A new Scottish Labour leader? We should wait until after Holyrood elections

There is once again a vacancy for the hardest job in Scottish politics, but we should not rush to fill it. The next leader of the Scottish Labour Party can wait. This is perhaps a difficult circle to square when Richard Leonard has quit and we need someone to replace him, but the truth is that Labour desperately needs a period of calm. We do not have the luxury to indulge in a red on red attack this close to the next Scottish parliament election. It might even be the case that none of the potential candidates have the necessary qualifications for it.

Before stepping down, Leonard and his supporters in the Scottish parliamentary group suggested he should not resign because there was nobody better to replace him. Despite now resigning, that group of potential successors remains unchanged. While some will disagree with the notion that Richard was the best person to do the job, pointing to some of the Labour group’s stronger figures, I am unconvinced that even they, at this point, have the one absolutely essential qualification for our new leader – the ability to unify.

The very reality of Richard no longer being in post follows months of division and bitterness. There are MSPs who are happy he has gone and there are others who are livid about it. I cannot see how anyone from the current group could bring that group of people together behind one successor by pitching themselves as a unity candidate. There would have to be a contest.

This internal contest would plunge Labour into a divisive battle and bring out our very worst in the months prior to the most important election in the history of devolution. And far from achieving a reconciliation of our differences, it would bring them out into the open.

Fatigued members like myself certainly do not want a three-month long contest – in fact, I think the only people that are revelling at such a prospect are the SNP and the Tories. Equally, however, appointing someone from Labour’s MSP group would be problematic.

Even if some sort of coronation were possible, which is debatable, it would be wrong to appoint them so close to what is looking increasingly likely to be a devastating result for Labour in May. Nothing is inevitable in politics, yet polls do indicate that this could be our worst electoral performance ever.

If this is the case, precedent would suggest that the party leader should step down. I wouldn’t expect them to, but I also wouldn’t feel comfortable with a new tenure being tarnished right at the start of their tenure with a crushing election defeat.

A permanent appointee is also unfavourable because, as a democratic party, our leader needs to be given a mandate from the membership following a full and proper discussion and an assessment of their capabilities. Again, however, I don’t think members believe this present moment is the right time for such internal wrangling. This leaves us with two options.

One: to have a leadership contest, which could take up most of the time we have between now and the Holyrood election. It would be a contest in which we’d be taking on ourselves, rather than our opponents. It would be a contest during a continuing global pandemic when we’d be debating policy proposals rather than offering solutions to the country. And, crucially, it would be a contest that would bring to the forefront issues not considered a priority for the country by our current policy agenda, not least independence and a referendum.

Personally, I think there does need to be a conversation had on Labour’s position regarding independence, but to air those differences in the middle of a pandemic, and to hand our opponents the means to undermine us, would be a reckless move. Instead, it would be far more appropriate to have that particular debate after the election, especially if the circumstances change – for example, in the context of the SNP winning a majority when, unavoidably, Labour would need to reconsider its “not now” stance.

Two: to postpone the triggering of a contest until after the Scottish parliament election, which I think would be in the best interests of both our party and country. It is likely that we will see new faces enter Holyrood after the election, which would be positive for Labour as it would broaden the range of possible candidates. More importantly, however, it would allow members to discuss the impact and fallout of the Scottish parliament election; to diagnose and assess the situation we find ourselves in.

Members at this point would be more informed, having experienced the election, and could give a mandate to the new leader to begin from the position they inherit from the country-wide ballot. It would also avoid us having to be so self-centred immediately before asking people to vote for us.

To this end, it makes the most sense for Jackie Baillie to lead Scottish Labour into the Scottish parliament election as interim leader. Of course, this requires Baillie to accept the request, but as deputy leader – unlike anyone else at this time – she has a mandate from members to be in a position of leadership.

The opportunity this provides is for a new leader to be separated from the parliamentary infighting that I suspect is about to occur, as well as the Scottish parliament campaign and outcome. And as an alternative to squabbling, we as members could come together and work to deliver the best result possible for Labour in Scotland in May.

It would be selfish of us to turn inwards at this point, and it would be egotistical for any MSP to believe that they should cause a leadership ballot this close to an election. Of late, Scottish Labour is not renowned for doing the right thing, but I hope we will on this occasion. Members know we are in for the fight of our lives in May – do not subject us to another now.