The dust has settled now on the SNP’s election rout. The predictable platitudes have been uttered and Parliament is in recess. The genocide in Gaza continues, as does UK support for it. What are we to make of the electoral success of Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, a party that outspokenly supports Israel? And what are we to make of the increase in the number of people who voted for Labour in Scotland compared with the 2019 election, contrary to the trend across the UK as a whole?
There is a lot to be said about the Scottish election results, but no issue trumps genocide. It cannot be balanced against any merits that might be found in other Labour policies. No one complicit in genocidal actions, either through their own statements or through the Cabinet’s collective responsibulity, is fit for public office.
The weight of an issue doesn’t guarantee that it will register at the vote count. That takes organisation, either the explicit kind or the kind that’s built into media priorities and spin. It’s hard work to turn a single issue into a decisive one but it can be done, as the pro-Brexit lobby demonstrated in 2019. But the Brexiteers began by capturing the Tory party and making it unequivocally the party to “get Brexit done.” The struggle against the Gaza genocide is different. From the beginning it has been a struggle by some of the people against almost all of the professional political apparatus.
No major party in the UK stands unequivocally for Palestinian liberation and against Israeli settler-colonialism. No major party has opposed the policy steps – acceptance of Israel’s supposed right to self-defence against people whose territory it occupies and acceptance of the obscuration by domestic bans on Hamas of the right of the Palestinian people to resist occupation – that have led western governments to believe that they have to endorse and deny genocide.
In the absence of a major party we could look to, it was always going to be hard to make Gaza register on the electoral scales. But it has been done. Five pro-Palestine independents – Adnan Hussain (Blackburn), Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Bar), Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley), Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) have been elected. Just as significantly, the number of people who voted for Labour across the UK fell from 10,269,051 in 2019 (when Labour obtained only 202 seats) to 9,731,363 in 2024.
The Tories entered the election campaign divided and without any self-belief. Their government had become deeply unpopular. It is truly remarkable that Keir Starmer could not draw more support to his party in these circumstances. Labour’s landslide only came about because the hard-right Reform UK party won 4,106,661 votes, taking votes from Tory candidates across the UK. Without the intervention by Reform UK, Labour would at best have achieved a narrow majority.
Palestine was the litmus test
Other issues besides Gaza may have turned potential Labour voters away from Keir Starmer. But every issue has Palestine baked into it. Palestine was the litmus test, in the guise of false accusations of anti-semitism, that Keir Starmer used to purge the party of left-wingers and intimidate the handful of left-wingers who remained.
With Gaza registering so clearly on the electoral scales across the UK, it should have registered especially strongly in Scotland, disaffected as we might hope it is from the British state and disenchanted as it certainly seemed to be with the Tory and Labour parties.
Instead, Scotland bucked the UK trend. The number of people voting for Labour in Scotland rose from 511,838 in 2019 to 851,897 in 2024. Labour now holds 37 out of 57 seats instead of just one, and the SNP holds 9 seats instead of 48. Neither Alba (which didn’t exist in 2019) nor the Scottish Greens won any seats.
Unionism now holds an overwhelming majority of Scottish seats at Westminster. It is a very serious setback for the cause of Scottish independence, but that’s a matter that deserves another article. The sharper problem, much more disturbing in its implications for the health of Scottish political culture, is that genocide-enablers barely represented in Scotland before the election now hold an overwhelming majority of Scottish seats. That points to a failure not just by political parties that we all know to be flawed, but by the pro-Palestine movement in Scotland.
The problem for the movement is that the SNP is not a party that can be placed in the vanguard of the struggle for justice for Palestine. Its position on Palestine has generally been in line with its anxiety to fit in with the foreign policy consensus of Western nations. That anxiety dates back at least as far as the SNP’s 2012 Conference decision, under Alex Salmond’s leadership, to reverse its previous opposition to NATO membership.
The SNP’s initial response to the events of 7 October 2023 was shaped by that history but was even poorer than might have been expected. When the House of Commons returned on 16 October from its recess Stephen Flynn, leader of the SNP’s Westminster group, said:
“The abhorrent terrorist attack by Hamas on the Jewish people and the Israeli state was a crime against our common humanity, and it must be condemned unequivocally.”
In referring to “the Jewish people” he was preparing the ground for the Hamas incursion to be characterised as an act of anti-semitism rather than of anti-colonial resistance. The damage done by this remark was not undone by his insistence in the same speech that there must be no collective punishment, just as the damage done by the Balfour declaration was not undone by its caveat about “the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”
The damage was increased by Flynn’s call for “humanitarian corridors, so that people can escape Gaza and aid can get in.” Where were people escaping Gaza to go to, and how was this policy to be distinguished from a policy of expulsion? How much carnage was Stephen Flynn anticipating, and who had he been talking to, to make him suppose at this early date that “escape” from Gaza would be necessary? Why did he think it right to outline a strategy for the “defeat of Hamas”, albeit with humanitarian caveats, without mentioning that Israel is in illegal occupation of Gaza?
