There surely isn’t much remarkable about the Scottish Conservatives stating that they now have an open mind to forming a coalition Government with another of Scotland’s parties, what is remarkable that they ever closed their mind to the prospect in the first place.
The Conservatives can of course effect change from outside the Government, as they have done at the past few budgets and through committee work, but the real political impact for any nation is through Ministerial positions and setting the agenda. I accept it is unlikely that the Conservatives will find a coalition partner willing to do serious business with them, not so much because the Scottish Tories are toxic but rather because the SNP, Labour and Scottish Lib Dems would like to keep considering them that way.
I have noted in a previous post that the most likely alliance for the Scottish Conservatives is probably the SNP, though many disagreed. Put simply, were the numbers to fall a certain way, were Goldie to offer an independence referendum and were the Nationalists so thirsty for a plebiscite then I don’t see why it couldn’t happen. However, that’s speculation that hinges on a number of hitherto undecided factors so there is little point dwelling on it.
Furthermore, Goldie herself has said: “But if the constitutional issue could be parked and you ask ‘are there areas of common ground?’ The answer is yes.” which to me suggests there isn’t enough blue sky thinking from Scotland’s blue party. A deal can’t be done with the SNP without independence being part of the agreement. As for the Tories and Labour – a deal can’t be done. Simple as that.
Where Annabel Goldie has made a good decision in the here and now is to position herself as above the fray in terms of the back-and-forth, Punch and Judy debacle that we see most weeks in the Scottish Parliament. The Tories are marking themselves out as, for want of a better phrase, a third way.
Support for the top two parties at a UK level has decreased over the past few decades and perhaps the Scottish Tories are hoping to pick up any ‘anti-status quo’ vote that may be out there. We’ve had eight years of Labour and the Lib Dems and we’ve had four years of the SNP, perhaps a difficult-to-satisfy Scottish public may turn to the Tories in order to freshen things up.
Of course, I would suggest that if you were that way minded then you should turn to the Scottish Greens, not that I see many people struggling over who to support between the blues and the greens, of course.
#1 by Allan on October 4, 2010 - 7:56 pm
“I accept it is unlikely that the Conservatives will find a coalition partner willing to do serious business with them, not so much because the Scottish Tories are toxic but rather because the SNP, Labour and Scottish Lib Dems would like to keep considering them that way.”
I think for many the reverse is still true, particularaly in the West of Scotland. The Tories are still seen as a toxic brand, they are still seen as the nasty party, as the people who destroyed Scotland’s industries. They are so toxic, that their Blair clone couldn’t win more than one seat up here for them.
For many the jibe about “Tartan Tories” and “The Tories little helpers” still sticks, and is still capiable of causing electorial damage. Whether that is down to the policies pursued by the SNP, or their weak spin operation is open to debate.
Of course, the Tories don’t really help themselves. For every Gouldie, there is a part worker, or prospective candidate, who still thinks that it is 1987, and Saint Margaret is still in Number 10. Like the propspective candidate for Paisley, who when he was fighting Paisley South at the election said that apart from the NHS “There are no sacred cows” with reference to cuts.
#2 by Jeff on October 4, 2010 - 11:14 pm
Allan,
You’re right, there no doubt still are small pockets (and large pockets) where the Tories are held up as the lowest of the low. I still think the idea of Scotland’s wholesale rejection of the party is overplayed however. They do just as well as the Lib Dems, if not better, noone minds (too much) the Lib Dems being considered potential coalition partners for Labour or the SNP. It should be the same for the Tories.
You make a good point however that there may be a political cost to being ‘Tory little helpers’. Maybe the risk of something like that sticking is too high a price to pay. 30 years on people still talk about the SNP bringing down the Labour Government and letting Thatcher in after all…
#3 by NoOffenceAlan on October 4, 2010 - 10:37 pm
Isn’t this just another case of the Scottish Conservatives following, not leading, their Westminster counterparts?
They only realise coalitions are desirable after a UK GE makes one necessary. This has been the case since 1999 in Scotland. Better late than never, I suppose.
#4 by Jeff on October 4, 2010 - 11:15 pm
It may just be a conincidence.
There was no way the Tories were going to get a look-in in 2007, the door has cracked a little bit more ajar now thanks to their working with the SNP at budget time. That may have given them a belief that they could work with another party in a more formal arrangement.
I daresay the unlikely success of Cameron-Clegg has helped bolster the idea though.
#5 by Stuart Winton on October 5, 2010 - 1:46 am
Allan, particularly prescient words in view of today’s Scotsman story about the Tory Holyrood candidate – a “well-known businessman”, apparently, but I’ve never heard of him – who has apparently called Scots thick because they didn’t get Thatcher!!
Interesting article in yesterday’s Sunday Post, however, which says that the Tories’ Yougov private polling is showing the party consistently in second place behind Labour in Westminster voting intentions.
Which it’s thought may be down the actual experience of a Tory Government and David Cameron helpying to detoxify the brand and rid the party of the legacy of Thatcher.
Of course, the likes of today’s Scotsman story will hardly help that, and when the cuts really start to bite that may again change voting intentions fundamentally.
I’m not so sure though; perhaps many people are so fed up with some of the public sector excesses that they won’t view Cameron/Osborne as Thatcher Mk II, and again this is what the Sunday Post article seems to be suggesting.
