Showing posts with label Scottish Conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scottish Conservatives. Show all posts

Thursday, July 08, 2010

What's Left Worth Conserving?

No apologies for the light blogging - it's summertime, after all, and I'm on my first proper break from work in about 3 years. Now that the election is well and truly over, job hunting is once again at the forefront of my mind right now, as unemployment beckons at the end of August.

In the meantime, here's my latest column for the Scots Independent, written last week, which picks over the Westminster electoral carcass of the Scots Tories. It's a subject which has attracted the wailing and gnashing of teeth in recent days of journalistic personages no less prominent than Iain Martin and Alan Cochrane, although neither managed to be as thoughtful as Harry Reid in his piece for the Herald yesterday.

Scotland needs centre right representation, but does it need the Conservatives? And for so long as the party has supporters like 'ShetlandTory' (see comments in Iain Martin's piece) babbling from the hospital bed that "the electorate of the nation that produced Adam Smith wants it to be the North Korea of the North Sea", you have to wonder whether there really is anything there worth saving.


My good public reputation was tarnished irreparably a couple of weeks ago by a newspaper, which made an unwarranted and vile slander against me. Frankly, I don't know if I'll ever be able to hold my head up in polite company again. If I had any money at all I'd see them in court.

What was this vile calumny perpetrated against me? I'm outraged to say that in a recent report on a talk I'd given to a community group in Oldmeldrum, the Press and Journal described me not as a former SNP candidate, but as a former Conservative candidate. Since then, my world has collapsed.

I now get stared at in shops. Neighbours cross the street to avoid me, and already the hate mail has started to arrive, some of it recognisably from my own family. Even my cat has taken to shunning me, except, of course, when there's the prospect of food on offer.

Joking aside, there's no doubt that even if the label 'Conservative' is no longer as politically toxic as it was in the 1980's and 90's, the party is still going nowhere in Scotland. Even when on course to win South of the Border at the recent General Election and with the resulting positive media coverage, Cameron's Caledonian brethren struggled to make it above 17% in the polls, and were lucky to hang on to their single Scottish seat.

There's no doubt that a relentlessly negative campaign by the Labour Party entrenched Scottish voters into a 'Stop the Tories' mindset, despite the fact that not even a clean sweep in Scotland for Labour would have kept Cameron from Downing St, given Labour's refusal to work with any other parties in Government. As such, we have a Tory Prime Minister elected on the back of English votes, and with it, some uncomfortable questions for the Scottish Tories from their southern colleagues about their effectiveness.

Already, the recriminations have started. An independent commission has been set up to examine the party in Scotland. At least one key staff member has been shown the door. There are whispers of a purge of the candidate list; that Annabel Goldie's days are numbered as leader; that the party may be given new autonomy from London, and that it might even change its name in a bid to find new appeal amongst Scottish voters.

All well and good. But who, might we ask, is the individual being tasked with dragging the Scottish Tories kicking and screaming into the 21st century? Why, none other than septuagenarian peer Lord Russell Sanderson - a Scottish Office Minister at the height of Margaret Thatcher's unpopularity. There's nothing like having the right man in place for a job like this, and let's face it, he's nothing like the right man for a job like this.

From an outsider's perspective, a cleansing of the MSP stables and a change of leader might be no bad thing, provided, of course, that what they plan to replace them with represents an improvement. Similarly, a name change might help dull antagonistic associations with the party, although you also have to be changing something more fundamental than the name if it's to be credible. Without a change of substance, renaming the 'Scottish Conservatives' as 'Scottish Reform' or whatever seems little better than rebranding Windscale as Sellafield.

While the bit about greater party autonomy has got people interested, no-one seems to have harked back to a report which was compiled by Lord Strathclyde for the party back in 1997, following the Tory wipeout earlier that year. As a consequence of that report, the Scottish Tories became the most internally devolved of all the unionist parties in Scotland. Since then, the party has, constitutionally at least, enjoyed almost complete policy freedom. The point is that it has failed to use it.

Why? Simply, the problem, ironically for a party which used to hector others about the need to stand on their own two feet, is that it suffers from a complete intellectual and financial dependence on its London HQ. Lord Strathclyde threw open the door to the cage over a decade ago. Since then, the Scottish Party has cowered away at the back, lacking the confidence to embark on a route which might not come pre-approved from London.

Ultimately, the problem isn't structures, or finances, or what the Tories call themselves. Their problem is institutional, being too dull to say anything of interest to eachother, let alone the wider public. Financially and organisationally wedded to London, the idea that a Scotland could exist which paid its own way and set its own priorities, represents a conceptual leap well beyond all but perhaps a couple of their current MSP group.

I have a friend who is fond of pointing out that the opposite of love, in his view, is not hate but indifference. I think that captures a large part of the Tories' problem - it's not that people particularly dislike them any more, its just that they are largely irrelevant, and in consequence, people are now indifferent. They have little of interest to say, and don't look or sound like they represent modern Scotland.

