Two days ago Scotland on Sunday's Eddie Barnes wrote a fascinating story about the SNP-Tory relationship. The article offered three main points:
- Alex Salmond has been giving advice to George Osborne on winning votes in Scotland.
- The SNP is about to ditch its long-standing opposition to coalition deals with the Conservatives [although Annabel Goldie is determined to stick with her no-coalitions pre-election promise].
- David Cameron and Alex Salmond are due to meet to discuss how they might work together if Cameron becomes PM and Salmond is still First Minister [- an increasingly likely scenario].
What does all of this mean? Both parties have narrow partisan interests in causing Labour trouble. Neither want the return of Labour to Scottish Government and the boost that would give Gordon Brown. You can rely, therefore, on the Tories keeping Alex Salmond as First Minister. Annabel Goldie and Murdo Fraser are exacting real gains for this support, however, on an issue-by-issue basis. Cuts in business rates and a freeze on council tax are the stand outs. More police officers and extra drug rehab places are the other big Tory policy aims.
One senior member of the Scottish party told me yesterday that the "decontamination of the Scottish Conservatives was nearly complete". The good working relationship with the SNP, in particular, had ended the party's "pariah status". That, my contact said, could be very good for Tory prospects at the General Election.
The Scottish Tories are also working with Scottish Labour and the Scottish LibDems on a package of measures that might increase the potency of the Holyrood Parliament and reduce support for independence. That, above narrow party interest, must remain the key aim of the Conservative and Unionist Party. Ultimately the SNP must not prevail.
One way in which the Tories could benefit as this recovery takes place is to drop its objection to a referendum on Independence.
Firstly the refusal of the party to countenance such a referendum in Scotland sits very badly with our claim to the moral high ground over a referendum on The EU Constitutional Treaty of Lisbon. We ought to espouse such a referendum if only to be able to claim consistency and to avoid accusations of hypocrisy.
Secondly whilst support for Independence remains low (and possibly diminishing) is that not the optimum moment to hold such a referendum? Better to have it now and get it done with than wait four years whilst Salmond sows the field and awaits his harvest. And if, as anticipated, independence is rejected. the Nationalist Fox is well and truly shot and the principal raison d'être of the SNP is removed.
Then everyone can get on with the business of governing Scotland as part of the Union without always positioning themselves with an Independence referendum in mind.
Posted by: The Huntsman | November 27, 2007 at 08:00
This is fascinating. Effectively the Tories are slowly abandoning their long-standing Unionist principles and are becoming the English National Party. It was really interesting to see on previous threads how quickly the anti-Scottish invective appeared when posters decided the Union wasn't working. The two nationalist parties then get together to cooperate in their own narrowly drawn interests.
The terrifying prospect for those of us on the left would be an independent Scotland, with England ruled separately by an almost permanent Tory majority.
Posted by: passing leftie | November 27, 2007 at 09:13
Is the Scottish party organisation really being re-built?
From afar it just looks like some UK party discussions to shore up a unit that is treading water.
Posted by: HF | November 27, 2007 at 09:19
I think the Tory party still has a long way to go before the brand is no longer toxic but it's certainly better than it was. In my view it is unlikely that the Tories will emerge as anything other than a junior coalition partner sized party for some considerable time but that would be progress on being perceived as irrelevant.
From a personal perspective and as a Tory member, my 'identity' as a Tory is not solely predicated on a belief in a particular constitutional settlement. Put more simply, if it is shown that independence is good for Scotland, I will support it but there are more important issues. I'm glad however that Tories are working constructively with the Government to help bring about those changes and hats off too to the SNP for considering them.
Passing Leftie at 9.13: I would like to think this had nothing to do with a 'grand plan' but actually just delivering what was best for Scotland - I'm afraid we have a different perspective on it up here!
Posted by: Stephen B | November 27, 2007 at 09:32
The two stated objectives are mutually exclusive. It is logically inconsistent to work with the SNP, whose primary objective is Scottish independence, whilst maintaining that the core position of the Conservative party is to thwart that objective.
There is mutual political advantage, as identified by Ms Alexander, in undermining the Labour party in Scotland but that advantage accrues to the SNP disproportionately with little, meaningful, return in electoral terms for the Conservative party in Scotland.
'increase the potency of the Holyrood Parliament and reduce support for independence'
At severe risk. At very severe risk.
Seeking to further placate a Scottish electorate with ever greater and entirely disproportionate reward serves to further embed the perception of the English electorate that we are being, systematically and overtly, discriminated against by the political establishment.
The Conservative party, shamefully, is complicit in this discrimination and is profoundly wrong if it believes that the English core vote will stay loyal. Her Majesty's Government only exists by the consent and the expressed will of the people of England.
That consent is approaching breaking point.
Posted by: englandism.com | November 27, 2007 at 09:39
Lets get this clear.
What does decontanimation mean other than a rationale for Cameron' handbrake turn.
It means you should talk nonsense for a time so that later you can talk sense.
