Plan for Scottish Tories to become independent

In what will be seen as one of the boldest moves of his leadership David Cameron is preparing to give complete independence to the Scottish Conservative Party.  His plans, revealed by Fraser Nelson in this week's Spectator (published tomorrow), would mean that the Scottish party would be renamed and be given freedom to develop an identity and agenda that could be distinct from that chosen by David Cameron for England and Wales.

This is what Fraser Nelson writes:

"[David Cameron's] officials have been secretly drawing up the outline of a velvet divorce with the Scottish Conservatives, which would give the Scots a new name and make the Conservatives into a party exclusively devoted to England & Wales. It would, in effect, mean retreat from Scotland."

ConservativeHome knows this story to be true (from two sources) although it is not clear how formalised the plans are.  We nonetheless offer the move our complete support and hope that the party leadership will deliver the change. It brings two main benefits:

1. It gives the Scottish party - with a new name and a truly Scottish leadership team - the opportunity to break free from the long-held belief that it is a fully-owned subsidiary of the London party.  With its own distinct identity the Scottish Unionist Party (the name of the party until 1965 and a possible name for the 'new party') could be a leading advocate of The Union and would be more likely to be seen to be motivated by an unambiguous commitment to Scotland's interests rather than those of England.  The election of its leader - which should follow independence - would give the party the serious debate it desperately needs about its long-term identity.  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.
2. The move will also be helpful for Project Cameron.  The impact David Cameron has had on Conservative fortunes in England could count for more.  If the Scottish party continues to struggle he will no longer be tarnished by that underperformance.  If, however, there is a revival of the 'Scottish Unionists' he can claim credit for taking the bold decision to return the party to a degree of independence that it enjoyed until that 1960s name change.

The restructuring was not due to be progressed until after May's elections.  Whether or not it now goes ahead will partly depend upon the reaction of grassroots Tories.  They will naturally be asking very practical questions: 'Will we still be able to attend Tory conferences?'  'Will we still have a vote in the Conservative Party leadership contest?'  The answer to the first question will probably be 'yes' and the answer to the second question will almost certainly be 'no'.

The Spectator story won't do the Scottish party any harm in next month's elections if the news reinforces the idea that the Edinburgh party will soon be in charge of its own destiny and will be singlemindedly dedicated to Scotland's interests.  There will be a negative impact on the party's performance if some leading Scottish Tories disown the plans and the party looks divided.

In a July 2006 ConservativeHome survey of UK-wide Tory members we found that 39% supported the idea that the Scottish party should enjoy "complete freedom for Scottish Conservatives to form their own manifesto at the next General Election."  39% opposed the move.  The party leadership calculates that indifferent results in the Holyrood elections will probably increase support for the radical change now being planned.

5th April update: Spectator article now online

Comments

[Oberon Houston]

A very sensible idea. Dissapointing as it is, the image of the Conservative party post the Thatcher era amongst many Scots is very poor, therfore some kind od disassociation is required to break away from that legacy. To continue with the status-quo was never really an option for Cameron. This move makes lots of sense and should benefit the party on both sides of the border.

[Ewan Watt]

Excellent news - I called for this whilst ago:

http://ewanwatt.blogspot.com/2006/11/d-i-v-o-r-c-e-why-scottish.html

[Matt Davis]

Might just work and as an alternative to continuing on the current moribund path in Scotland is worth a try. It will be interesting to see though what happens when the Scottish party is in complete disagreement with the English and Welsh one.

[Ewan Watt]

"It will be interesting to see though what happens when the Scottish party is in complete disagreement with the English and Welsh one."

Having more than one MP would be a good start. However, when the National Liberal Party and the Unionist Party were at their peek, they often disagreed with the party in England.

[Adam]

Very interesting indeed.

Whilst the SNP's model for Scotland may be Norway or Ireland - the Conservative model for Scotland is now Bavaria. Looks good to me.

[Alan S]

Fab. This is the sort of bold leadership we need from Cameron. It's win-win as you say Tim.

[Marcus Wood]

Please please tell me this means we can at least begin an internal debate about the benefits of Scottish independence rather than a continual knee-jerk 'the Union must prevail' which has done us no end of harm north of the border.

As a right-wing party surely we should be at least open-minded to the idea of smaller, more local Government?

