In their book A Past of Possibilities, the French historians Quentin Deluermoz and Pierre Singaravélou examine the meaning and history of “uchronias” – counterfactual histories and tales of “what could have been”. Such tales are everywhere in pop culture, but as Deluermoz and Singaravélou demonstrate, uchronia isn’t confined to fiction. The term is derived from utopia, a Greek neologism meaning both “no place” and “good place”. And like utopia, uchronia – swapping time for place – finds alternative worlds sprouting in the cracks of history. Arguments about poor strategy or political misfortune always imply what could have been, from Jeremy Corbyn’s position on Brexit to Covid-19’s effect on the Trump presidency. Deluermoz and Singaravélou show that when done carefully, uchronian thinking – like utopian thinking – has offered not just a means of intellectual escape, or a resource of hope, but a way of asking serious questions about the past and present.

Here’s one, close to home: what if, in 2007, Scottish Labour had managed to form the Scottish government (then called the Scottish executive) instead of the SNP? Simply asking the question can help to dispel the odd sense of inevitability that has now settled on the SNP’s rise to power. The 2007 Holyrood election was a strange, messy affair: almost 150,000 ballots were rejected due to a bungled change in the ballot paper design, and the SNP finished the election just one seat ahead of Labour, ending eight years of Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition government, which had been in place since the creation of the Scottish parliament. In the constituency of Cunninghame North, the SNP’s Kenny Gibson beat the incumbent Labour MSP by just 48 votes. There is surely a world, out there in the multiverse, in which Labour somehow clung grimly to power.

Forget, for a moment, the difficult arithmetic Labour would have faced, which probably would have required a deal with both the Liberal Democrats and the Greens; the really interesting question is how a Scottish Labour government at Holyrood would have dealt with the arrival of a Conservative-led austerity government at Westminster in 2010.

[See also: Will Scotland’s dizzying quest for a global role ever end?]

Would they have promised to co-operate, in the spirit of making the union work, with a government of the other two “Westminster parties”? Such an approach, on the eve of the 2011 Holyrood elections, would surely have promised electoral oblivion: Labour performed well in Scotland in the 2010 General Election, and the prospect of the Scottish party passing over Westminster austerity without a squeak of defiance would have been a gift to the SNP.

The alternative is far more intriguing, and historically resonant: from the 1980s onwards, devolution was framed by many in the Labour Party as a means of defending Scotland from Conservative governments it didn’t vote for. Yet, ever since the Scottish parliament was created, Labour itself has been unable to test this proposition, having only ever governed Scotland alongside a Labour majority at Westminster.

The coincidence of a Labour-led Scotland with a Tory-led UK could have offered an opportunity for renewal in Scottish Labour’s ranks, as electoral competition with the SNP forced the party to rediscover its “national party” instincts. Follow the fantasy further, and the 2011 Holyrood election becomes interesting too – with the Scottish Liberal Democrats destroyed by their counterparts’ coalition with the Tories in Westminster, who could Labour have turned to sustain a fourth term in office? The Tories would be ruled out, and the Greens wouldn’t be enough. There would be one option left: an alliance of two centre-left, social democratic parties, determined to stand up for Scotland against Westminster. Scotland would have its first Labour-SNP government.

Would such an arrangement have been better for Scotland than what we’ve had over the past decade? The SNP may well have surpassed Labour anyway, but working together could at least have diluted the ocean of bad faith and paranoia that separates the two parties. More importantly, had Labour found themselves governing in conflict with Westminster, they may have developed a better understanding of devolution’s profound limitations than the tepid constitutional conservatism which now prevails throughout the party.

[See also: Why Gordon Brown’s “New Britain” doesn’t feel like a home for Scotland]

If you don’t believe me, we can escape the conjectural haze for the clearer skies of reality. Just a few hundred miles south, something very similar to this story has been unfolding in Wales, where Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru have just signed a three-year co-operation agreement. Unlike Scotland, Wales has endured 11 years of Conservative rule at Westminster with a devolved Labour government at the helm in Cardiff Bay. Labour and Plaid first shared power in the “One Wales” government of 2007-11, which – unlike the new deal – saw Plaid hold ministerial office, but most of that took place in the dying days of New Labour. The new co-operation agreement, in which Plaid get special advisers but no ministers, offers a far more radical prospectus.

The deal includes several policies that can comfortably be described as nationalist. Its efforts to promote the Welsh language and Welsh history are not new to mainstream Welsh politics. Policies aiming to reduce second home ownership and control tourist numbers reflect the influence of longstanding protests against English incomers pricing out locals. This integration of cultural and economic protest has been driven by radical cultural campaigns like Cymdeithas yr Iaith (the Welsh Language Society), but other pledges demonstrate another, more directly economic nationalism based on Welsh public ownership: the deal incorporates Plaid’s manifesto pledges for publicly owned energy generation and construction companies, Ynni Cymru and Unnos.