Cameron may be right that this is how to proceed in the Westminster-media-academia village.
Posted by: anthony scholefield | November 27, 2007 at 09:40
Good analysis. What I find fascinating is the negative feeling which has really taken hold and become entrenched between the SNP and Labour activists since the elections in May. Neither Wendy Alexander or Nicol Stephen seem able to rise to the occasion in opposition, the Libdems in particular seem unable to formulate a political agenda and therefore are suffering a lack of or media exposure since falling from power in May.
"From afar it just looks like some UK party discussions to shore up a unit that is treading water."
That would be an incorrect and an unfair analysis on the progress of the party in Holyrood, but don't let that stop you continuing with the negative narrative you continually spout on here.
Posted by: Scotty | November 27, 2007 at 09:41
passing elite, it never worried the left that Conservative voters in Scotland would have to suffer a permanent labour regime.
lump it.
Posted by: crawford | November 27, 2007 at 09:47
The terrifying prospect for those of us on the left would be an independent Scotland, with England ruled separately by an almost permanent Tory majority.
Labour has 24 more seats in England than all the other parties put together and only got narrowly fewer votes in 2005 than the Conservatives, it was the third General Election in a row in which Labour had a majority of seats in England, and Labour got a higher percentage of the vote in England in the 2 1974 General Elections than in Scotland or nationally, they got slightly over 40% of the vote in England in October 1974.
The Conservative Party vote in England recovered in 2005 a bit mainly in Southern England, it's still only around 35%, so why given that every time there has been a Labour government since the war they have also had more seats than anyone else in England and given the population total of England as a proportion of the UK as a whole, would there neccessarily be much difference at all in terms of the balance between what the Conservatives want and what Labour wants? There would be a broader cultural difference beyond actual party affiliation that would have some effects, if Labour was in control it would be a more English Labour.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | November 27, 2007 at 09:55
The difficulty is that these elections will be unprecedented in Scotland, it has always been easy to dismiss the SNP in the Westminster context, but it is very difficult to predict how having them in Government for 3 years will affect their electibility. The dual Labour leadership of Holyrood/Westminster was always quite a successful resource at general election time. How the current arrangement will affect Labour and the SNP will be very interesting.
I’ve said it before and say it again- Apathy to independence does not translate into Unionism.
Stephen B- I find your comments most interesting about ‘identity’. I myself have never really identified myself as a Unionist.
Anyone who doesn’t concede that the tectonics plates of Scottish politics have shifted since May forever is living in some sort of warped dream world. I’ve yet to conclude quite how I feel that we fit into these new conditions. There is a tangible feeling towards a move to more autonomy in Scotland and this is what we need to sensibly react to.
Whilst I acknowledge that the decontamination process is now properly underway to claim that the "decontamination of the Scottish Conservatives was nearly complete" is just not based on reality.
Also- unless the result was significantly less than 30-35% Yes in a simple Yes/No independence referendum then a failed referendum would in no way shoot the nationalist fox.
Although it wont be fought anywhere near Scotland the 2010 general election will be incredibly interesting and perhaps unexpected for us Scots north of the border.
Posted by: Scott | November 27, 2007 at 10:28
Of course, the SNP used to be known as Tartan Tories.
Posted by: David | November 27, 2007 at 10:31
There is no chance that devolution will be reversed -- so the best way to save the union is to make devolution work, which means making SNP government work. The Scottish Conservatives are therefore doing exactly the right thing -- and given political realities have no other option anyway.
Posted by: Erasmus | November 27, 2007 at 10:55
Passingleftie at 09.13:
"The terrifying prospect for those of us on the left would be an independent Scotland, with England ruled separately by an almost permanent Tory majority".
There could be some truth in your prediction but the only person to blame is Tony Blair for once again upsetting the historical applecart without thinking through the consequences.
As with Iraq, the HoL, and a number of other issues, he went at it without a thought for what it would lead to.
Posted by: David Belchamber | November 27, 2007 at 11:17
passing elite, it never worried the left that Conservative voters in Scotland would have to suffer a permanent labour regime.
lump it.
The Tory party are the only party which had managed to get an overall majority in Scotland. Instead of slagging off the Scots, maybe you should work on wooing them back and maintaining the Union.
Posted by: passing leftie | November 27, 2007 at 11:25
"maybe you should work on wooing them back and maintaining the Union."
Passing Leftie, it all sounds so simple, but alas it won't be easy for the Tories to do this. We achieved 50% of the vote in the days before almost half of workers in Scotland were dependent on the state for their wages. With such a bloated public sector and a high level of welfare dependency, many Scots have a vested interest in keeping people like the Tories out.
In many ways, it was a miracle that the SNP managed to break through earlier this year.
Posted by: powellite | November 27, 2007 at 11:36
"Instead of slagging off the Scots, maybe you should work on wooing them back and maintaining the Union."
...because Labour and the Liberals sure as heck aren't doing a very good job of it at the moment.
