Demonstration on Grangemouth at Scottish Labour Conference Despite the double whammy of electoral woes facing Scottish Labour, with the UK Labour Government recently overtaken in the opinion polls by the gutter politics of the Reform party and the news that the Scottish party’s support had halved since the election, somewhat surprisingly, the Scottish Labour Conference was brimming with excitement. Nowhere was this clearer than In Anas Sarwar’s speech on Friday, with his limitless optimism on full display as he declared ‘We will defy the odds again…we will win in 2026,’ to rapturous applause.
Indeed, throughout the conference, the optimism towards the next election was palpable, with a slew of popular policies announced such as the banning of peak rail fares, an Amazon Tax on large corporations to protect small businesses and high streets, and a Local Government Act that would decentralise power and give regions the ability to vote in directly-elected Mayors. Another welcome commitment by the party was to keep the ‘successes of devolution’, retaining universal benefits such as free prescriptions, university tuition and bus passes, instead of moving to means testing.
However, despite these positive steps, there was a notable absence of bold transformative policies, such as a GB energy or New Deal for Working People, to take Scottish Labour into the 2026 campaign. Though the above policies were welcomed by delegates and members alike, Scottish Labour’s 2026 election offer still appears notably light, as the SNP race back to a distant first in opinion polls.
As a result, with such a small policy offering, there is a danger that Scottish Labour risks being seen as merely an extension of the unpopular UK Labour brand, with public anger over the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance and refusal to scrap the punitive two child cap falling on Sarwar and his team as well as the UK Government, despite Scottish Labour’s condemnations of both decisions made by Starmer’s Government. Indeed, attempts to distance the party from the unpopular UK Labour Government fell flat as WASPI women and Grangemouth workers protested outside the conference, with those wronged by the UK Labour Government demonstrating on the banks of the Clyde, an area so rich in Labour history and tradition, which is by all polls predicted to return from Labour Red to SNP Yellow once more.
This lack of differentiation between the Scottish and UK parties was exacerbated by the central issue that despite the many positive policy offers made at the conference, much of it had little meat on its bones, inspiring little public interest as a result. For instance, the party once again called for a reform to the council tax, reiterating that the current system is unfair, and should be replaced by a new system based ‘on the ability to pay.’ However, such a weak explanation of a potential replacement for council tax, risks committing to reform it as meaningless. Furthermore, such a weak commitment will also be easy to row back on, as all SNP Governments since 2007 have done, with voters unlikely to be convinced by such a vague and uncommitted policy.
Another example of the lack of specificity of policy risking the party’s success was the announcement of a Department of Government Efficiency to tackle waste. Due to the lack of detail on the policy, any positive reception of the need to counteract the SNP’s problems of waste such as in the ferries scandal or the £30m spent on the scrapped National Care Service was likely outweighed, with the policy instead sending a chill down the spine of many a delegate due to its identical wording to the Nazi-saluting Elon Musk’s pet project in the White House, which is currently unleashing mass austerity on the American people. Again, despite the establishment of a Scottish treasury perhaps being a welcome one, due to the lack of explanation of the scheme, the conference was left with only the highly controversial wording of the policy, which may deter more voters than it attracts.
As such, despite many welcome pronouncements made, the lack of specificity and genuine radical policy risks leaving Scottish Labour unprepared for the next election, or the crises facing Scotland. With the next Holyrood election just 15 months away, the devil is in the (lack of) details for Anas Sarwar’s bid to be the next First Minister
The absence of policy also extended to the lack of debate at the conference. Though sounding like a contradiction in terms for a party conference, with traditionally one of its key purposes to shape party policy, the extremely controlled nature of the conference prevented many of the issues with the UK Labour Government from being expressed, or resolved, by allowing the conference to commit to truly radical and popular policies.
The tightly controlled nature of the conference was perhaps best demonstrated by the composite motions presented at conference, with some of which notably dumbed down in the composting process, removing left-wing clauses and replacing them with, again, vague and nonspecific wording, significantly stifling debate and the membership’s ability to shape party policy.