[Cameron Watt]

As an Anglo-Scot Tory, I think this move is the best for all concerned and is a vital pre-requisite for a renewal of the conservative cause north of the border. This will give Scottish Tories full parity with the SNP in the Scottish-ness stakes.

[Paul Cope]

Terrible idea. The Union is already divided enough. This would only drive it further apart. The Tory Party is the Unionist Party and it stands for the Union or it stands for nothing.

[Mark Clarke]

It will be interesting to see how they manage the funding.

In CF terms, the current position is that Scotland CF is totally separate. They do not have votes at CF England and Wales elections. They have their own Chairman etc. But they are welcome at all conferences and events that we run in England and Wales- and we have quite good attendance from Scotland at events.

However, the Scottish Freshers materials are paid for and produced by England and Wales CF.

I wonder if this new Party structure will mirror CF in which London continues to pick up a good slice of the bill.

[David]

Sounds good - conforms to the decentralisation policy the Comservatives are pushing on all other major issues - such as the NHS - and allows for better debate on the issues for the Scots and helps stop the English paying for the result.

Win! Win! Win!

[malcolm]

My sympathies are with you Paul Cope but we have watched our party fall to pieces over the last 20 years north of the border so what is the alternative?
I would expect a Scottish Conservative party to continue to argue the merits of a United Kingdom 'though as it should in England and Wales or as you say we 'stand for nothing'.

[James Sproule]

What would be so very depressing is if the Scottish party saw Unionism as its central raison d etre, rather than reducing government spending from its Soviet levels. Scotland is never going to prosper so long as government spending continues to squeeze out entrepreneurialism, the more Scots see their own future being in their own hands, the more important it is going to be to deliver the message there is an alternative to the Lib-Lab-SNP statism.

As to disagreements between the Scottish Party and Westminster, so? There are a host of differences between Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Bush, but no one doubts they are both Republicans. Let’s be a bit mature about this and not run scared of a tough questioning session on the Today programme.

[TFA Tory]

I have not heard of Scottish Conservative Party MSPs or members being consulted on this issue. Yet again the members and activists are treated with contempt by the party leadership.

[Game Over]

Yes, give up on Scotland Blue Labour. It's in line with your EU masters carving up of Britain into easily to consume parts.

What a bunch of spineless losers you lot really are. Hurry up and implode so all of Britain can get a real party of opposition.

[Game Over]

Yes, give up on Scotland Blue Labour. It's in line with your EU masters carving up of Britain into easily to consume parts.

What a bunch of spineless losers you lot really are. Hurry up and implode so all of Britain can get a real party of opposition.

[Charles]

What shallow analysis from CH - some critical thinking would have been nice.
This "plan" doesn't even begin to address the larger problems, more a case of abandoning ship as quickly as possible. Frankly a name / branding change ain't going to solve this problem. It's already called the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. Do you propose that we should stop being conservative and only focus on the union? It doesn't sound like a very clever way to engage in devolution whilst strengthening the union.

The party in Scotland has been totally wrong footed by devolution. We are ham strung by being largely still a London based party with a shell of operations in Edinburgh. What is called for is more autonomy not a divorce to revive the party (and it can be done form the grass roots up). The above plan won't work because there is no one at the right level clamouring to create the machinery needed to run a fully independent party. If there were, they’d be doing it now. As it is, we need more help from London to nurture talent and good practice for the future. David Mundell wasn’t wrong when he said there was a lack of thinkers in the Scottish Party.

To adapt to the political situation in Scotland there needs to be a more robust SCCO, where the chairman is appointed by the regional not national leader, where the head of the volunteers (Deputy-Chairman) isn’t emasculated by the role of Chairman, where the is a closer linking of the parliamentary party and the SCCO and methods adopted to generate more policy relevant to Scotland are developed (i.e. a dedicated Scottish right of centre think tank). Further, the precarious funding situation needs to be resolved by the development of a Scottish funding base that is UK-wide.

I know this is subsidising a failing partner and that much of the above sounds like an independent party but it is still a strong partnership and we are in a union. And whilst in that union we deserve a consistent and union wide conservative and unionist party.

[TomTom]

long overdue but essential nevertheless

[B S]

Following Scotland, what will be the reaction of the Welsh Conservatives?