Funny how the jibes of 'eighteen years of misrule', 'poll tax', 'Thatcher', 'the nasty party', 'the anti-Scottish party' and so forth become forgotten when you need the Tories to help the left clear up its own mess.
Posted by: Stephen B | November 27, 2007 at 11:41
‘Anyone who doesn’t concede that the tectonics plates of Scottish politics have shifted since May forever is living in some sort of warped dream world. I’ve yet to conclude quite how I feel that we fit into these new conditions. There is a tangible feeling towards a move to more autonomy in Scotland and this is what we need to sensibly react to.’
The above statement by Scott is key to all of this. The tectonic plates have certainly shifted; indeed have been shifting for years now, and as a party in Scotland we have failed to accept this and to realign ourselves in response.
There are many reasons why this did not happen, amongst which are simple shock at the wipeout of ’97, the bunker mentality that produced, a conviction that pursuit of a ‘pure’ unionism meant making no compromise with ‘small n’ Scottish nationalism (ie a renascent Scottish national and cultural identity, which ironically in any other country in the world would be a boon to a party of the centre-right), which of course in turn simply served to validate the claims of our opponents that we were somehow anti-Scottish, thereby divorcing us still further from the political mainstream.
As I have contended on an earlier thread, this has led to an entire generation of aspirational Scottish voters, who under other circumstances would have been naturally Conservative-inclined, being driven into the arms of the SNP; a process which has itself further impacted adversely on our image, our activist base and our pool of candidates.
Against that background, here are two fundamental questions it is worthwhile considering.
1. Why would you vote Conservative in Scotland when there is no chance of us ever being in government and consequently, and notwithstanding the concessions we might obtain from the SNP as part of the current budget process, no chance of our policies being implemented?
2. Why would a professional 30-something consider standing for election as a Conservative in Scotland when there is little or no chance of it providing a career?
To provide positive answers to these questions we need to be back in the game of being a potential party of government in Scotland.
The issue-by-issue approach currently being taken is in my view the correct one, and may remain so for the rest of this parliament, but we can’t go into another election north of the border able only to invite the public to vote for us as a party of opposition.
We need to be at least viewed and talked about by the media and opinion formers as being potential coalition partners, and the ending of the SNP’s ban on working with us is very significant in that context.
Working constructively with the SNP in Edinburgh – and, vitally, being seen to do so by the public - does not mean abandoning principles and it does not mean gambling with the future of the union (although as many colleagues from south of the border would rightly contend there is a legitimate debate both in terms of equity and political tactics as to how constitutional and fiscal issues arising from devolution may be addressed).
It does offer us the chance of digging ourselves out of the hole we have occupied for years now, and the opportunity to regroup, rebuild and regain a relevance in Scotland that we have lacked since 1997.
This thread is headlined ‘Scotland's Tories are relevant again (but at what price?)’. It’s a fair question, but a better one is ‘what price do we pay if we miss the chance this offers us?’
Posted by: Bill | November 27, 2007 at 11:56
Working with the SNP in Edinburgh.....does not mean abandoning principles. It does if you are a Unionist surely?
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | November 27, 2007 at 12:24
I don’t believe so. We have made it clear that we won’t support a referendum on independence, as have the other unionist parties in Holyrood, so it won’t happen and the issue can therefore be taken off the table insofar as any future discussions over cooperation are concerned.
It’s the nature of a parliament of minorities that you must work with those whose principles don’t coincide with your own. If we fail to accept that then we consign ourselves to permanent opposition.
Posted by: Bill | November 27, 2007 at 12:36
It has been obvious for some time that the niche for the Conservative party in Scotland is as a right wing nationalist party. Not necessarily anti English but pro Scottish. We have been perceived as an English party and have suffered accordingly. The Union now means something different to what it did before devolution. The only prospect of maintaining the union now is a federation not as a unitary state.
We should certainly support holding the independence referendum now to get it out of the way. I am sure it would vote against independence now although who can say in 3 years time. That would draw Salmond's sting and allow us an uncomplicated anti-Labour alliance with the SNP. With independence off the agenda , as a pro Scottish right wing party we can start to re-attract enterprising Scots to our real message of economic and public service reform (hoping against hope that that will be our real message come the next election)
Posted by: Opinicus | November 27, 2007 at 12:50
This, in my view, is very welcome news. As somebody already remarked, the SNP used to be known as the "Tartan Tories". Even today, they contain some pro-market people.
We should certainly support SNP calls for a referendum on the Union (even if we support it). It seems illogical that we're calling for one on the European Treaty, but not on another constitutional matter - Scotland's future. Do we not trust people north of the border?
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | November 27, 2007 at 12:50
I think it’s not quite as simple as that. The SNP are a minority, and as such their grip on power is not necessarily assured. We need to confront the question of who, between now and 2011, we prefer to see in power in Edinburgh – the SNP or Labour?
We could indeed support a referendum on independence, and like Jonathan and Justin I believe that referendum would be won by those on the unionist side, of which I am firmly one. But, by setting up the SNP for a fall on this issue, to what extent would we actually just be assisting in the rehabilitation of Labour in Scotland?
