014, its election results showed how shallow its connections with the movement were. The new party starts with even less of a relationship with wider movements. 

The reality is that building political parties takes time. It takes years of putting local newsletters through doors and campaigning on local issues to secure the trust within communities that delivers a vote. Equally, the experience of community campaigning often challenges attitudes and understanding among ‘activists’ of what actually matters to people.

To get anywhere instead of telling people what you think they need, activists need to take the time to listen and learn.

So, unless you have Nigel Farage’s access to the media, pop-up parties have always struggled for traction. It remains to be seen whether the new party being discussed is about more than short-term opportunism.

Mary (Lanarkshire)

I think it is a welcome development if it will replace the corporate values of Starmer’s Labour Party … but it is a different scenario when it comes to Scotland, as I don't think the new Corbyn – Sultana party would support independence, which is still such a central issue for people in Scotland.

Cathie’s second email (Edinburgh)

I’ve just read Hamish Morrison’s piece in today’s The National (10 July). It carries quotes from Jim Monaghan, who is a member of Collective Scotland’s steering group, which is working to set up the Corbyn-Sultana party up here in Scotland.

It feels to me like there is a mix of premature positioning and retreating which doesn’t promise a worked-out position.

It seems like the Corbyn-Sultana project has begun without any consideration of the issue of Scottish independence, and it was hard to work out what the proposed relationship is between the new party and another electoral vehicle, the Left Alternative, which is bringing together the Scottish Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers Party and TUSC.

Mike (Dumfries)

I turned from reading Cathie’s email to Colin Fox’s article in Scottish Left Review (July to August). Fox writes on behalf of the Scottish Socialist Party and states that his organisation has not in fact signed up to an electoral alliance also involving the Socialist Workers Party, and so the position of various potential participants in the situation remains confusing.

Fox argues that ‘building a properly constituted party based on promoting working class struggle and a clear socialist programme … takes years and years of dedication and commitment. You do not succeed by turning up at the last minute, ill-prepared and pleading for people’s support’.

I’m drawn to his argument about the need for long-term serious work and honest, open partnership working, which is also stated in a different way by Mark from Edinburgh – but didn’t some of the most successful left wing alternatives to social democracy over the last few years, including Podemos in Spain and SYRIZA in Greece, come together in quite a rapid way, under the pressure of social challenges and new opportunities, and with imaginative inputs from then little-known young activists?

I also feel, as Mark and others are arguing, that the thing that is really needed as a basis for any successful new electoral development is for it to be based on, expressing, interacting with and serving dynamic and large-scale social movements for progressive change. Perhaps we are still at the stage of seeding, nurturing and growing those? As part of that, it’s important to think about what the many left-wing people in established parties – Greens, the SNP and Labour - can do to support new movements, and the way their politics can be influenced by shifts in opinion in civil society. Is it really time to counter-pose the idea of a new left-wing party to the work of promoting radical agendas within and across those parties who have been elected to Holyrood?

Published 15 July 2025