The deal also includes a substantial programme of political and media reform – a classic ingredient of progressive nationalist politics. The Senedd is to be expanded to 80-100 members, with a more proportional voting system and quotas to promote gender balance; there is a proposal for a “Shadow Broadcasting and Communications Authority” to defend and expand the independence of the Welsh media and promote further devolution; and there is a promise to expand state funding of Welsh-based journalism “to tackle the information deficit”.

Of particular interest is the “Constitutional Commission”, which had already been established by Welsh Labour. The commission emerged from years of frustration within Welsh Labour over the limitations of the existing devolution settlement, in which the structural problems of central overreach and underfunding have been exacerbated by ideological differences between the Welsh and UK governments. The commission will be chaired by Laura McAllister, a political science professor at Cardiff University as well as a former Wales football captain and Plaid parliamentary candidate, and Rowan Williams, the left-wing former Archbishop of Wales and Canterbury. Crucially, the commission has been given sufficient independence from the Welsh government to consider independence as one of Wales’s constitutional options – something which Keir Starmer’s own proposed commission has been barred from doing.

The new Welsh government’s nationalism may not be about breaking up the British state, but it is still a kind of nationalism, focused on increasing the power and autonomy of a distinctively Welsh democracy against a right-wing UK government. And by integrating economic and political nationalism, Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru have identified the common ground – combining solidarity with self-determination – on which nationalists and socialists can combine their efforts. Indeed, in terms of their willingness to intervene in the economy, control the influx of foreign wealth and engage meaningfully – rather than performatively – with constitutional reform, Wales’s governing parties are arguably more effective nationalists than their Scots equivalents.

With independence up against the brick wall of British intransigence, the stage should be set for far closer co-operation between the Welsh and Scottish governments – both influenced by their own co-operation agreements – to push for a root and branch reform of the British state. But such a reform inevitably means influencing the UK Labour Party from within – something Wales is now in a far better position to do than Scotland. It doesn’t require too much counterfactual fantasising to suspect that the people of Wales, by sticking with the Labour Party, have put themselves in a better position to determine their own future than those Scots who opted for the SNP.

[See also: Scottish independence would force Britain to confront its post-imperial decline]

//= do_shortcode(‘[in-content-square]’)?>

Keir Starmer has been “pointedly silent” about the cooperation agreement between Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru, a Guardian columnist has said.

In an article for the London-based liberal newspaper, Rafael Behr, he argued that Labour’s Leader in Westminster’s “more feasible route to No 10” looks like a “collaboration with other parties”.

He pointed out that “power-sharing” is already a “normal feature of British politics”, and pointed to to the deal that was officially signed between First Minister Mark Drakeford, and the Leader of  Plaid Cymru, Adam Price yesterday as an example.

But he suggested that it “goes against the grain of English political culture, and Labour pride” for Starmer “to accept that the shortest route to power” is to collaborate with other parties in a similar way.

In his Guardian column, Behr said: “But it is also true that power-sharing is a normal feature of British politics. The Scottish government is a coalition of Nationalists and Greens. In Wales, Labour has signed a cooperation agreement with Plaid Cymru (an arrangement on which Starmer has been pointedly silent).

“In local government, ‘no overall control’ is a routine outcome requiring cross-party deals. Only in Westminster is the absence of a decisive win treated as an offence against the natural order. In a hung parliament, the gap between the largest party and the majority it needs is abhorred as an electoral obscenity that must be covered to protect the dignity of the constitution.

‘Evicting the Tories’ 

He added: “It goes against the grain of English political culture, and Labour pride, to accept that the shortest route to power involves evicting the Tories by some method of collaboration with other parties.”

The wide-ranging joint policy programme agreed between Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru, which covers a total of 66 areas.

It includes action on free school meals for all, strengthening the Welsh media, the development of north-south railway links, the teaching of Welsh history, second homes, a larger Senedd and more.

Yesterday, Plaid Cymru Leader, Adam Price, summed up the event where the cooperation agreement was signed, with the Welsh football motto: “Gorau chwarae cyd chwarae.”

“Today marks the beginning of a new way of doing politics,” he said. “I’m proud to sign this agreement with the First Minister and look forward to working together to make a difference to the lives of the people of Wales.”

Adam Price had earlier thanked Plaid Cymru members for backing what he called a “huge step forward”.

“I cannot wait for the work to begin for the people of Wales,” he said.

Voters are going to the polls today in the Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election, with the Conservatives hoping to hold on to the seat following a turbulent period for the Government which has been peppered with allegations of sleaze.

A new MP will be elected following the death of former Cabinet minister James Brokenshire in October.

The seat has been contested by Louie French for the Tories and Daniel Francis for Labour, as well as Simone Reynolds for the Lib Dems, Jonathan Rooks for the Greens, and Richard Tice for the Reform Party.

As the constituency has been held by the Conservatives since its inception in 1983, and also in its various guises since the 1950s, Mr French will be seen as the favourite to win the contest.

Boris Johnson previously rejected suggestions that allegations of sleaze being levelled at his party could be reflected at the ballot box in the by-election.

During a visit to Sidcup last month, he was insistent that the strength of the Tories’ local candidate meant voters would back the party in the race.

Mr French, a councillor of eight years, served as deputy leader of Bexley council from 2018 to 2021.