The fact of the matter is that any anti-independence campaign in Scotland would be led by Labour, or certainly be seen to be led by them, simply as a result of their strength relative to ourselves and the Liberals. Is it really in our interests to give them such a springboard? I can’t see how.
It would be a different matter if there was tangible and strong support in the country for a referendum, but it does not exist. Sure, you can get an opinion poll result showing that people answer ‘yes’ when posed the question, but the question has to be put in their head in the first place. Nobody has ever raised this with me unprompted; it’s just not an issue, so I doubt there is much to be gained by making it one.
Justin’s first point is well worthy of further consideration. It’s simply a mistake to view the nationalists as a monolithic socialist bloc, they are not. Have a look at their economic strategy, their plans for government efficiency savings, read pretty much any speech by their Enterprise Minister Jim Mather – there is plenty there over which we can make common cause with the SNP in terms of fostering a low-tax, pro-business Scotland.
That would seem to me to be a better strategy, both in terms of our political interests and indeed the interests of our country.
Posted by: Bill | November 27, 2007 at 13:25
A Labour Party without its Scottish wing would be a totally different animal. I have no doubt that if Scottish Independence came about, the English Labour Party and the Libdems would get down to some serious discussions about, an electoral pact, possibly even a merger.
Posted by: david | November 27, 2007 at 13:35
I have long believed that in the event of a hung Parliament our natural partners would be the SNP rather than the Libdems. If we win the next election the best we can hope for, realistically, is say 5 Scottish seats. Our best bet is seats in the Southern Uplands and perhaps a couple of suburban seats in the Central belt. I would dearly love us to become a major force in Scottish politics again but I cannot see it happening.
The SNP could have 20 or so. If the last assembly elections are a guide the SNP could win all seats north of the Central Lowlands, apart from Kennedy’s seat and perhaps Orkney and Shetland.
What would this partnership give either party?
US:
With only 5 seats, an alliance with the SNP would give us the legitimacy to speak for Scotland on non-devolved issues like defence and foreign affairs.
The SNP would support measures to prevent MPs from Scotland voting on English- only matters. In the event of a hung Parliament but one where we had a majority of English seats this would make our life much easier on health, education and transport issues.
SNP
We could give greater financial powers to the assembly. This would also help to address the funding imbalance in the Barnett formula.
We could also allow the SNP a referendum on independence, which I would expect them to lose.
Involving the SNP in Westminster politics could help to cement the union, albeit one with a Scottish assembly with much greater powers. Eventually, perhaps they would come to accept something less than full separation from the rest of the Kingdom.
Posted by: Terry | November 27, 2007 at 13:58
Some posters above are horrified that the Conservative and Unionists Party would work with people, and parties, such as the SNP that don't share 100% of the party's views.
That kind of working together on common ground is known as politics. Successful politics.
In Canada, Stephen Harper's Conservatives govern, and govern well, because they've come to a de facto deal with the Bloc Quebecois, an anti-Liberal separatist party. I don't know of many Canadian Conservatives who wish to turn down support from the BQ, even though the party's views diverge on this one issue.
Are the UK Tories in such good shape in Scotland and elsewhere that they can afford to turn down potential support?
Posted by: Bruce | November 27, 2007 at 14:41
Bruce,
That is precisely the point. As I suggested above, we need to make the psychological transition from being comfortable as a party of opposition to being hungry again to exert power, even if on a shared basis.
I see no contradiction whatsoever in being a unionist and agreeing to work with, and sustain in power, a nationalist administration, where we can identify a reasonable amount of shared policy direction with that administration.
That we would, in my view, stand to gain electorally is of course also a significant consideration, especially when I have yet to see any alternative strategy articulated which might lead to a revival in our fortunes here in Scotland.
Working together may mean a simple guarantee that we will sustain the SNP in office, or it may – realistically only in the longer term and dependent on circumstances, some of which are and will remain outwith our control – mean a formal coalition, but what is immediately important is putting aside the outmoded hang-ups and simplistic prescriptions of the past which have for so long inhibited our revival.
Posted by: Bill | November 27, 2007 at 15:21
Couldn't disagree more with you Bill. The SNP are doing everything they can do undermine the Union by fuelling English resentment over the Barnett formula. The Coonservative Party is either a Unionist party or it isn't. It has no business at all propping up a nationalist administration even if that blights the career prospects of some talented '30 somethings'.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | November 27, 2007 at 16:02
"Justin’s first point is well worthy of further consideration. It’s simply a mistake to view the nationalists as a monolithic socialist bloc, they are not. Have a look at their economic strategy, their plans for government efficiency savings, read pretty much any speech by their Enterprise Minister Jim Mather – there is plenty there over which we can make common cause with the SNP in terms of fostering a low-tax, pro-business Scotland."
Well said Bill, as someone pointed out the SNP were known as the Tartan Tories. There fiscal policies are very interesting, and it does not surprise me one iota that the Scottish Tories are finding it easy to support some of them.