[malcolm]

I don't think somebody who doesn't even have the courage to post using their real name is in any position to give lectures about 'spineless losers' 'Game Over'.

[B S]

Following Scotland, what will be the reaction of the Welsh Conservatives?

[Ted]

Can't see why the Party doesn't go further and also give autonomy to the Welsh Conservatives & English Conservatives.
As for the leader of the confederal Parties we seemed to manage to elect a Scottish Unionist leader in 1963 to the leadership of the C&U party so can't see why they would be excluded for selecting the UK leader or indeed UK parliament MPs standing for leader.

[TFA Tory]

I think that "Game Over" is Chad Noble who made similar comments on ukiphome.com.

[Tim Aker]

Exactly HOW independent are the Scottish Unionists going to be allowed to be? Will the Conservatives allow their potential coalition partners (if the Scottish Unionists are to be a separate party altogether) to have a free hand, able to call for lower taxes, withdrawal from the EU and every other policy written off by the present leadership, despite how out of kilter it is with Cameron's way of thinking?

Dare I even suggest that given the likelihood of the Scottish Unionists being to the Right of Cameron's 'conservatives', Cameron could jump into bed with the Liberals and not the Unionists up north? A possibility, no?

[Colin Gillies]

My feelings about the split of the Conservative party are bivalent. On the one hand the party in Scotland has been particularly inept since the formation of the "Holyrood Disgrace" and should have been much more robust in opposition as Scotland really needs a voice to defend its people against the P.C. lobby in the Labour party with its ban this and ban that mentality which G. Brown will emulate for the entire United Kingdom. (Rather than call him a Stalinist he should be renamed a Bolshevik who brooks no dissent and retorts to the firing squad as his answer to his opponents both within and without his own party.)

I am also particularly dismayed by this news as I am also a grat believer in the Union and feel that Scotland will become an economic and political backwater if Salmond ever attains his ambitions and only an UK wide Conservative party can prevent this.

[Paul Cope]

The trouble with politics in Scotland is that too many parties have conceded the high ground to the Scot Nats. Scotland and Scottishness is great but Britain and Britishness is greater. It is time that the Scotish Tories got up off of their knees, stopped apologising for their past, and proclaimed their pride in Scottishness within a greater and more embracing Britishness. Fight the Scottish Parliamentary elections on good old fashioned Tory policies of low taxes and tough on crime. Above all, be proud to fly the Union Flag which, for those who have forgotten, incorporates the Cross of St. Andrew.

[Oberon Houston]

"think that "Game Over" is Chad Noble who made similar comments on ukiphome.com.

Oh no that ol' China. But apart from that, there are a number of doubters in the thread, and I can understand the trepidation some may feel over the move, we are conservatives after all, and scepticism of change is a founding principle, however so is the Burkian “change in order to survive”, and many of you living south of the border may not fully appreciate the dire straights the party is in in Scotland, and this is a massive drag-sail on the ability of centre right politics in the country, something must change. I was writing about this 18 months ago on Your Platform, “Scotland Needs Conservatives”. No we must have a change, and give the people of Scotland a credible alternative to left-wing policies.

[Scottish Realist]

This isn't a very good idea. It serves Cameron well, but does nothing for the Scottish Tories. Remember that one of the greatest problems throughout the 1980s was that Scots voted in their millions for Labour and couldn't impact on the government. This helped lead to the collapse of the Tory vote in Scotland. This kills it outright - then you could still vote for the Tories, now you can't.

What happens when the Edinburgh based party disagrees with a London based government?

Cameron comes to Scotland and complains that Blair is not positive enough when talking about the Union - this will just help the SNP dismantle it.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

This is music to my ears. I, and many others, advocated this idea ages ago. Well done Annabel and David!

[jockey]

this is a very shit idea. what will happen to all the scots mps in westminster? for a start, scots can give up on ever winning an english constit ever again. second, scots from scot consits wouldn't be under CCO and every time they were approached by a CCO whip or whatever, there'd be cries of SCAM!

[Just Asking]

Probably the only way forward from where we are now. But, after the West Lothian Question, does this create a West Sussex Question: West Sussex is unique, too. Just substitute a few words:

It gives the [West Sussex] party - with a new name and a truly [West Sussex] leadership team - the opportunity to break free from the long-held belief that it is a fully-owned subsidiary of the London party.