Following his selection, he said: “James Brokenshire was a friend and mentor to me and it’s an honour to have been selected as the Conservative candidate for Old Bexley and Sidcup, where I hope to carry on his excellent work.

“I will campaign to ensure that outer London areas like Old Bexley and Sidcup are not forgotten or left behind by the mayor of London and City Hall.

“And I will work to improve access to GPs and healthcare services, building directly on James’ work with Queen Mary’s Hospital, so residents can get a face-to-face GP appointment at a time that suits them.”

Mr Francis is also a councillor and formerly led the Labour group on Bexley council.

In a message on Twitter, he said he had lived in the area for 20 years and vowed to work “tirelessly” for the community if elected.

On the Labour Party website, he wrote: “I will make sure our communities are safer by reducing speeding on our main roads, tackling anti-social behaviour and putting more police on our streets.

“I will revitalise our high streets by standing up to Conservatives cuts and supporting Labour’s call to scrap business rates.

“And I will push for the increase in investment our area needs, at every level of government.

“So on December 2, let’s use this one-off opportunity to send the Conservatives a message. Let’s tell them we’ll no longer be taken for granted.”

Mr Tice, who is former chairman of the Brexit Party, announced his candidacy in a bid to send Boris Johnson a “powerful message” about the impact of his Government’s policies after the Conservative administration raised the tax burden to the highest level since the 1950s.

The leader of the Reform Party – previously known as the Brexit Party – said he would be standing on a ticket of low taxes and pledged to campaign for a referendum on the target of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Describing the seat as “traditionally Conservative”, the former MEP said: “Voters here did not expect the Prime Minister to deliver Consocialism, a highly taxed, highly regulated nanny state.”

Conservative MP Mr Brokenshire, 53, died from lung cancer, with tributes paid from across the political spectrum.

He represented Old Bexley and Sidcup from 2010, having been initially elected as the MP for Hornchurch in 2005.

Mr Brokenshire won the south-east London seat with a majority of almost 19,000 at the 2019 general election.

Other candidates competing for the seat include Elaine Cheeseman for the English Democrats, Richard Hewison for Rejoin EU, David Kurten for the Heritage Party, John Poynton for Ukip, Carol Valinejad for the Christian Peoples Alliance, and Mad Mike Young for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.

The Conservatives will face a second by-election this month in North Shropshire following the resignation of Owen Paterson, whose case sparked the recent row on parliamentary standards.

For more stories from where you live, visit InYourArea

//= do_shortcode(‘[in-content-square]’)?>

A Plaid Cymru MP has taken aim at Westminster’s “pantomime” of “adversarial politics” in a hard-hitting speech.

In a debate House of Commons, Liz Saville Roberts, who represents Dwyfor Meirionnydd, contrasted what goes on in the Westminster parliament with the cooperation agreement between her party and Welsh Labour in the Senedd.

The agreement, which was officially signed today by the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, and the Leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price, includes action on free school meals for all, strengthening the Welsh media, the development of north-south railway links, the teaching of Welsh history, second homes, a larger Senedd and more.

The Plaid MP argued that the deal between the two parties was “the politics of the 21st century, and not a museum piece”, and said that the behaviour of the Tory Prime Minister Boris Johnson has “necessitated it”.

She told MPs that Westminster has “insulated itself from criticism and failure by burrowing deeper” into its “traditions” and suggested that it “remains entrenched in the conventions of a time when landed gentlemen indulged in debating skills, all the while legislating to protect their own vested interests”.

“This is politics for the 21st Century – not a museum piece.”

The grown-up, consensual politics of Wales is in stark contrast with Westminster’s adversarial pantomime under Boris Johnson, says @LSRPlaid pic.twitter.com/VrTCzJR0Ap

— Plaid Cymru 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 (@Plaid_Cymru) November 30, 2021

Liz Saville Roberts said: “For too long this place has insulated itself from criticism and failure by burrowing deeper and deeper into the traditions and virtues of history. It remains entrenched in the conventions of a time when landed gentlemen indulged in debating skills, all the while legislating to protect their own vested interests, two sword-lengths apart.

“You would wonder, would you not, Madam Deputy Speaker, what has changed. Its chronic reluctance to overcome adversarial politics and to modernise means that its vulnerabilities can be, and have been, easily exploited by some for personal or political gain. This place lent itself to that.

‘Need to do better’ 

She added: “We need to do better to remedy the sheer immensity of the challenges that we face. We have all talked about that, but we have been so adversarial about it, haven’t we?

“We have used it as a pantomime charge to throw against one another. It is a consensual rather than an adversarial politics that lies at the heart of Plaid Cymru’s co-operation agreement with the Labour Welsh Government, which was ratified this weekend. The conduct of this Prime Minister necessitates it.

“It has brought Labour on board with several key Plaid Cymru pledges, including free school meals for all primary school pupils, the devolution of the management of the Crown Estate, a commitment to take radical action to address the second homes crisis and, yes, long-term reform of the Senedd, to name but a few. This is the politics of the 21st century, and not a museum piece. The behaviour of this Prime Minister has necessitated it.”