Can Scottish Labour MPs stop letting Scotland down, thanks

There is a question that every Labour MP in Scotland should be forced to answer: When will they finally put Scotland before their party?

Labour MPs were elected to represent Scottish constituencies. Yet, time and again, when the interests of Scotland collide with the interests of the Labour government at Westminster, Scotland’s Labour MPs fold their tents, lower their voices and fall into line.

They are becoming like a choir of Oliver Twists approaching their Westminster bosses and saying: “Please sir, can Scotland have some less?”

By their votes in Westminster and their silence, Scotland’s Labour MPs seem increasingly to ask their Westminster bosses for less when it comes to Labour government policy announcements. Less investment, less protection, less support, less ambition and, apparently, less for Scotland.

They have become MPs who seem to believe that their job is not to bang on the Chancellor’s door demanding a better slice of the pie for Scotland, but to stand politely outside Downing Street and ask whether Scotland might have some crumbs, if at all.

That is not standing up for Scotland. It is standing in Scotland while looking towards London.

They are not Scotland’s voice in Westminster but Westminster’s shield in Scotland.

A clear example is Grangemouth.

When the future of British Steel at Scunthorpe was threatened, the Westminster Labour government acted with extraordinary speed. In April 2025, they announced that it had stepped in to protect British Steel, putting the company into public ownership to secure a strategically important industrial asset.

And rightly so.

But Scotland had its own strategically vital industrial asset: Grangemouth.

Grangemouth was Scotland’s only oil refinery, with profound implications for energy security, industrial supply chains and employment. Yet the Westminster Labour government did not take the same decisive interventionist approach.

As Scotland’s then Deputy First Minister put it at Holyrood in April, the contrast between the intervention at Scunthorpe and the approach to Grangemouth was stark.

The hypocrisy is hard to miss.

When a strategic industrial asset in England needed public intervention, Scottish Labour MPs lauded the virtues of nationalisation.

When Scotland needed the same urgency, suddenly the cupboard was bare.

To be fair, one of Scotland’s Labour MPs, Brian Leishman, did publicly call for Grangemouth to receive the same treatment as British Steel.

But that only underlines the wider problem: Why should a Scottish Labour MP have to swim against the tide of his own Government to demand that Scotland receives the treatment England received?

And where was the collective pressure from his Scottish Labour colleagues on the green benches?

Where was the mass revolt?

Where was the demand from Scotland’s Labour MPs that if British Steel could be taken into public ownership in the national interest, Grangemouth should receive comparable consideration

Instead, Scotland was treated like the poor relation at a family gathering: invited to the table, but expected to wait until everyone else had eaten.

And Scotland’s Labour MPs let it happen.

The SNP’s position is straightforward: Scotland should not have to beg for the same industrial intervention that Westminster is prepared to provide elsewhere.

Then there is the extraordinary case of the proposed Ming Yang wind turbine manufacturing plant at Ardersier in the Highlands.

The proposed project represented up to £1.5 billion of investment and as many as 1,500 jobs.

In March 2026, the Westminster Labour government blocked the proposal on supposed national-security grounds because the investors were Chinese.

Yet at the same time the same Westminster Labour government is allowing a rake of Chinese investment to go ahead in England. [Insert link to latest Ming Yang article on SNP News]

And what was the response from Scotland’s Labour representatives?

The then Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar dismissed criticisms that the decision was politically motivated as “crankery.”

That is an astonishing attitude towards a proposed £1.5 billion investment in the Highlands.

Instead of asking Westminster hard questions, Labour’s instinct in Scotland is to defend Westminster.

Instead of acting as Scotland’s shield, they are London Labour’s lobby fodder.

Scotland is in position to become a clean-energy powerhouse – but when major investment arrives at the door, Westminster reserves the right to slam it shut; and by their silence Scotland’s Labour MPs have exposed themselves as willing little helpers in sabotaging Scottish interests.

Scotland needs representatives who will challenge that approach, not representatives who reach for the Westminster government defence brief.

And what about the Winter Fuel Payment?

In 2024, Labour MPs voted against a motion seeking to annul the regulations restricting the payment. Among those voting against the motion were Scotland’s Labour MPs.

This matters particularly in Scotland.

Scotland has significant levels of fuel poverty. As Age Scotland has pointed out in 2023, 37% of older households were estimated to be in fuel poverty and 25% in extreme fuel poverty.

And the Westminster decision also reduced Scotland’s block-grant associated with Winter Fuel Payment by around £150 million in 2024-25.

Scotland’s circumstances should have demanded a louder Scottish voice.

Instead, Scottish Labour MPs slavishly voted for their Westminster government’s position.

It is one thing to accept party discipline on a minor procedural matter. It is quite another to impose or support a policy that directly affects hundreds of thousands of their constituents struggling with heating costs.

And let us remember the basic geography of the issue: Scotland is not a warmer corner of England.

From island communities to the Highlands, from rural Aberdeenshire to the Borders, winter heating is not a luxury.

Yet the reverse Oliver Twists were at it again: not “Please, Sir, can Scotland have more?” but “Please, Sir, can Scotland have less?”

The same pattern can be seen in energy.

Scotland’s North Sea economy supports jobs, communities and an enormous industrial supply chain. Yet Labour’s approach to oil and gas has created profound uncertainty for the sector.

The Energy Profits Levy was extended by Westminster, and Scottish Labour MPs backed their government’s position in Westminster.

The consequences are not confined to boardrooms in the City of London. They affect ordinary people in North East Scotland; engineers, fabricators, offshore workers, supply companies, apprentices and the wider communities whose prosperity has been built around Scotland’s energy economy.

At a time when Scotland should be using its extraordinary energy resources to build a secure, affordable and renewable future, Scotland’s Labour MPs sound like Westminster’s echo rather than Scotland’s advocate.

The SNP believes in a just and managed energy transition – one that maximises renewable energy while protecting workers, skills and communities.

That requires Scottish MPs prepared to fight for Scotland’s energy workforce.

Not MPs who simply nod as Westminster makes the decisions.

But overall the problem with Scotland’s Labour MPs is bigger than any single vote.

It is a pattern.

When Westminster cuts support, Scotland’s Labour MPs too often shrug it off.

When Westminster fails to invest in Scotland whilst spending hundreds of millions on a theme park in Bedfordshire, Scotland’s Labour MPs act as if it is complicated.

When Scotland loses an opportunity, Scottish Labour says feign concern about security whilst ignoring what their party is doing in England.

When England gets decisive intervention, Scottish Labour says Scotland is getting something too – eventually, sometime … never.

It is politics with the volume turned down.

Scotland needs MPs who will raise their voices, not raise their hands when the Labour whip tells them to.

The difference could hardly be clearer.

The SNP’s MPs routinely use their position at Westminster to challenge the Westminster government over Scotland’s interests.

That is what representation for Scotland means.

The fundamental issue is therefore not whether every Labour policy is wrong.

Nor is it whether every Scottish Labour MP agrees with every government decision.

The question is much simpler:

When Scotland’s interests and Labour’s Westminster interests collide, which side comes first?

The evidence increasingly points to the wrong answer.

Scotland needs representation which demands more investment in Scottish industry.

More protection for Scottish pensioners.

More support for Scottish workers.

More control over Scotland’s energy resources.

More ambition for Scottish manufacturing.

More investment in Scotland’s infrastructure.

What we need less of is Scotland’s Labour MPs acting like reverse Oliver Twists.