[Anoneumouse]

Yes, very interesting, but where will their alliance lay when it comes to the European Union. Cameron didn't say I will withdraw the English Conservatives from the EPP, it was all the Conservatives.

[Sam Tarran]

It's a first step, but it's what happens afterwards that I'll be keen to keep an eye on.

[Josh]

We're talking about creating the new Ulster Unionist Party that took the Conservative whip during the 70s.

Strategically, it won't hurt that much in terms of controlling Westminster. 1 MP now is an irrelevance. 2 or 3 more that the Cons might get at the next election will only be important with such a thin majority as to not be worth it.

[Scotty]

This is a bad idea, and I would not be happy about it being pushed through without further debate and consultation with Scottish Conservative members.
I find it incredible that we are even contemplating such a move at a time when Labour is so unpopular and David Cameron is proving a poll rating winner.
We have the May elections coming up but we need to lay the ground work for the next GE which is where the Westminster leader of the party becomes vital!

[Andrew Morrison]

Good. We are now free to continue being traditional conservatives (look at our Scottish manifesto) without being led into Cameron's liberal conservative agenda.

It will be more difficult for Scots to become Conservative MPs though. That is a shame considering the talent of both before and now from Scotland in the party...

For a Unionist party the split is unfortunate. It is best for both sides however. The Scottish Conservatives won't be going anywhere without changing their brand until this adult generation who remembers the poll tax dies.

What does seem strange is how the English Conservatives will form a government, to preside over the UK as a whole, when Scots are not allowed to join that political party due to their geographical location.

I mean, in theory, English people should be allowed to join the SNP, and stand for election in England on a SNP ticket. That is pretty hypothetical considering they will never form a government.

I think there is a potential constitutional crisis at the heart of this move.

[Phoenix]

About time! Eight years on and the Scots Tories have still not come to terms with devolution. Little wonder no-one takes them seriously. Devolution is a process and not an event - it is also here to stay! If the Scottish Tories don't start to lead the constitutional debate they will play catch up to the SNP and the Union will go whether we want it to or not.
We all know that it is wrong to have Scots MPs voting on English-only issues. We all know that it's wrong to have English tax-payers subsidising the Scots public sector dependency culture. But we have ignored all of this and hoped it would all go away and when we woke up it would be just another bad socialist dream.
The constitution needs to be rebalanced to become stable. Simply bleating on about the Union will do nothing. I would rather have a Union which was stable, albeit more federal, than no Union at all.

[James Cox]

Brilliant news - The decline of the Scottish Conservatives and its image as an 'English party' have their roots in the decision to amalgamte the Unionist Party and the Conservative Party in the 1960's.

This is a small step to changing that - reform of SCCO and the wider party must be the first priority of the new party leadership when it comes.

[David Sergeant]

I do like the Baveria analogy. Is there more inormation on how the Germans arrange things.

[Jack]

"what will happen to all the scots mps in westminster?" - Jockey

If you mean the tory ones, he'll probably find something to do.

This is a very good move, one I'm sure I remember Murdo Fraser calling for it a few years ago.

It will be interesting to see how the Welsh party reacts to it, with more powers going to Cardiff it could also be a good opportunity to put an end to '& Wales', allowing it to become an equal member of this union.

[The Bicycling Chameleon]

"Separating the parties is a good idea, but a joint leader is needed. If you look at the German CDU/CSU, they jointly vote to select their candidate for Chancellor, and the same must apply to the CON/UNI set up."

http://chameleonsonbicycles.wordpress.com

[Scottish Conservative]

im not in favour of this at this point i dont think, although i see its merits. the new party will have no influence over the English Party on CFP, funding arrangements and general policies. the governing party will be purely english and welsh. unlike in bavaria we wont be able to influence the larger conservative party by virtue of holding lots of seats - the only hope of doing so is by remaining part of a uk wide party. i think this will weaken the Union and further independence. the government will have precisely zero authorit to govern in scotland.

on the point of asserting our scottishness i assume that the new scottish party will say it will still support the English party as the governing party so our opponents will be able to say we are still the same as we were. will the scottish party have the money and firepower tomake this work? will we have any influence over UK policy? Will this be seen as the english party dumping the scottish party as being useless? it may be that this is a precusor to a move to english nationlism by the tories in which casde the game is up for a centre-right unionist party in scotland. and i say this as a pretty nationalist scottish conservative.

had there been a big fallout over WLQ, CFP or barnett i could see that this would provide a good founding myth for the new party - they split as they wanted to fight for the scottish interest against the nasty english tories. as it is i think this will be seen as DC dumping the scottish party. any moves to english nationalisms will render the unionist centre-right completely useless.