Composite Motion 4, proposed by Glasgow Kelvin and Cumbernauld and Kilsyth CLPs, entitled ‘NHS Waiting Times’, was a glaring example of the problematic compositing process that befell the conference. The motion began its life when Glasgow Kelvin CLP unanimously passed a motion to send to conference entitled ‘Outsourcing in the NHS’, which argued for an end to privatisation and outsourcing in the Scottish Health Service, rejecting the ‘UK Government’s plans to expand outsourcing’ and resolving ‘that a similar approach should not be adopted in Scotland.’
However, this motion was combined with another concerning waiting times from Cumbernauld and Kilsyth CLP which directly contradicted Kelvin’s motion in saying that a Scottish Labour Government should ‘Take every measure required to eradicate the waiting list backlog, where necessary using private sector capacity’. The compositing of these two motions which took opposing views, was quite beyond belief, because although they both concerned the NHS, they presented two completely different solutions to its crises.
In the end, the composite motion presented to the conference merely stated that ‘increased private involvement alone in the NHS, particularly through outsourcing NHS appointments, will not tackle the NHS crisis.’ The final motion did not fully rule out the use of the private sector, by continuing to state that a Scottish Labour government should ‘take every measure required to eradicate the waitlist backlog.’ As a result, though the motion passed, we are now left with a vague policy that does not rule out backdoor privatisation. This is despite the membership overwhelmingly opposing privatisation, clear from the response to Kelvin Delegate Peter Duffy’s speech on the motion, which received some of the longest and loudest applause of the weekend when he noted that ‘the private health sector does not exist to improve your health, the private sector exists to make a profit from your illness.’
The undemocratic dilution of motions through the composing process also befell Scottish Young Labour and UNITE’s joint motion on Grangemouth. Although both called for the Government to take some form of stake in the refinery, the former’s original motion supported ‘the presumption of nationalisation and state protection of jobs for key, under-threat industries as part of the industrial strategy’. The crucial clause on public ownership, however, was entirely omitted from the final motion, leaving the final policy unclear. As a result, despite the conference overwhelmingly voting in favour of the motion which called for an ‘[acceleration of] public investment to enable the transition of Grangemouth into a Sustainable Aviation Fuel facility’, the lack of clarity in the motion again left the conference bereft of solid policy outcomes, on this crucial issue facing Scotland. This severe lack of policy detail that plagued every aspect of the conference leaves Scottish Labour notably exposed when dealing with systemic crises facing Scotland. In the case of Grangemouth, warm words will not save the thousands of jobs under threat, as more than 400 workers have already received redundancy notices.
Indeed, perhaps the biggest announcement of the weekend was the £200m in investment into Grangemouth from the National Wealth Fund by the UK Government, with all workers made redundant receiving eighteen months' furlough as well as tax breaks for private investment into the area. However, despite the fanfare of the announcement, like so much of this conference, the policy is severely lacking in detail, and, as Brian Leishman MP pointed out , is ‘just a step in the right direction.’ As Unite noted, ‘the devil would be in the detail’ for the investment, or in this case, the lack of detail. In reality, the investment does not prevent the loss of the 400 onsite jobs at Grangemouth, or the 3000 support jobs, with the site due to close alarmingly soon, as early as in the second quarter of this year.
Indeed, the £200m appears to be primarily aimed at attracting private investment to the area and around Scotland, instead of creating a publicly owned site that would prevent job losses and protect the community. In addition, as Grangemouth now falls within a freeport, any businesses attracted to the location will be subject to less regulation, endangering working conditions, meaning that any site that may replace Grangemouth will likely fail to offer the same standards of unionised, well-paid work to the local community.
Despite the announcement being welcome, great uncertainty remains around the future of Grangemouth, as the community has to wait for potential private investment that may take years to materialise and could relocate just as easily as Petroineos, instead of the Government seizing the initiative and securing jobs and energy security through public ownership. Not only does this inaction endanger Grangemouth's future, but it also endangers the very notion of a Just Transition, risking job losses and harm to the community. As such, in keeping with much of the rest of the conference, the severe lack of policy detail and radicalism poses significant questions for Scottish Labour, its electoral prospects, and the future of the refinery and wider community.