Posted by: Scotty | November 27, 2007 at 16:05
Tory voters getting some of their policy wishes implemented thanks to proportional representation shock!
Welcome to the European way of doing things.
Posted by: Jason O'Mahony | November 27, 2007 at 16:08
Malcolm Dunn – “The SNP are doing everything they can do undermine the Union by fuelling English resentment over the Barnett formula."
Excuse me but what a load of garbage. The Barnett Formula has existed for decades and the LibLab administration used their position in the Executive for ignoring top up fees, free personal care, free bus travel etc. Its just metropolitan press oozing in its anti-SNP prejudice that has rammed this up the political agenda.
Posted by: Scott | November 27, 2007 at 16:17
But doesn’t that leave you with a rather difficult question, Malcolm? If you believe that adhering to the principle of pure unionism precludes cooperation with anyone who themselves do not hold to it, a view which, as a unionist, I would contend, then what exactly do you see our role as being?
Nothing more than a party of opposition in a parliament of minorities? Simply a prop to be counted upon by Labour, by virtue of our shared unionism?
Personally I want something more for my party and something more for my country, which I think deserves better than to be consigned to an endless cycle of (Labour-Liberal) socialist dirigisme.
And just to clarify my meaning, lest there be any doubt; my concern is not for the careers of ‘talented’ 30-somethings, but for the fact that our recent political history has militated against such people voting for us, joining us, or standing for election as our candidates in any appreciable numbers. That’s a concern for the future of my party, because growth can only come from attracting such people and it’s a simple law of nature that if something is not growing, then it’s dying.
Posted by: Bill | November 27, 2007 at 16:26
Really Scott? You're obviously not a follower of opinion polls then?The Union is under greater threat from England than Scotland. The Barnett formula may have been in operation for decades but its application following the devolution settlement has not.
I'm sorry that you do not apparently believe Bill in the prospect of a Conservative resurgence in Scotland .Surely the way forward is to maintain our values and argue our case with far more skill than has been the case over the past 30 years. Or do you believe that the majority of Scots are wedded to socialism?
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | November 27, 2007 at 16:52
Bill
'Personally I want something more for my party and something more for my country, which I think deserves better than to be consigned to an endless cycle of (Labour-Liberal) socialist dirigisme.'
'It would be a different matter if there was tangible and strong support in the country for a referendum, but it does not exist.'
Therein lies the rub. You continually refer to your 'country' and, therefore, the Conservative party in the Scottish context. Would it not make sense to form a distinct bloc and re-brand yourselves for your 'nation'? No Thatcherite baggage and a clean new start in cahoots with the nationalist agenda of the SNP.
You singularly fail to comprehend that the purpose for SNP initiated dialogue is to achieve independence via the cynical route of English resentment. Salmond knows this and Wendy Alexander knows this. The Conservatives in Scotland are being used.
Meanwhile, in England, the debate has moved on.
Scott
'Its just metropolitan press oozing in its anti-SNP prejudice that has rammed this up the political agenda.'
Wrong. Have a few conversations down the Ferret & Firkin from Exeter to Carlisle and you will find that the English are a wee bit upset and understand that the English Conservative party needs to focus where the outcome of the next election will be decided.
Posted by: englandism.com | November 27, 2007 at 16:56
Englandism,
‘the purpose for SNP initiated dialogue is to achieve independence via the cynical route of English resentment’
I doubt that is really the case, although as I said above, I accept completely that there are legitimate constitutional and fiscal concerns arising from devolution which must, as a matter of simple fairness if nothing else, be addressed.
The SNPs agenda, so far as I can see, is not to fuel anti-English resentment in Scotland, or anti-Scottish resentment in England, but to demonstrate to the people of Scotland that they would be better governed and better off as an independent nation.
That happens not to be a view I share, although having had a quick look at your website it seems clear what your position on the matter is.
Posted by: Bill | November 27, 2007 at 17:18
This is a very interesting thread.
Although the Party has fallen back dramatically in Scotland we have to admit we really have been saved by the introduction of devolution and even more so by Proportional Representation. If you think about it we have a far higher proportion of the MSPs at Holyrood than the Lib Dems have a proportion of the MPs at Westminster. In addition there is a four party system and no party can win an overall majority so we have the potential to have the kind of influence that the Lib Dems would get with PR at Westminster. In the medium term the key aim for the Party at Holyrood has to be to establish ourselves as the clear 3rd party in the Scottish Parliament by getting up to 23-28 seats over the next couple of cycles and opening up a 10-15 seat lead over the Lib Dems - this should be the electoral objective. If we could do this then the arithmetic of the Parliament would be such that we could not be ignored and it may mean that in future not just the SNP but Labour as well would need to turn to us.
