A new mindset and identity is needed for the Scottish Labour party to reconnect with voters and provide a powerful antidote to the resurgent SNP.

Being uncompromising in our defence and promotion of Scottish interests should no longer be considered to be at odds with a renewal of the Union and our role in it.

Nor should there be any need to constantly look over our shoulder to Westminster. The time has come for a partnership of equals between party and government north and south of the border.

The current leadership debate in Scotland has given Labour a unique chance to address five key areas: the need for the party in Scotland to have much greater autonomy; the need for the Scottish Labour leader to have more power and a wider authority; the need for a radically reformed and flexible Union fit for the new purposes of the 21st Century; the need, to embrace a coherent, modern post-devolution strategy for the constitutional future of our country; and the need for Labour in Scotland to reconnect with its base with a new narrative of what it stands for in this new era. Party members and the public are now asking where Labour stands on our country’s constitutional future. Labour’s record on home rule and devolution is very mixed. Feelings and commitment have ebbed and flowed for nearly a century. Labour still feels uncomfortable and ill-at-ease with itself — as has been shown by last week’s conflict between Holyrood MSP contenders for the leadership and Westminster MPs who still do not seem to have come to terms with devolution.

There is still much soul-searching in the party about where they are, whether the devolution journey should continue and, if so, in what direction. Labour remains a powerful force for economic, social and political change but is losing traction in the new terrain of Scottish devolution and seems to have lost any sense of direction as it moves further away from its original base.

Labour struggles with Scottishness. Possibly because of an intense historical hatred of the SNP, there has been over-concentration on snuffing out separatism and not enough emphasis on more positive policies. A strange lack of confidence has resulted in a deteriorating central-party apparatus in Scotland with the focus shifting to the Holyrood parliament. There has been a total failure to bring together, in a coherent way, MPs and MSPs to hammer out a working message about devolution.

But probably the key feature of the first 10 years of devolution has been Labour’s failure to accept a different political identity and a new political culture. This would never have been easy but the pressure from London to conform, their enduring fears of the threats to the Union and the “do nothing to rock the boat” approach has constrained and distorted the debate.

Also the pressures from Westminster on Holyrood have put a powerful brake on MSPs and party members who want to think aloud and put forward alternative or dissenting views on devolution. This has been neither healthy nor conducive to the possibility of a confident and ambitious Scottish party taking control of its future in the brave new world of devolved government. Open debate should be the life-blood of a modern Labour party.

A more autonomous Scottish Labour party with real political freedom, within a radically reformed Union, with a new relationship to UK Labour, makes sense in 2008.

This could counter the Scottish nationalist threat; challenge and involve Westminster on an equal basis; demonstrate our traditional interest in having a greater say in international and European affairs; renew democratic policy-making north of the border; seek a sharing of power and sovereignty with Westminster, not just devolved power; and develop new constitutional futures for Scotland without having to defer to Westminster.

An autonomous Labour party in Scotland, or something approaching that, could be better placed to offer an alternative to independence as a vision for the future as well as providing effective opposition and advocacy on the policy front.

If this new dawn is to break it will require a new ethos, a radical shake-up in party membership, fund-raising and grassroots activity and a new enthusiasm to be instilled at all levels of the party.

An essential part of this new strategy is for the party leader in Scotland to be more than a “group leader” at Holyrood — this narrow interpretation of the leadership role was never envisaged in the days before devolution. If it had been, why would Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster be given a vote and why would there have been an electoral college for something unique to Holyrood?

The lack of clarity at the outset of devolution has allowed this important leadership post to be redefined by the passing of time: a bigger and wider role makes much more sense. The relationship between Scottish Labour and the UK/Westminster needs to be reviewed and rewritten to reflect the new realities.

Henry McLeish was Scottish first minister from 2000 to 2001