Wednesday, 4 April 2007
Fraser Nelson in tomorrow's Spectator
As noted on Conservative Home this afternoon, Fraser Nelson will reveal, in tomorrow's Spectator, plans for the Scottish Conservative Party to break away from the national party - a plan that's been mooted more than once, but which has always been deemed a bit too radical. However, it may be that they've decided there's nothing left to lose by jettisoning the shell of the Scottish party - and, indeed, it may, just possibly, kick-start a revival north of the border.
Here are a few excerpts from Fraser's article (UPDATE: now online):
Those involved in the secret break-up plan describe it as a win–win situation for Mr Cameron. Should the new Scottish party slide into extinction, then he would not be blamed. In the event that the new movement triggers a centre-right revival in Scotland, and starts sending MPs to Westminster, they would sit and vote with the Tories. And — in strict historical fact — the proposal is not, in fact, a betrayal of Conservative heritage at all, but is a return to the pre-1965 arrangement when the Scottish division of the party was independent and its candidates stood as Scottish Unionists, who voted as a bloc in Westminster. [...]
----------------
Another scenario may very well present itself: that Mr Brown goes into coalition with Sir Menzies Campbell after the next general coalition. [...] The new English Conservative party would not need to blow any dog-whistles: Mr Cameron would be only too happy to pose as a St George tilting at the Lib–Lab dragon. As the Conservatives won the most votes in the 2005 general election (a fact it mentions far too seldom) they can reasonably expect to have the most seats in England. If Messrs Brown & Campbell used their Scottish MPs to block a party with a clear mandate for England, there would be outrage south of the border, and rightly so.
This is why Mr Cameron must tread carefully. He can argue, with technical accuracy, that the Scot-free Tories would be no less British than they were under Churchill. But he cannot be seen to be cutting the Scots adrift against their wishes. This divorce can only work if it is amicable, and must ideally be presented as the idea of the Scottish Tories (even if it is no such thing). This may take some doing. At present, their official line is that any split from the UK party is ‘complete nonsense’ and suggestions to the contrary are wicked rumours spread by nationalists.
But the idea is increasingly popular with the party’s grassroots. Tim Montgomerie, editor of the influential ConservativeHome website, describes the split as an obvious solution to an intractable problem. ‘With independence, a new name and new personnel the Scottish Conservatives can break free in one leap,’ he says. ‘They will no longer be seen as stooges of a London establishment.’ And if, after this leap, the new Scottish party ends up in oblivion — well, it will be no fault of David Cameron’s.
I think it's an idea that has much to commend it. Yes, it seems on the face of it to weaken the Tories' commitment to the Union, but look at the election campaign that's under way at the moment; barely a mention of constitutional upheaval at all, with Annabel Goldie insisting that voters want politicians to talk about "bread and butter issues" (as if which country you live in is somehow of only esoteric interest).
I think this is one reason why Tim Montgomerie may be mistaken when he suggests over on the Conservative Home diary pages that this would allow the Tories to rebrand themselves as the "Scottish Unionist Party" and fight unambiguously on that platform. There are many who would welcome such a move, but personally I don't think it will happen. There are not that many 'passionate' Unionists in Scotland - certainly not among the younger generation. You barely see or hear the label applied to the Scots Tories these days; it's got an almost archaic ring to it, full of connotations of the Queen, Ulster, and the past.
Now, you can argue about whether that's not a shame - or, more, argue that we do, desperately, need a party who's willing to stand up for the Union in the face of a clear and present danger to its 300-year history - but I don't see a Scottish right-of-centre party making much headway with that kind of name or agenda. I think Tim's second scenario is a much more promising one:
Should it be defined by its Unionism, for example, or by a commitment to provide an alternative to the high tax, anti-business parties that dominate the Scottish landscape.
I think the answer clearly lies in the latter course. Scotland demonstrated in 1997, for better or worse, that it had moved on. It's time for the Tories to move on too, because the last ten years has seen stagnation at best. There are new people - good people - coming up through the ranks; perhaps a clean break is just what everyone needs, a "detox" that will allow the Tories to forge a fresh direction for themselves.
Every other party in the just-dissolved Scottish Parliament was left-wing, and you can be sure that every other party in the next one will be, too. If a new Tory Party north of the border - whatever it chooses to call itself - doesn't stand up for the individual in the face of an ever-growing state, higher and higher taxation and public expenditure, and the slow strangulation of the Scottish economy, who will?
Maybe so... But there's fuck-all we can do about it for the following 5 years!
A break away Independence-seeking Scottish Tory party would be a good move. Too late for this election. Most Tory voters I have encountered on the doorstep (the ordinary people not the idealogues in party HQ) are voting SNP to get Labour out and there is nothing in the short-term which is going to convince them to do otherwise.
A new independence Scottish Tory Party might be an intriguing proposition for the next UK General Election...
BTW do any Tories actually canvass on the ground/telephone anymore?
You'd have thought so, but no, they wouldn't, not with the current voting system.
<< Home