But SNP leader Humza Yousaf had in-laws in Gaza, a background of student activism for Palestine and a history of perennially unmet expectations from the wider Palestine solidarity movement in Scotland. He could not refuse to offer help to his in-laws nor to offer a warmer kind of sympathy to the people of Gaza than was implied in Stephen Flynn’s initial statement.
Whether because of this, or because of support for Palestine amongst the ranks of SNP members, or because of a dawning realisation within the leadership of what an attempt to defeat Hamas would involve, the SNP’s tone on Gaza improved.
the road to hell
Its official view of the Palestine issue was and remains deeply flawed. But it has chosen not to follow the logic of a flawed political position all the way down the road to hell. To be politically mistaken is human; to be driven to genocide by the logic of a flawed political position is demonic. The SNP has stepped aside from that. That’s faint praise, but it puts the SNP ahead of most mainstream parties in the scattering of countries – from North America through Europe to Australia – that we call “the West.” It would perhaps be better named the “axis of colonialism.”
In November the SNP tabled a call for a ceasefire as an amendment to the King’s Speech in which the legislative programme of Rishi Sunak’s government was set out. “Ceasefire” was the call appearing on the leading banners of the Palestine demonstrations that the government at that time was trying to demonise or ban. The amendment was defeated in a vote on 15 November, with Labour opposing it. But 56 Labour rebels voted for the amendment. Eight of them were junior Shadow ministers who resigned in order to vote with the SNP.
A month on from Stephen Flynn’s disappointing speech, the SNP had transformed into the UK’s leading parliamentary force for a ceasefire. It was an internationally significant move and it threatened to disrupt Keir Starmer’s control of the Labour party.
The Government and the Labour Party subsequently promoted the idea of a “sustainable ceasefire.” It was a call for war until victory, wrapped up in a peace flag.
In February the SNP announced that it would be using he House of Commons “Opposition Day” on 21 February to table a fresh ceasefire resolution. The announcement came ahead of Scottish Labour’s annual conference in Glasgow, at which the Glasgow-based Gaza Genocide Emergency Committee (GGEC) was already planning a protest.
The conference was held at the SECC over the weekend of 16-18 February. On the Saturday GGEC organised a march through Glasgow culminating in a rally outside the conference. It was big, noisy and rain-washed. On the day, and in advance of it, there were attempts by Labour figures to say that Scottish Labour was in favour of a ceasefire and that Keir Starmer was moving towards that position. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar was quoted in the media as saying there was “probably not distance at all” between his position and Keir Starmer’s. When shown the motion tabled by the SNP for debate in the Commons, he said it seemed “perfectly reasonable.”
A composite ceasefire motion from three constituency Labour parties was passed unanimously by the conference. It was widely reported as calling for an “immediate” ceasefire, appearing to put it at odds with Keir Starmer’s position of calling for a “sustainable” ceasefire. In fact, the motion (the full text can be read here) called for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire.” It could easily be interpreted as no more than a call for a humanitarian pause. If so, it would not so much be at odds with Keir Starmer’s position as tangential to it.
That interpretation is supported by the structure of the resolution. It tacks endorsement of Anas Sarwat’s personal call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire onto a statement that “all combatants must act in accordance with the rules of war and international humanitarian law.” It separately calls for a “pathway to a peace process”, implyimg that an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” would not in itself mean the end of hostilities.
Perhaps worst of all, the motion “affirms that Hamas remaining in Gaza is not tenable.” At the very least, that’s a problematic pre-condition to impose on ceasefire negotiations. It’s also the justification Israel uses for the genocidal slaughter of civilians said to have links to Hamas.
“stuck on semantics”
Anas Sarwar said people should not be “stuck on semantics.” He was being very disingenuous. Semantics is what separates an aspiration towards peace from a position that, if adopted by the Governnment, would make the UK a force for peace. The semantics mattered because everyone expected that Labour would be in government by the end of the year, and probably much sooner.
The Muslim Council of Scotland, at that time an affiliate of GGEC, complained afterwards about the disrespect some speakers at the GGEC protest had shown to politicians. They evidently meant Labour politicians. By the time the complaint was aired Labour had already proved itself worthy of every bit of disrespect that could be heaped upon it.
The SNP motion tabled for debate in the House of Commons on the Wednesday after the conference said:
“That this House calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel; notes with shock and distress that the death toll has now risen beyond 28,000, the vast majority of whom were women and children; further notes that there are currently 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah, 610,000 of whom are children; also notes that they have nowhere else to go; condemns any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world; further calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; and recognises that the only way to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians is to press for a ceasefire now.”