The second thing id say is that we are clearly going to be a party of influence primarily in the legislative branch in Scotland. I dont yet think we are going to be entering a coalition in the executive branch but we can wield considerable influence in the Scottish Parliament itself. This in contrast to Westminster where a desire to form a government has been the main aim of the Party. This is not realistic in Scotland bu the lesser executive control of the legislature at Holyrood means that being a party primarily of the legislature is a perfectly reasonable political position for us to aspire to. To an extent the arithmetic means we are influential already and this could increase considerably if we could add 6 to 10 more MSPs over the next 1 or 2 elections.
At local government level as well PR has improved the situation. We are either part of a coalition (Angus, Dumfries anfd Galloway etc), part of an ad hoc deal with the SNP (East Ayrshire etc) or are a major opposition presence (East Ren, Edinburgh etc) on a majority of Scotland's councils. Only in a minority of places are we now an irrelevance at council level in Scotland and in many of these with a couple of gains and some other changes in the position of the parties we could be in with a shout. As for how useful it is for us to be in power at local level i suppose thats another debate.
I think id interpret the SNP lifting their ban on us more as something that will have an impact in local government where we had been singled out to be banned - i still reckon a formal coalition at Holyrood is highly unlikely. Its just that the ban on us at council level was outdated in light of the new realities at Holyrood.
I also think what Salmond said in the Spectator about advising the Tories on how to win in Scotland has been rather overblown. It said he sat next to Osborne on the plane and said quite accurately that in any political system a right wing party must wave the national flag and that failing to do this was the main cause of our problems in Scotland. I think he is spot on with this but i dont think this really constitutes giving us advice. In fact in so far as you can read anything into it it is that salmond is encouraging the English Tories to wave the st. georges cross. Certainly he will not be remotely worried about being outgunned on the patriotic front by the scottish tories.
I very much agree with Bill's post at 11.56 about our excessive commitment to 'pure' unionism - the party has failed to adapt to changing national identities in scotland and that has aided the snp and meant that there is too great a correllation between Scottish patriotism and being a Scottish nationalist. There is a decent history of nationalistic unionism in scotland and the discrepancy between high feelings of scottishness and low support for independence suggests there is room for us to tap into this. Indeed I think this the future for the Right in scotland.
I think we should make a practical case against independence rather than the emotional British case for the Union which is becoming unsustainable in light of the English nationalism in the Tory Party south of the border.
Finally Malcolm Dunn seems to suggest that the Scottish Conservatives shouldnt be working with those parties that are fuelling English resentment about the Barentt formula - I assume that rules out working not just with the SNP but with most of the English Tory Party as well!!
Posted by: Scottish Conservative | November 27, 2007 at 17:49
Some years ago, there was a local by election in the London Borough of Waltham Forest.
One of the Tory candidate's helpers was an Ulster Unionist, high up in the party, who was a Conservative in all but name. He spoke of the close links they had with the SNP.
In addition Bruce speaks of the Canadian Conservatives having a defacto deal with the Bloc Quebecois. At the last Federal Election the Conservatives increased their seat count in Quebec from 0 to 10. In a couple of recent by-elections they gained a seat off the Bloc in Roberval-Lac St Jean and nearly unseated them in St Hyacinthe-Bagot.
Whether one likes it or not, this is the only realistic strategy for the Tories in Scotland. The alternative is oblivion.
Posted by: Tory Optimist | November 27, 2007 at 18:27
Malcolm Dunn- I am just trying to point out that these things have been going on (Barnett, different health/ education/ transport policies) for years, whereas you are trying to insinuate that this divergence has only begun since the SNP took power in May, which is patently hasn’t. Scotland gets less under Barnett now than it did before devolution and is decreasing year in year.
People just take more notice because it's not a unionist party that is instigating these changes.
I genuinely don’t think Salmond and the SNP are deliberately stoking up English resentment they defend what they see as Scotland’s interests, its just they are not a unionist party so they are not constantly having to check with their colleagues at Westminster or care what anyone south of the Border thinks.
I think praying for a traditional Tory come back in a country, Scotland, that has irrevocably changed in 20 years is ridiculous.
Whether you like it or not Scotland has changed forever. The UK will never be same again and England is changing, and quite fast. React to this or get left (as we currently are in Scotland) behind. Also Scotland is a nation. Yes it is. The UK is a multi national state. This doesn’t make me a heathen. Get over it. The old unionist party in Scotland was rabidly nationalistic. I am Scottish and British. But I, like 80% of Scots will call myself Scottish first, am not a nationalist in the separatist sense but I am also not a unionist in the religiously devoted sense, a position most Scots I feel adopt.
Posted by: Scott | November 27, 2007 at 18:39
Scott | November 27, 18:39
".. Scotland has changed forever. The UK will never be same again and England is changing, and quite fast. React to this or get left .. behind.
..I, like 80% of Scots will call myself Scottish first, am not a nationalist in the separatist sense but I am also not a unionist in the religiously devoted sense, a position most Scots I feel adopt..."
-- Which is why we must move forward swiftly to at least federation, with mutual friendship, cooperation and good grace. Reluctant tinkering around with half-ideas such as English Grand Committee merely prolongs the agony and enhances the acrimony.