Maybe an organisational revamp, a clearout of high heidyins too long in situ and a requirement to live within its means based on Scottish donations might provide the bracing does of reality needed to bring the Tories back to life. Losing the kneejerk unionism by fully embracing fiscal autonomy and an Independence referendum, even if not independence itself, would also show a confidence in Scotland which might just encourage Scots to show some confidence once again in the Tories. It would certainly throw down the gauntlet to a Labour Party which in Scotland, is even less able to stand on its own two feet than the Tories in their current state.

Make yourselves relevant and stop giving people reasons not to vote for you is a decent rule of thumb for any party. It's something Scotland's Tories would be well advised to remember, regardless as to what this commission may or more likely, may not come up with. Frankly, right now, it would no more occur to most Scots to vote Tory than it would for them to start walking around on their hands in public with a sparkler placed unconventionally.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Tangled Up In Blue

The Scottish Parliament is due to reconvene tomorrow, for the swearing in of the MSPs and, theoretically at least, for these new MSPs to elect a new Presiding Officer. At Westminster, there is a quaint old ritual that the person elected Speaker is ceremonially dragged to the chair, feigning reluctance all the way. At Holyrood, though, it is beginning to look like the reluctance is very real indeed.

Due to the excruciatingly tight parliamentary arithmetic, neither Labour nor the SNP are keen to let any of their number take the position. However, the person whom all sides agree is the stand-out candidate, Conservative Leader Annabell Goldie, is also ruling herself out at this stage, emboldened by what she sees as her achievement in having led her party to a better than expected result last Thursday.

I've said before that Goldie had a good campaign. Having taken over her party in difficult circumstances, she steadied the ship and saved them from meltdown. In gaining one constituency from the Lib Dems, but losing two on the list thanks to a slightly depressed regional vote, all things considered it was a reasonable night's work. But that really is about all you can say for them, since the harsh reality is that they remain no further forward than they were four years ago.

I'm afraid that this is as good as it's ever going to get for Goldie as Tory leader. She'll be safe for a few months, but then the vultures will start to circle, as others look for someone who might be able to kick-start the Scottish party's fortunes in time for the Westminster elections. There is a huge gulf between the appeal which Cameron's Tories have in the south, and the performance of their Scottish brethren. As admirable an individual as Goldie is, it's hard to see how she, Dave's favourite auntie or not, is going to do anything to revive her party's fortunes by trotting out another four years of dreary slogans about 'bread and butter'.

For many Scots, the Tories are, whether fairly or unfairly, still seen as being beholden to the party in London. The way forward for the Tories is to re-examine their relationship with the London party and to begin to crystalise their professed desire for more powers for Holyrood. Both will likely require the slaying of some sacred cows, and as a member of the old school, die in the last ditch of the union variety of Scottish Tories, it's a task for which Goldie is almost certainly psychologically unprepared.

Whether she realises it or not, the greatest contribution Goldie could make to her party right now is to stand aside as leader, receive the gratitude of her party for services rendered, and thereby allow the reinvigoration of Scottish Toryism which her presence currently inhibits. However, having done so, a greater contribution still could then be hers to make, providing she allows herself to be elected as PO.

Although Tories no longer routinely apologise for their existence in Scotland any more, for many Scots they are still on something of an extended penance. Albeit for different reasons, they face similar issues of trust and competence to those faced by the SNP only a few short years ago.This is where they might find it instructive to look at George Reid and the SNP.

While George Reid resigned his SNP membership upon becoming PO, people never forgot that he remained a nationalist. By common consent, he was an outstanding PO, helping steady the Parliament and entrench it at home, while building a profile for Scotland overseas. I would say that during his period in office, he probably did more to dissipate the ridiculous image of Scottish Nationalists being the hairy-arsed haggis munching mouth-frothing impossibilists of unionist nightmares, than just about anyone else. For that reason alone, the SNP owes him a particular debt of gratitude.

Goldie as PO could perform a similar rehabilitative role for the Scottish Tories, bringing them back firmly into the mainstream in the eyes of the voting public. Since they have already no desire to be in government in Scotland, the Tories have nothing to lose from allowing her to take on the PO position. Even leaving aside the fact that she's far and away the best candidate for the post, if the SNP experience is anything to go by, then arguably the Tories would also have the most to gain by so doing.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

TWTCTW

Well, that was the campaign that was. I'm too tired right now to do a detailed retrospective, however, as a quick snapshot, in my opinion the SNP had its best campaign ever; Labour fought the most negative and uninspiring campaign I can remember; Annabell Goldie should win the award for 'most improved' leader for playing a poor hand extremely well and with no little grace and style; while Nicol Stephen will probably get an undeserved reward for fighting what must have been the dullest Lib Dem campaign in history.