World opinion and British public opinion had at this point shifted sufficiently to make it impossible for the Tory and Labour parties to refuse to countenance a ceasefire. The GGEC protest and the manoeuvres surrounding it had made that especially clear to the Labour Party. All of the establishment parties needed a formula that expressed an aspiration towards a ceasefire while giving them as free a hand as possible to keep supporting Israel.
The SNP motion was unacceptable to them on three counts. It was directed more against Israel than against Hamas; it straightforwardly called for an immediate ceasefire; and it acknowledged that Israel had committed and was continuing to commit a war crime – the collective punishment of the Palestinian people. That final point could have become a gateway to the imposition of sanctions against Israel.
The motion didn’t characterise the slaughter in Gaza as genocide. Perhaps that was to make it more palatable to potential Labour rebels. But the SNP has consistently failed to take that step, knowing that it would force the Scottish Government into a position that would be irreconcilable with UK and US foreign policy. That ought not to be a problem for a party committed to a programme for independence, but the SNP often acts as if it is not such a party and is always anxious to avoid rifts with the US. The SNP motion was nevertheless far in advance of the Labour position.
Labour responded with an amendment to replace the whole of the text of the SNP motion apart from the first three words. Crucially, it replaced the straightforward call for an immediate ceasefire with a call for
“an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again;”
The text responded to Anas Sarwar’s call for “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” and addressed the criticism that this might be taken to mean a temporary pause. But the caveats made the call for a ceasefire meaningless. In particular, the requirement for “assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again” made ceasefire conditional on any measures that Israel might think necessary for that purpose.
kick the can down the road
The Labour amendment also called for “Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures”. The ICJ’s provisional order of 26 January required Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of any act falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention. Almost everything Israel is doing in Gaza falls within the scope of the Convention, provided it is accepted that Israel’s actions, in total, have at least the potential to amount to the crime of genocide. It can very well be argued that Israel must cease all military action in Gaza if it is to comply with the ICJ order. But that interpretation is utterly incompatible with the fog surrounding the call for a ceasefire in the Labour amendment. So it must be assumed that Labour did not intend its reference to the ICJ ruling to be interpreted that way. It intended only to name-check the ICJ ruling and kick the can down the road.
The Government tabled an alternative amendment of its own, again replacing the whole of the text of the SNP motion apart from the first three words. It urged “negotiations to agree an immediate humanitarian pause as the best way to stop the fighting and to get aid in and hostages out” and urged “moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire”. It offered no change from the existing Government policy.
The Liberal Democrats tabled a third amendment to the SNP motion, also on a “delete all and replace” basis. It urged the “UK Government to call for an immediate bilateral ceasefire in Gaza.” In effect, it was urging the Governement to call for the Israel-Hamas negotiations that were in any case under way Qatar.
The SNP motion and the three amendments can be read in full here. Only the SNP motion offered any material sharpening of the UK’s position on a ceasefire.
On the eve of the Commons debate ITV’s Robert Peston commented that “the SNP and Labour are now more-or-less in lockstep.” He was wrong, as the chaos surrounding the debate proved.
The convention for “Opposition Day” debates is that only a government amendment to the opposition motion, not an amendment from another opposition party, can be selected for debate by the Speaker of the House. On this occasion Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle selected both the Government and Labour amendments. Sir Lindsay Hoyle was elected as a Labour MP but, as convention requires, resigned from the party when appointed speaker.
His manoeuvre allowed potential Labour rebels to duck the challenge of voting for the SNP motion and at the same time appease anti-genocide feelings amongst their constituents by voting for the Labour amendment. After all, hadn’t Robert Peston said it was “more-or-less in lockstep” with the SNP?
In the event, the Tories walked out in protest at Sir Lindsay Hoyle’s manoeuvre. The effect was to leave no opportunity for anyone – including the SNP – to vote on the SNP motion.
The chaotic scenes in the House of Commons led many people to conclude that what had happened was nothing more than a party political circus. They were wrong. An attempt had been put a serious ceasefire motion before Parliament, and it had been blocked.
The winner was Anas Sarwar. He had demonstrated footwork deft enough to appease Scottish Labour supporters while at the same time helping Keir Starmer out.
The response of the Palestine solidarity movement should have been to explain what had happened and campaign around the blocked SNP motion. The GGEC demo outside the Labour Party Conference had been key to the events around the SNP motion. Tommy Sheppard (SNP MP for Edinburgh East) had become a frequent speaker at demos organised by Edinburgh Gaza Genocide Emergency Committee (EGGEC). All this could have been built on. But very little actually happened. The movement moved on.