In closing, the lack of a truly transformational and popular policy platform presented at the Scottish Labour Conference 2025 was a significant missed opportunity. Despite many welcome announcements made, there is simply not enough meat on the bones of existing policy or enough genuinely exciting large-scale policy offers. With this ideological gap, there is an increasing danger that we will not be able to alleviate the negative impact of the severe unpopularity of the UK Government on Scottish Labour's prospects. And perhaps most tragically of all, the hyper-controlled and manicured nature of the conference largely prevented truly radical policy from emerging that could turn the tide on the fast-approaching, possibly disastrous election facing Scottish Labour in 2026. As such, though many policies either announced by the leadership or arrived upon through motions are welcome, the devil is in the details, or lack thereof.
However, despite these positive steps, there was a notable absence of bold transformative policies, such as a GB energy or New Deal for Working People, to take Scottish Labour into the 2026 campaign. Though the above policies were welcomed by delegates and members alike, Scottish Labour’s 2026 election offer still appears notably light, as the SNP race back to a distant first in opinion polls.
As a result, with such a small policy offering, there is a danger that Scottish Labour risks being seen as merely an extension of the unpopular UK Labour brand, with public anger over the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance and refusal to scrap the punitive two child cap falling on Sarwar and his team as well as the UK Government, despite Scottish Labour’s condemnations of both decisions made by Starmer’s Government. Indeed, attempts to distance the party from the unpopular UK Labour Government fell flat as WASPI women and Grangemouth workers protested outside the conference, with those wronged by the UK Labour Government demonstrating on the banks of the Clyde, an area so rich in Labour history and tradition, which is by all polls predicted to return from Labour Red to SNP Yellow once more.
This lack of differentiation between the Scottish and UK parties was exacerbated by the central issue that despite the many positive policy offers made at the conference, much of it had little meat on its bones, inspiring little public interest as a result. For instance, the party once again called for a reform to the council tax, reiterating that the current system is unfair, and should be replaced by a new system based ‘on the ability to pay.’ However, such a weak explanation of a potential replacement for council tax, risks committing to reform it as meaningless. Furthermore, such a weak commitment will also be easy to row back on, as all SNP Governments since 2007 have done, with voters unlikely to be convinced by such a vague and uncommitted policy.
Another example of the lack of specificity of policy risking the party’s success was the announcement of a Department of Government Efficiency to tackle waste. Due to the lack of detail on the policy, any positive reception of the need to counteract the SNP’s problems of waste such as in the ferries scandal or the £30m spent on the scrapped National Care Service was likely outweighed, with the policy instead sending a chill down the spine of many a delegate due to its identical wording to the Nazi-saluting Elon Musk’s pet project in the White House, which is currently unleashing mass austerity on the American people. Again, despite the establishment of a Scottish treasury perhaps being a welcome one, due to the lack of explanation of the scheme, the conference was left with only the highly controversial wording of the policy, which may deter more voters than it attracts.
As such, despite many welcome pronouncements made, the lack of specificity and genuine radical policy risks leaving Scottish Labour unprepared for the next election, or the crises facing Scotland. With the next Holyrood election just 15 months away, the devil is in the (lack of) details for Anas Sarwar’s bid to be the next First Minister
The absence of policy also extended to the lack of debate at the conference. Though sounding like a contradiction in terms for a party conference, with traditionally one of its key purposes to shape party policy, the extremely controlled nature of the conference prevented many of the issues with the UK Labour Government from being expressed, or resolved, by allowing the conference to commit to truly radical and popular policies.
The tightly controlled nature of the conference was perhaps best demonstrated by the composite motions presented at conference, with some of which notably dumbed down in the composting process, removing left-wing clauses and replacing them with, again, vague and nonspecific wording, significantly stifling debate and the membership’s ability to shape party policy.
Composite Motion 4, proposed by Glasgow Kelvin and Cumbernauld and Kilsyth CLPs, entitled ‘NHS Waiting Times’, was a glaring example of the problematic compositing process that befell the conference. The motion began its life when Glasgow Kelvin CLP unanimously passed a motion to send to conference entitled ‘Outsourcing in the NHS’, which argued for an end to privatisation and outsourcing in the Scottish Health Service, rejecting the ‘UK Government’s plans to expand outsourcing’ and resolving ‘that a similar approach should not be adopted in Scotland.’