There is a Scottish Conservative Party. The de facto English Conservative Party should now "come out" and acknowledge itself as such, rather than continue the charade that it is the pan-UK Conservative Party (..if it really was so, then the case for a separately designated Scottish party falls).
Posted by: Ken Stevens | November 27, 2007 at 19:16
Well Scottish Conservative, if that's what you want that's what you're going to get. Personally as a half Scot I think the breakup of the Union will be a tragedy. A tragedy for Britain but a greater tragedy by far for Scotland which as oil declines will become an economic basket case.
Scott, I have always considered Scotland a nation why would I not?.Nor have I suggested that the growing resentment of Barnett is all the fault of the SNP. Far from it, the fault lies with Labour for refusing point blank to answer the West Lothian Question since devolution. Though if you really don't think the SNP are not stoking up English resentment I suggest you know very little about England or the English or are living in a parallel universe.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | November 27, 2007 at 21:25
This has indeed been an interesting thread, because I think it illustrates one of the most fundamental tactical and strategic issues facing us.
The resurgent sense of Scottish national identity is being matched by an equally resurgent sense of English identity, although I doubt that, aside from its most extreme manifestations on both sides of the border, it amounts to a movement for absolute separation.
We have already rehearsed the arguments for tackling the West Lothian Question, and the parallel need to address related fiscal issues. That these are matters requiring attention is beyond doubt.
The more fundamental issue is how as a Party, both north and south of the border, we align ourselves strategically in relation to this more assertive ‘small n’ nationalism.
As a unionist, I think that we have to accept the way in which the political centre of gravity has shifted, and if we are to secure and strengthen the union we need to accommodate that shift, both in Scotland and in England. That’s not an argument for separatism, or a counsel of despair, it’s simply the application of a time-honoured Conservative tradition of preserving the best of the past while adapting to the realities and demands of the modern world.
Posted by: Bill | November 27, 2007 at 22:11
A lot of interesting thoughts on this topic and a lot of absolute nonsense as well. It should be understood that the "unionist" in the title of Scotland's Tories was adopted as a response to the Irish Question at the beginning of last century and has no direct relevance to the present Scottish question. To be a Tory and to be a Scottish nationalist is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Nor is there any requirement for those who consider themselves to be Labour of LibDem supporters to be unionists.
The fault line in Scottish politics is no longer left v. right but is now between unionists and nationalists and this will dominate Scottish (and British)politics until the matter is sensibly resolved. It is pretty obvious to me that Scottish Independence is now inevitable and those who grasp this fact now will inherit the political power in this country. Unfortunately many at the top level in the unionist parties see their own interests with the union. There are those contributing to this discussion whose offerings imply that they will stand against independence even it is obviously good for Scotland and the Scots. They will be consigned to the dustbin of history as are the Irish Westminster parliamentarians who stood against Irish Home rule. There were plenty of them but they are all forgotten now.
I can just imagine the outrage in England if it was suggested they are incapable of ruling themselves and should be ruled from Parliament in Paris or Rome(or Washington).
As has correctly been pointed out the Barnett formula is designed to squeeze public spending in Scotland, not give extra money to Scotland, and this it is doing annually. Any outrage in England is entirely synthetic and is beeing drummed up to discomfort Gordon Brown(dead man walking) but it would be much to my liking if this debate was conducted on grounds of what is best for Scotland and not on completely spurious economic figures and downright lies.
As an area organiser for the SNP I can testify to a steady stream of Labour and Tory supporters walking into the SNP and joining up. It is only a matter of time before some of the more prominent figures in these parties follow suit and in fact several have already opted for independence as the best option for Scotland and England.
What will become very obvious in the next year or two is that the remaining enthusiastic supporters of the union are those who have a personal vested interest in it.
As for opinion polls eight of the last twelve significant ones have put support for Independence higher than support for the union and the one that is presently beng trumpeted as indicating falling support for Independence was taken last May at the height of (in all of Scotland's media) the most vicious, continuous, unbalanced and disgracefully dishonest attack on Independence and the SNP that Scotland has ever seen. I wouldn't take its conclusions seriously particularly as these polled were offered "more powers for the Scottish Parliament" as an alternative choice. If you ask them what more powers these should be it is power to stay out of wars, powers to get rid of nuclear submarines, powers to remove nuclear power stations and powers over taxation and immigration etc - all powers unaotainable without independence. A more recent poll has put support for independence at around 35% - which I believe to be about right. Another significant proportion also are entirely relaxed about independence so are not moved by unionist scaremongering.
Posted by: David McEwan Hill | November 28, 2007 at 00:23
What am i going to get? At no stage have i ever argued for independence.
I simply dont believe that the threat to 'the Union' itself comes from England - the worst that Scotland could get under a future English dominated government would be the abolition of the current financial arrangements and their replacement by something both politically and financially worse. Thats more likely than actually removing us from the Union. Ditching the Scots might, very sadly, now be the stuff of dreams to a great many in our Party in England but the notion that we will actually be forcefully kicked out of the Union is utterly fanciful. Can you imagine the reaction in the City, at Buckingham Palace, in the civil service etc etc?