Our American intern, Michelle, managed to sum their campaign up rather tartly yesterday afternoon in the car. Hearing Stephen string together one of his stock soundbites about being 'really positive about young people' and how people apparently 'want to hear about the issues that matter to them, not have another debate on the constitution', she exploded with: 'They're smart enough to do both, dumbass!'. Hard to argue, really.

My hopes for tomorrow? Mainly that the final result, whether that's win, lose or draw for the SNP, sees Scotland embark on a more adventurous and positive path. The last eight years have been positively stultifying. Where there is no vision, the people perish. Another four years of the Best Wee First Minister of the Best Wee Country in the World is a torture that no thinking Scot should wish to inflict upon their compatriots. I just hope that with the last polls of the campaign looking tight, all those who want change actually get off their backsides and vote for it in the best way they can.

Anyway, it's nearly 9pm, and I've still got shoes to clean, shirts to iron and an overnight bag to pack. Tomorrow's going to be a long stint, and while I'll try to blog something if I get the chance, I'll make no promises. Enjoy polling day and make your vote count - whatever the result, here's hoping for a better Scotland in the next four years.

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Right for Scotland?

The right wing of Scottish politics seems agog at the prospects of the Scottish Tories withdrawing themselves from the UK Conservative party and going it alone. Fraser Nelson, he of the irritable vowel syndrome, appears to be acting as a conduit for the idea through the pages of the Spectator. Perhaps tellingly, no-one in the Scottish Tory hierarchy is running a mile from the notion.

I’ve blogged previously about my feelings on an independent Scottish Tory Party. While any such venture would play an important part in making Scottish independence a success, it’s something which I would have expected to happen after any vote for independence, rather than in advance. Nevertheless, I sense that this is all kite-flying at the moment and nothing more. If it's going to happen at all, it won't be until after May and until after Annabel Goldie has decided to spend more time with her petunias.

However, the perennial question of ‘independence for what?’ remains. The Strathclyde Commission, held after the 1997 wipeout, gave the Scottish Tories a set-up which allowed them considerably more autonomy from London than Labour, but they've conspicuously failed to use any of it. For that reason, even if they did cut adrift from the English Tories, it would still be the same people with the same tired old ideas trying to run the show, insisting that 'virtual' apron strings remain in place.

Although the Tories would still nominally be unionist under any such arrangement, administrative and policy independence would shoot right through that argument – after all, if you need independence from Westminster to run your party properly, why shouldn't Scotland have independence so the country can do the same? Nonetheless, if there’s anything in this story, it looks like the Scottish Tories might finally be being dragged kicking and screaming into the mainstream of modern Scottish political life.

However, you don't change the culture of a party overnight, so they’ll need to do much more than simply copy the Bavarian model to prove their independence from London. Otherwise, people will rightly conclude that the whole thing is just a cosmetic con trick, a bit like when Windscale was repackaged as Sellafield. Another hiding at the polls is just what the Tories need if any mood for change is to be suitably galvanised.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

With friends like these...

The capacity of the Scottish Tories to self-destruct never ceases to amaze. After the wipe-out of 1997; David McLetchie's little confusions over expenses; Annabell Goldie's reluctant leadership and persistant attempts by a grassroots minority to throw the current MSP group overboard; it was difficult, although by no means impossible, to see how they could slip any further.

With an election coming up, the party high-heidyins must have been praying that everyone would just stick to the script and stay gaffe-free until polling day. The last person they would have been expecting to pull the plug on their campaign would have been Shadow Scottish Secretary, David Mundell MP. Alas, on the eve of their Scottish Conference, the Daily Record (I feel nauseous linking to this) has obtained a memo sent by Mundell to party leader David Cameron, which contains a damning assessment of his erstwhile Holyrood colleagues.

According to Mundell, the MSP group suffers from a "simple lack of thinkers". They are 'incapable of coming up with new policies', while "there are more obvious problems than solutions emanating from Scotland from a party point of view." The replacement of Scottish party chairman Peter Duncan should be an "immediate priority". And while "key personnel need to be identified to take on strategic roles...nobody obviously comes to mind".

With friends like these... there are conflicting views amongst Tory bloggers, with Ian Dale supportive, while Conservative Home demands his head on a stick. I think if I were a Tory activist, though, I'd be arranging my holidays to coincide with the elections so I could be as far away as possible from the impending carnage in May.

There's a place for a party of the centre-right in Scotland - but the prospects of anyone being able to hew it from the rotten timbers of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party now look not so much slim as positively skeletal. Independence and cutting the apron strings to the party in London must now be their only hope for recovery.

UPDATE - Widespread praise in the canteen for Annabell Goldie's riposte to Jack McConnell's use of the above memo at First Minister's Questions. 'At least, First Minister, my party's internal memos don't end up being scrutinised by Scotland Yard'.

Splat! Who said that Holyrood had banned bloodsports? :-)