[Clebryn]

Any one aware of attempts last night to de-select Chris Smart as the no.2 candidate on the south wales west list for the forthcoming Welsh Assembmly election?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/election07/wales/

[Goldie]

Excellent and inspired decisions. *This* is the kind of leadership I (a since disappointed "May Cameroon") was expecting. Now I really hope that the Scottish sister party will drop the word "Conservative" from their new name.

[Jake]

High time this happened . There is no reason why Conservative and Unionist parties throught the countries of the Union cannot cooperate on Union matters in the British parliament whilst being free to grapple with the internal politics of their own countries at home . They don't necessarily have to be called by the same name. The bonds go on . The Scottish Unionist party is an excellent name for a grand old party , they should consider re-adopting it if that is their wish
(I think it was that d-mn man Heath who renamed them in the first place )

The Union needs a strong and unabashed champion in each of its member countries.

Now to England and Wales .
The party in Wales is already called the Welsh Conservative party , which is appropriate since Wales is a separate country to England .

The party in England is called only The Conservative Party . Why the obvious and specific neglect of England ?
It is also high time that English Conservatives and Unionists can hold their heads high and call themselves members of the
The English Conservative and Unionist Party .

[Ted]

Agree with the bicycling chameleon (now there's a sentence I never imagined writing in my childhood).

I also have no desire for a divorce, velvet or otherwise. Instead we should act like a family; recognise that devolution has meant that we need the greater autonomy for our party in Scotland to succeed but that this should be autonomy within a union.

At the UK level the Scottish Unionist (or whatever name they select) and the Conservative Party would need a common UK manifesto and leader. This means that at UK level there must be continued involvement of the Scots Party. For devolved matters I would expect there would be differences in policies as each constituent part developed, these could well inform and cross-fertilise the shaping of each constituent element.

Our previous experience was with Northern Ireland, there the ending of devolution and the imposition of the UK party's views against the wishes of the NI Unionists led to a divorce. While the UK respected the autonomy of the Unionists in devolved matters and at national level shared common principles it worked.

The centralisation of the 60's removed the nationalist attraction of the Scots party - noticeable that when voters were faced only with UK parties the SNP started winning seats. There are I am sure a number of voters, not wanting independence but nationalist enough to prefer to vote for the SNP to the perceived Anglo-centric Conservative Party, who would be attracted back to a Scots party. That perception was deepened by our leadership being dominated by three very English leaders from 1965 to 1997 in Heath, Thatcher and Major.

Now we have a posh Englishman with a Scots name perhaps returning to the pre-1965 set up will restore us to the position we had Scotland under our last version of that, Harold MacMillan.

[Goldie]

The Scottish Unionist Party already exists, though.

[Man in a Shed]

Its worth trying. It would put Labour in a real bind also.

Will the Welsh want the same ? If so we will finally get an English party !

[Yet Another Anon]

What about the Conservative Party in Ulster and in Wales? A Federation would have been an alternative consisting of English, Scottish, Welsh and Ulster Parties with an Alliance of sorts running nationally.

What effects it will have if done are hard to say - supposing at some point Scottish & other UK Conservatives take different sides in the House of Commons, David Cameron will be kicking himself if the new Scottish Party either refuses to participate in a Conservative Party Government or Coalition with the Conservatives, it increases opportunities for UKIP who could forge links with the new party bringing forward the prospect of UKIP being in government in coalition perhaps also with the Unionist Parties in Ulster, able to achieve what the 3 main parties have not done.

[Cllr Bruce Mackie]

Let us be sensibile about this and call us 'The Scottish Unionist Party',after all that is one of the titles which we already have. Why don't we just come out and say it! Say it loudly.