Douglas Alexander's Continued Role in Burnham's Government Amid Scottish Labour's Challenges

London, United Kingdom Jul 22, 2026 ALN: This article appears as part of the Unspun: Scottish Politics newsletter.

Douglas Alexander’s intelligence, experience, and long relationship with Andy Burnham have kept him in the UK Government’s most senior post dedicated to Scotland. However, his survival will frustrate those in Scottish Labour who believe the people behind May’s disastrous Holyrood campaign should face consequences. The dynamics surrounding Alexander’s position encapsulate a broader narrative within Scottish Labour, reflecting the party's struggles and the ongoing challenges it faces in reconnecting with its traditional voter base.

Burnham’s first Cabinet was designed to look like a rupture. Senior Starmer-era figures were removed; allies and familiar Labour faces restored. This reshuffle was intended to signal a new direction for the party, one that could potentially rejuvenate its image and appeal to disenchanted voters. Yet in Scotland, the message was continuity. This decision to retain Alexander as Scottish Secretary speaks volumes about both Burnham's strategic priorities and the complexities of Scottish Labour's current political landscape.

Douglas Alexander remains Scottish Secretary—a decision that says as much about Burnham as it does about the man he retained. Alexander is one of the few Scottish Labour MPs Burnham knows well. Both served in the Blair and Brown governments, and Alexander offers the experience, institutional knowledge, and international network that a new prime minister cannot manufacture overnight. His background includes a tenure as the Secretary of State for Scotland, where he gained significant insights into the workings of both the devolved Scottish government and the broader UK political landscape.

He has held the Scotland brief before, ran the international development department, and became one of Labour’s most influential strategists. His experience is not merely academic; it is rooted in practical governance and political strategy, which is invaluable for any leader looking to navigate the complexities of UK politics, particularly in relation to Scotland, where issues of autonomy and national identity are especially pronounced.

After losing his Paisley seat in the SNP landslide of 2015, he turned to academia, becoming a fellow and later senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center, contributing to its Future of Diplomacy Project. This experience likely broadened his perspective on international relations and domestic policy, but his return to Westminster in 2024 marked a significant moment in his political career. His re-entry into frontline politics comes at a time when Scottish Labour is grappling with its identity and electoral viability.

But the more immediate question is what happened this May. Alexander co-chaired a Scottish Labour campaign that delivered the party’s worst Holyrood result, cutting its representation from 22 MSPs to 17. This outcome has led to intense scrutiny of the party's leadership and strategy, with many party members and observers questioning the effectiveness of the campaign and the decisions made by its architects. For his critics, his survival looks like Westminster rewarding someone who should instead be answering difficult questions.

Former MSP Neil Findlay’s verdict was caustic. The new PM, Findlay told The Herald, should have followed his other sackings “with the dismissal of Douglas Alexander whose credibility as an election strategist has always only existed in his own head.” Such strong language underscores the frustration felt by many within the party, particularly those who believe that the leadership must take responsibility for electoral failures. Findlay demanded “a full-scale root and branch review carried out by people independent of the leadership and who carry the confidence of the membership. It has to deal with the lack of policy ideas, poor leadership, funding, autonomy, organisation, and dodgy selection processes.” His call for a comprehensive review reflects a growing sentiment among party members that a significant overhaul is needed to restore trust and effectiveness.

His criticism carries extra weight because he has already walked away: “I am no longer a Labour Party member; for me, the most important thing is policy.” This departure signals a troubling trend within Scottish Labour, where disillusionment among key figures could further erode the party's standing among voters. The loss of experienced members like Findlay raises questions about the party's future direction and its ability to engage with the electorate.

Brian Leishman MP offered a strong defence of Alexander. He told The Herald: “Douglas is a highly effective and skilled politician with a track record in government. It makes sense that he would continue as Secretary of State for Scotland.” This defense highlights the internal divisions within the party, where some members see Alexander's experience as an asset, while others view it as a liability. However, Leishman also invoked Findlay’s departure as evidence of a deeper malaise. “If Neil Findlay doesn't feel that his political home is in Scottish Labour, then Scottish Labour are doing something wrong.” This statement encapsulates the existential crisis facing the party, where the loss of prominent figures signals a disconnect between leadership and grassroots sentiment.

That exchange captures the party’s problem in miniature: a Labour MP defending Alexander while citing the loss of a prominent working-class campaigner as proof the party has lost touch with its own political home. The ideological rift within Scottish Labour is becoming increasingly pronounced, as members grapple with questions of identity, strategy, and electoral viability. Leishman described Scottish Labour as having “an identity crisis” and asked: “Where has what once was our core vote gone, and why have they left?” This introspection is crucial for the party as it seeks to regain the trust of voters who have turned to other parties, particularly the SNP, in recent elections.

He nevertheless pointed to Alexander’s work at Grangemouth: “Douglas was pivotal in getting that £150 million investment, which saved the UK chemicals industry at Grangemouth.” This example of tangible achievement serves to illustrate that while Alexander may be a controversial figure, he has also delivered results that have had a significant impact on the Scottish economy. His ability to navigate complex negotiations and secure funding for vital projects could be seen as a redeeming quality, particularly in a time when economic stability is a pressing concern for many constituents.

Former MSP Monica Lennon, who lost her seat at the recent Holyrood election, sees retention not as absolution, but accountability. Speaking to The Herald, she urged colleagues: “let's not get caught up in personalities and try to settle old scores. Andy Burnham knows Douglas Alexander, and he knows his strengths, and he knows what he can contribute.” This perspective emphasizes the importance of focusing on the future rather than dwelling on past failures. Alexander’s continued presence, she argued, means he remains answerable for the campaign he helped shape: “it's about accountability as well.” This call for accountability is crucial as the party seeks to rebuild its credibility and reconnect with disillusioned voters.

That is Alexander’s central contradiction. Burnham retained him because he is experienced, connected, and capable of making government machinery move. His critics distrust him because he represents an established command structure that has presided over repeated defeat. This dichotomy highlights the challenges facing the Labour Party in Scotland, where the need for continuity must be balanced against the desire for change. He must prove that continuity at the Scotland Office does not mean more of the same for Scottish Labour and ensure, as Lennon warned, that Scotland “isn't just a footnote” in Burnham’s government. The implications of Alexander’s retention extend beyond his individual role; they reflect the broader struggles of Scottish Labour to redefine its identity and reconnect with its core values in an increasingly competitive political landscape.