Political selective memory is a fascinating thing to watch in real time. Today, Keir Starmer finally walked out of Downing Street, ending months of a slow-motion collapse that felt as agonizing as it was inevitable. Immediately, the tributes started rolling in. The most surprising one didn't come from a loyal cabinet minister or an old ally from the lawyer days. It came from Glasgow.
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar took to the microphones to declare he will always be proud of the work he did alongside Starmer. He talked about ending 14 years of Tory rule. He mentioned shipbuilding on the Clyde. He even talked about lifting children out of poverty.
It was a beautiful, dignified tribute. It was also completely surreal.
Just four months ago, Sarwar was the man who stabbed the political knife directly into Starmer's back. In February 2026, when the Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein scandal threatened to consume the entire Labour government, Sarwar didn't wait around for Downing Street to fix the leaks. He held a hasty press conference in Glasgow and told the world that Starmer had to go. He became the first massive party figure to demand the Prime Minister's head on a spike.
Now that the head is actually on the spike, Sarwar wants to talk about how proud he is of their shared legacy. You can't have it both ways. This frantic political tightrope walk shows exactly why Scottish Labour is in a massive tailspin, and why today's resignation might not fix a single thing for them.
The Glasgow Betrayal That Started the Domino Effect
To understand why Sarwar's sudden warmth feels so jarring, we have to look back at that chaotic week in February. The Westminster bubble was popping. Files detailing Mandelson’s continued communication with Epstein had leaked. Starmer's judgment was under intense fire because he had stubbornly appointed Mandelson as the US Ambassador despite serious internal warnings.
Downing Street was in freefall. Chief of staff Morgan McSweeney resigned to take the blame, followed quickly by the communications director. Starmer was holed up, trying to convince his own MPs not to mutiny.
Then came Sarwar.
He didn't just quietly express concern. He called Starmer, told him they disagreed, and then immediately walked out to tell the press that the leadership in Downing Street had to change. He explicitly stated that his first loyalty was to Scotland, not to his UK party boss. It was a brutal, calculated attempt to decouple Scottish Labour from the toxic radioactive cloud drifting north from London.
Sarwar’s team was furious because they believed Starmer’s dismal approval ratings were dragging them into an electoral abyss. Internal polling showed Scottish Labour slipping 20 points behind the SNP. Sarwar panicked. He thought that by sacrificing Starmer, he could save his own skin ahead of the crucial May elections.
It was a massive gamble. And it failed spectacularly.
The Holyrood Disaster Sarwar Couldn't Avoid
The strategy behind the February rebellion was simple. Sarwar wanted to go to Scottish voters and say, "Look, I’m not with that guy. I put Scotland first."
Voters didn't buy it. You can't spend two years hugging a politician in public, using his momentum to win 37 Westminster seats in 2024, and then pretend you barely know him when the polls go south.
Instead of showing strength, the move made Scottish Labour look fractured and chaotic. Senior figures like Scotland Secretary Douglas Alexander and Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden publicly backed Starmer over Sarwar. Ian Murray, the former Scottish Secretary, went on record saying Sarwar was flat-out wrong.
When the devolved and local elections arrived in May 2026, the electorate handed Scottish Labour its worst performance in Scottish Parliament history. The attempt to create distance failed. The voters punished the brand anyway. The SNP, despite their own long list of structural failures and NHS mismanagement, cruised to a comfortable victory because Labour looked like a circular firing squad.
Sarwar wanted to save his chances of becoming First Minister. Instead, his premature coup left him isolated, defeated, and saddled with a historic electoral loss.
The Hypocrisy of the Proud Legacy
This brings us back to today's sudden pivot. Now that Starmer has officially stepped down, Sarwar is trying to rewrite the narrative of their relationship.
Look at the words he used today. He praised Starmer’s integrity. He thanked his family for their sacrifices. He explicitly listed achievements like securing Clyde shipbuilding and fighting austerity as a "legacy no one can take away."
If that legacy is so untouchable, and if those achievements are so grand, why did Sarwar try to destroy the man who built them four months ago?
The truth is pure political survival. Sarwar knows that a brutal, divisive federal leadership contest is about to kick off. He knows that his own position inside the party is incredibly fragile after the May election disaster. He cannot afford to look like a bitter, opportunistic renegade who ruined the party's chance at national stability. He needs to position himself as a constructive team player for whoever takes over the keys to Number 10.
It is a transparent attempt to scrub the blood off his hands before the new leader is crowned.
Enter the Manchester Model
So who is coming next? The shadow of Andy Burnham looms incredibly large over this entire transition. Burnham just won a Westminster by-election, stepped back into Parliament as an MP, and is already the clear favorite to take over the party.
Sarwar has already started dropping hints about his preferences. He hasn't offered an official endorsement yet, but he spent a significant portion of his press conference today praising Greater Manchester. He talked about how Glasgow and the west of Scotland need to replicate the economic models Burnham championed down south.
It makes total sense why Sarwar would lean toward a Burnham premiership. Burnham has built his entire brand on being the "King of the North," someone who frequently locked horns with the London-centric Westminster establishment. For a Scottish leader trying to prove his independence from Downing Street, a Prime Minister who actually understands regional devolution is an easy sell.
But a new face at the top won't magically solve the fundamental identity crisis plaguing Scottish Labour.
What Happens Now
The party cannot simply hit a reset button and pretend the last six months didn't happen. If you're looking at what steps Scottish Labour needs to take to actually rebuild trust, the path forward is incredibly steep.
First, Sarwar has to stop shifting his policy positions based entirely on which way the wind blows in London. The flip-flop from demanding a resignation to celebrating a proud legacy makes the Scottish leadership look unprincipled. Voters respect consistency, even when they disagree with the policy.
Second, the party needs a distinct, coherent economic offering for Scotland that doesn't rely on catchphrases about change. Starmer won a historic landslide in 2024 on a vague platform of change, but he ran out of political capital almost immediately because he didn't deliver visible improvements to working-class lives. People are tired of metaphors. They want to see public services that actually function.
Third, the internal warfare between Scottish Labour MPs in Westminster and MSPs in Holyrood has to stop. The public disagreement over Starmer’s future in February proved that the party is deeply divided on its own constitutional identity. If the Scottish Secretary and the Scottish party leader aren't even reading from the same script, you can't expect the public to trust them with government.
Starmer's emotional exit today marks the end of a short, turbulent era. He leaves a party that is mathematically dominant in parliament but structurally hollowed out in the polls. Anas Sarwar helped accelerate this downfall, and no amount of revisionist praise can hide the fact that his gamble backfired. The coup is over, the Prime Minister is gone, and Scottish Labour is left standing in the ruins of a strategy that completely missed the mark.