Even if the English nationalists in the Tory Party help Salmond on his way at the end of the day the Scottish people will make the final decision one way or the other.
I do however accept that there is a very serious danger that English Tory indifference to the Union and outright hostility to 'the Scots' could lead to greatly increased tensions but even at that I think independence, although a good deal more possible, is unlikely in the short to medium term.
Posted by: Scottish Conservative | November 28, 2007 at 01:21
@David McEwan Hill
I think you come a little late to this argument on this site of which this is only the latest manifestation. With the exception of a few diehard Unionists, the Conservative Party in particular and England in general has moved forward enormously over the last year to offer Scotland a federal alternative to independence (its just no one has told our leaders what to think yet) but if Scotland doesn't want that, then to acceptance of independence. You are pushing against an open door. It is not us who are your enemy, now it is Labour. Several people including me accept that parties which oppose the new settlement for perceived reasons of personal gain will lose electorally in Scotland and in England if a new settlement comes about. Which is why we are edging to do a deal with you - the subject of this thread.
That said, I love your list of new powers that you feel Scotland needs. It means the accomodation is unlikely to persist beyond the new settlement and I might be more worried, if I had the least fear that this list was actually shared by any more average Scot. I think you will find when we get there that they may be a rather lonely pre-occupation.
Finally I can assure you that English animus against the public spending differential between Scotland and England, whether or not it is caused by the Barnet formula, is very far from wholly synthetic. If I can understand your desire for independence you might try a little harder to understand our desire not to be shafted. As that desire is going to be one of, if not the major motivating factors towards the independence you crave, you might even learn to be appreciative of it.
Posted by: Opinicus | November 28, 2007 at 02:47
"I think the Tory party still has a long way to go before the brand is no longer toxic" says HF
Prior to 1965, Scottish Tories were members of the Unionist Party, which was affiliated with - though entirely independent of - the Conservative Party in England & Wales.
Perhaps a return to this sort of arrangement would benefit the Scottish Tories?
It would certainly make them appear much more of a Scottish party on par with the SNP, rather than one following orders from Millbank.
Posted by: Nizhinsky | November 29, 2007 at 11:46
Indeed, this passage from the Scottish Unionist Association Yearbook in 1955 - a peak in the party's popularity - sounds very much like the post-Thatcherite Cameroon orientation of the party at the moment
There are two fundamental instincts in human nature - Individuality and Social
Service. Regard is paid to both of these in the Unionist Party’s view of the object
of politics and in its framing of policy. It is therefore wrong to describe the
Unionist Party as being upon the Right in the political scale. It is not ‘reactionary’.
It is not out to ‘exploit’. Rather it is on the Middle Road, between two extremes -
the extremes of laissez-faire and Socialism. The Unionist Party realises the need for a synthesis of these two fundamental ideas of human individuality and of service to others and to the community. Remember that the Unionist Party
initiated or supported most of the social reforms and the social services.
It was during this time also that the party benefited significantly from its appearance as a truly Scottish party, while exploiting Labour's image as an alien socialist party. The tables were turned in Labour's favour once the Unionist Party was merged with the Conservatives - giving it a distinctly English aristocratic appearance.
Posted by: Nizhinsky | November 29, 2007 at 12:02
The problem in Scotland is Labour are centre-left and Unionist, the Liberals are centre-left and Unionist, and the SNP are centre-left and in favour of Scottish independence. The Conservatives are centre-right, and Unionist.
There is a flaw here in that those who want independence need to vote for a lefty party. The SNP may call themselves left of centre, but to what extent are they? They support private enterprise, want to cut corporation tax rates, want to restrict the time frame in which one can have an abortion and removed have shown themselves to be illiberal on alcoholism by supporting greater punishments for those who commit crime when drunk, rather than making it more lenient.
Some years down the line, one of two things will happen... the SNP will rule for about 8 years in Holyrood and be unable to deliver independence. They will be unlikely to win such a high proportion of the vote such as they had in May ever again, making the thought of independence shelved for good. If that happens, what are the SNP for? Will they dissapear as a party leading some to join the Tories, and the rest to join Labour leaving a similar setup to what is at Westminster?
Or, independence will happen and then the SNP lose their raison d'etre because their battle was won. There won't be any arguments over the Union to differentiate Lib/Lab/SNP so how could three centre-left parties continue to exist? In this scenario, the Scottish Tories would have to accept Unionism is over as independence is an act which is very unlikely to be reversed.
In the end, there is only the need for three parties in any system - the left, the right, and the Lib Dems for protest votes. Through time that's what Scotland will finish up with.
Posted by: Andrew Morrison | January 17, 2008 at 21:25
Once again Passing Leftie misunderstands [deliberately] in order to gain a rise and once again..fails..
Posted by: Northernhousewife | February 07, 2008 at 11:08