Jeff, I could tell you were the author just by reading the title. Not bad, but not as good as your “Goldie looking chained” classic!!
#6 by Indy on October 5, 2010 - 10:20 am
I’m not quite sure what SNP policies would lead people to label the SNP tartan Tories.
Scrapping right to buy perhaps? Opposing PFI? Maybe it’s about ending privatisation in the NHS? Or perhaps the Megrahi decision? Local income tax?
As far as I can tell there are 3 policies which the SNP and the Tories agree on. Having more community police officers on the streets, scrapping business rates for small businesses and a town centre regeneration fund. To me, none of those policies are actually “left” or “right”. They are just pretty obvious and commonsense things to do. If Labour or the Lib Dems oppose them it’s sheer political opportunism and nothing else.
If we look beyond those 3 areas however it is extremely difficult to see much common ground between the SNP and the Tories in policy terms. There is of course common ground in personal terms in that the Tory group in the Scottish Parliament tend to behave quite sensibly and don’t go in for the ultra negative playground approach so beloved by Labour. But in terms of policy, the gulf between the SNP and the Tories is unbridgeable in my opinion.
#7 by James on October 5, 2010 - 11:05 am
As far as I can recall, the Tories are the only party always to have voted for John Swinney’s budgets throughout this session. There’s no more important vote in a period minority administration.
Here’s some more points of contact between the Tories and the SNP. Both back the new coal-fired power station at Hunterston. Both want to see an additional bridge over the Forth (although their voters disagree). Fergus Ewing and Bill Aitken jointly wrote the Government’s outdated drugs strategy. The list goes on.
Also, I got forwarded an SNP press release yesterday which got very excited about the following factoid..
How often parties have voted with the Tories in the Scottish Parliament since May 2007:
Labour – 46%
SNP – 45%
LibDem – 43%
Green – 32%
Margo – 28%
Short answer, Labour, the SNP, & the Lib Dems are all significantly closer to the Tories than Greens or Margo are. But I think we knew that.
#8 by Indy on October 5, 2010 - 11:59 am
But James they are also points in common between the Tories and Labour and indeed everyone but the Greens.
#9 by Jeff on October 5, 2010 - 12:07 pm
I’d go further and say that Conservative backing for ‘SNP’ budgets is a result of their just being less inclined to indulge in the opposition for opposition’s sake that Labour and, less so, the Lib Dems indulge in.
I don’t see that it has much to do with ideological belief oir political principles.
Anyway, two parties can still form a coalition without having to agree on every area. I don’t envisage a Tory Minister for Health under an SNP-Tory coalition as the parties just have a fundamental difference over how the institution should run.
A Tory Minister for Education or Sport or even Finance would not be as problematic.
I’d agree Greens are the patry that is furthest from the Tories view of the world, even if the Scottish Greens are allegedly more right wing than the Green Party of England & Wales… 😉
#10 by James on October 5, 2010 - 12:13 pm
Not in every case. Labour and the Lib Dems joined with us in voting down the Hunterston coal project earlier this year. I think the Lib Dems took a better position on drug policy even though the party’s more interested in economic liberalism than social liberalism nowadays too.
The fact that the other non-Green parties have adopted Tory transport policies from the 80s doesn’t let the SNP off the hook, either.
#11 by Indy on October 5, 2010 - 1:44 pm
Since the SNP is not campaigning for the Hunterston coal project I am not really sure what that point is about.
#12 by James on October 5, 2010 - 2:15 pm
Sorry, that’s just wrong. SNP Ministers put it into the National Planning Framework 2 after the consultation was over.
#13 by Indy on October 5, 2010 - 3:05 pm
You are talking rubbish James. SNP MSPs had a free vote on the debate specifically on Hunterston. The local MSP is Kenneth Gibson and he is campaigning against it vigorously.
#14 by James on October 5, 2010 - 3:12 pm
What part of my comment is wrong? I know there was a free vote, because Ministers had legal advice that whipping would potentially jeopardise the planning process – and Ministers also didn’t vote.
And yes, I know Kenny voted how he voted. I blogged about this in another place. The fact that 10 SNP MSPs voted against a proposal from their own Ministers is better than nothing, but hardly a sign that the party is radically anti-Tory (let alone better than Labour or the Libs, both of whom voted solidly with Robin and Patrick).
#15 by Indy on October 5, 2010 - 3:26 pm
I can assure you that it did not require any legal advice not to whip MSPs on a vote on Hunterston Power Station! SNP MSPs would not be whipped on a matter such as that.
You said “Labour and the Lib Dems joined with us in voting down the Hunterston coal project.”
Clearly you are trying to present this as Labour and the Lib Dems joining with the Greens to vote against the SNP on the matter of Hunterston Power Station as though it were a matter of policy.
You know perfectly well that is not the case.
#16 by James on October 5, 2010 - 3:38 pm
I do really appreciate your contributions here, and I’m sorry to keep disagreeing, but I’m afraid that information about legal advice was given to me face to face by a relevant SNP Minister. And you do see that Hunterston got added to the NPF2 by those Ministers, right? Surely that makes it a matter of policy?
#17 by Indy on October 5, 2010 - 4:36 pm
Legal advice may have been given but it’s irrelevant because they would not have been whipped anyway. And it is not a matter of policy. If it was there would be no free vote.
Neither is it an SNP versus Labour or Lib Dem issue. North Ayrshire Council was Labour-run the last time I looked.