However, this motion was combined with another concerning waiting times from Cumbernauld and Kilsyth CLP which directly contradicted Kelvin’s motion in saying that a Scottish Labour Government should ‘Take every measure required to eradicate the waiting list backlog, where necessary using private sector capacity’. The compositing of these two motions which took opposing views, was quite beyond belief, because although they both concerned the NHS, they presented two completely different solutions to its crises.
In the end, the composite motion presented to the conference merely stated that ‘increased private involvement alone in the NHS, particularly through outsourcing NHS appointments, will not tackle the NHS crisis.’ The final motion did not fully rule out the use of the private sector, by continuing to state that a Scottish Labour government should ‘take every measure required to eradicate the waitlist backlog.’ As a result, though the motion passed, we are now left with a vague policy that does not rule out backdoor privatisation. This is despite the membership overwhelmingly opposing privatisation, clear from the response to Kelvin Delegate Peter Duffy’s speech on the motion, which received some of the longest and loudest applause of the weekend when he noted that ‘the private health sector does not exist to improve your health, the private sector exists to make a profit from your illness.’
The undemocratic dilution of motions through the composing process also befell Scottish Young Labour and UNITE’s joint motion on Grangemouth. Although both called for the Government to take some form of stake in the refinery, the former’s original motion supported ‘the presumption of nationalisation and state protection of jobs for key, under-threat industries as part of the industrial strategy’. The crucial clause on public ownership, however, was entirely omitted from the final motion, leaving the final policy unclear. As a result, despite the conference overwhelmingly voting in favour of the motion which called for an ‘[acceleration of] public investment to enable the transition of Grangemouth into a Sustainable Aviation Fuel facility’, the lack of clarity in the motion again left the conference bereft of solid policy outcomes, on this crucial issue facing Scotland. This severe lack of policy detail that plagued every aspect of the conference leaves Scottish Labour notably exposed when dealing with systemic crises facing Scotland. In the case of Grangemouth, warm words will not save the thousands of jobs under threat, as more than 400 workers have already received redundancy notices.
Indeed, perhaps the biggest announcement of the weekend was the £200m in investment into Grangemouth from the National Wealth Fund by the UK Government, with all workers made redundant receiving eighteen months' furlough as well as tax breaks for private investment into the area. However, despite the fanfare of the announcement, like so much of this conference, the policy is severely lacking in detail, and, as Brian Leishman MP pointed out , is ‘just a step in the right direction.’ As Unite noted, ‘the devil would be in the detail’ for the investment, or in this case, the lack of detail. In reality, the investment does not prevent the loss of the 400 onsite jobs at Grangemouth, or the 3000 support jobs, with the site due to close alarmingly soon, as early as in the second quarter of this year.
Indeed, the £200m appears to be primarily aimed at attracting private investment to the area and around Scotland, instead of creating a publicly owned site that would prevent job losses and protect the community. In addition, as Grangemouth now falls within a freeport, any businesses attracted to the location will be subject to less regulation, endangering working conditions, meaning that any site that may replace Grangemouth will likely fail to offer the same standards of unionised, well-paid work to the local community.
Despite the announcement being welcome, great uncertainty remains around the future of Grangemouth, as the community has to wait for potential private investment that may take years to materialise and could relocate just as easily as Petroineos, instead of the Government seizing the initiative and securing jobs and energy security through public ownership. Not only does this inaction endanger Grangemouth's future, but it also endangers the very notion of a Just Transition, risking job losses and harm to the community. As such, in keeping with much of the rest of the conference, the severe lack of policy detail and radicalism poses significant questions for Scottish Labour, its electoral prospects, and the future of the refinery and wider community.
In closing, the lack of a truly transformational and popular policy platform presented at the Scottish Labour Conference 2025 was a significant missed opportunity. Despite many welcome announcements made, there is simply not enough meat on the bones of existing policy or enough genuinely exciting large-scale policy offers. With this ideological gap, there is an increasing danger that we will not be able to alleviate the negative impact of the severe unpopularity of the UK Government on Scottish Labour's prospects. And perhaps most tragically of all, the hyper-controlled and manicured nature of the conference largely prevented truly radical policy from emerging that could turn the tide on the fast-approaching, possibly disastrous election facing Scottish Labour in 2026. As such, though many policies either announced by the leadership or arrived upon through motions are welcome, the devil is in the details, or lack thereof.
RSS Feed