Then the SNP raised the stakes further. On 3 April First Minister Humza Yousaf wrote to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak calling for an end to UK arms sales to Israel.
time was running out for the SNP
But time was running out for the SNP. On 18 April the long-awaited announcement was made that Peter Murrell – former CEO of the party and husband of former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon – had been charged in connection with the embezzlement of SNP funds. Many supporters of Scottish indepedence were already unhappy with the party’s failure, in their eyes, to put up a real fight for independence. It was now ill-placed to rally support either from those who wanted it to be a fighting party or from those who mainly wanted it to be a party of good governance and centre-left values.
On 29 April Humza Yousaf announced his intention to resign as First Minister in response to the backlash against his decision a few days earlier to scrap the party’s coalition deal with the Scottish Greens. He had perhaps thought the move would strengthen the SNP’s standing amongst independence supporters who believed the Greens had contributed to the Scottish Government’s tendency to distract itself from the independence question. He certainly believed he was pre-empting a move within the Scottish Greens to end the agreement because of his abandonment of a key climate change target. The outcome makes it hard not to suspect that, by accident or design, he had been given some poor advice.
The effect was that Humza Yousaf, a figure associated with Gaza (at least in the minds of supporters of Israel) was replaced as First Minister by John Swinney, a politician not associated with Palestine at all and disliked by many Palestine supporters for his earlier role, as Education Secretary, in sidelining an attempt to introduce balanced educational resources on the Israel-Palestine issue into schools.
John Swinney nevertheless maintained the position developed under Humza Yousaf’s leadership. The SNP went into the 2024 election campaign calling for an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages and the end of arms sales to Israel. As before, it stopped short of recognising Israeli actions in Gaza as a genocide. But it was the only major party calling for an immediate halt to those actions.
Don’t side with genocide
Palestine campaigners were on the streets and highly visible across Scotland throughout the election campaign with slogans like “Don’t side with genocide.” They must certainly have helped keep Gaza in the minds of voters. But what were voters to do?
The only organisational discussions about this that I am aware of were quite perfunctory and were squeezed amongst numerous other discussions. The strategy adopted by both GGEC and EGGEC was to highlight the issues while taking care not to promote any particular party. It is a common enough strategy for single-issue campaigns at election time. It defuses the tensions between campaigners with different political affiliations. But it didn’t meet the demands of the moment.
Had that the SNP been certain to do well in the election there would have been no need to give it a helping hand, and its flawed position on Palestine would have been good enough reason for not doing so. Events turned out otherwise.
The Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC) – an affiliate of GGEC and EGGEC – ran a lively but unsucessful campaign against the re-election of Ian Murray in Edinburgh South. The campaign was predicated on Murray’s exceptionality as the only Scottish Labour MP in the previous parliament. It missed the point. All the new cohort of Scottish Labour MPs appear to be following Keir Starmer’s line on Gaza, just as Ian Murray does. A negative campaign against Ian Murray could not have succeeded under 2024 conditions unless linked to a positive campaign across Scotland backing the SNP for its support for an immediate ceasefire.
Most people in the Palestine movement are acutely aware that, had the matter been left to politicians, there would have been no serious opposition in the UK to Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The movement cannot allow leadership, or the appearance of leadership, to be usurped by politicians who are sure to let Palestine down at the first opportunity. But an arms-length – or barge-pole length – relationship to politicians should not mean political naivety. The person who welcomes your impartiality is not necessarily impartial in their own activity.
Everyone in Scotland knew of the issues making the country fall out of love with the SNP. It was harder to predict what the consequences would be on polling day. Many people appeared to assume that the SNP would still do quite well. Our movement should have been able to make a better collective guess about the election result. We should have been capable of serious, and inevitably difficult and contested, deliberation about how we should act in the light of our guess. And we should have been able to insist that steps towards stopping the genocide take precedence over other political preferences.
Support from the Palestine movement might not have saved the SNP. But the absence of support cannot be expected to go unnoticed.
The SNP took some steps towards our movement and then suffered a defeat. Had it taken a further step and recognised the Gaza slaughter as genocide and had it already established a track record of real support for Palestinian liberation, it would certainly have been easier for the movement to support it. But politicians in the SNP and beyond might draw a different lesson. They might conclude that Gaza is electorally irrelevant in Scotland or, worse yet, that it is a vote loser.
The SNP was the third largest party in the last parliament. It is now a poor fourth, coming far behind the Liberal Democrats. The SNP has lost the opportunities it had as the second largest opposition party. It will no longer have any “opposition days” allocated to it. Labour rebels cannot fill this gap. Nor can independents. The campaign for an immediate ceasefire and an end to UK arms exports to Israel is much weaker than it was before the election. Keir Starmer may yet pull back from unconditional support for Israel rather than risk international isolation. But it will be global chess that shapes his position, not domestic opposition.
Sometimes it is necessary to “do politics.” We are worse at that than we like to think.
Disclosure: I represent Scotland Against Criminalising Communities on GGEC and EGGEC. This article is written in a personal capacity.