Look, I know I’ll get shouted down for posting this incredibly silly suggestion, but bear with me until the end of the piece before laughing/ calling me names.
The Conservatives should come out in favour of independence for Scotland.
Now I realise a couple of things here. Â Firstly, the name – the Conservative and Unionist party suggests this might be an issue. Â Except that the union referred to in that title is between Britain and Ireland, and that isn’t exactly a current issue. Â And of course the Scottish Nationalist movement might not exactly take too kindly to an unpopular, right of centre party moving in on their ground – its not exactly like there is massive support for the Conservatives in Scotland, and this policy isn’t likely to help that much.
But think outside the box a little bit. Â I’m not talking about a Scottish Conservative policy. Â I’m talking about a David Cameron idea, a UK-wide policy shift for the party. Â And that, in pragmatic, electoral terms makes lots of sense.
Put it like this – the Conservatives won the sum total of ONE seat in Scotland in last year’s general election. One. Â Out of 59. Â That means they need to win 58 more seats in England and Wales than the combined opposition parties to win a UK-wide election. Â Labour, on the other hand, rely on MPs from Scotland and Wales for majorities – think the top-up tuition fees vote or foundation hospitals.
Again, with the maths, but there are 533 English MPs, of which 298 are Conservative, a comfortable governing majority of 32 at the moment. Â Add in Wales (40 MPs, 8 Conservatives) and Northern Ireland (18 MPs, 0 Conservatives) and the picture is slightly different – 591 MPs (excluding Scotland’s 59) of which 306 are Conservative MPs, a governing majority of 10. Â Still workable, but much tighter. Â It’s only when you add in Scotland’s sole Conservative MP (and the remaining 58 MPs from Scotland from other parties) that the Conservative majority disappears.
So maybe if Dave wants to go it alone and ditch Nick and Vince, all he has to do is support Scottish independence.
Thumbs up if you support the motion...
Of course its crazy – and it likely will never happen. Â But I’m pretty sure than, in an independent Scotland, the Scottish Conservative party would actually do better, given there would be less inclination to associate them with the remainder of the UK Conservatives – and indeed, I think there is a continuing “I can’t vote Tory, they’re the party of Thatcher” mentality. Â But if they were no longer the party of Thatcher… then perhaps they’d have more success.
So… it would help PM David Cameron consolidate his and his party’s position as potentially the best placed to win a majority of seats in the rest of the UK, and it’d help the Scottish Conservatives get themselves some distance from their history, and perhaps people would start to put the “Party of Thatcher” stuff behind them. Â Win-win?
It’s just a crazy idea. Â But it might just work…
#1 by Michael Shaw on January 10, 2011 - 10:36 am
I’ve thought for some time that the Scottish Conservatives might do well from repositioning themselves as a centre right pro-independence party. There seems to be a certain section of the SNP which, apart from the independence issue, has much more in common with Goldie and co than their own party.
#2 by Malc on January 10, 2011 - 10:35 pm
Quite. Though I doubt they’d thank you for saying so!
#3 by Douglas McLellan on January 10, 2011 - 11:02 am
Its not that crazy from an English Tory perspective and is an idea I have heard muttered (with reasonable argument) on the saner right-wing blogs.
The financial settlement given to Scotland makes no sense to anyone south of the Border so tell Scots to go their own way is appealing to them. And since Scotland offers nothing electorally to the Tories in England why not let them go.
As for the party in Scotland it does have an image problem combined with the fact that, for whatever reason, lacks a coherent voice on the right. If the Tories can ditch the history of Thatcher and offer a vision of Scotland that doesn’t involved state paternalism, the idea that private enterprise is a good thing and seeks to offer a proud vision of Scotland based not on the holy triumvirate of Thistle, Tartan and Tam O’Shanter but instead of the academic and inventive strengths from Adam Smith to John Logie Baird.
Perhaps it is too far to say it should support independence but instead it should seek the referendum, offer its members a free approach to the referendum and promise to take part in the Scotland that emerges from the result. And be fully independent from Westminster as the voice of the right in Scotland.
#4 by Malc on January 10, 2011 - 10:35 pm
I think I’d take support for the referendum. That makes sense as a position for me – and I’d still doubt that Cameron would cry too much whatever way the result went.
#5 by flying train on January 10, 2011 - 12:33 pm
lets not shy away here. If there was an independence referendum tomorrow with a resulting ‘yes’ vote, there would be no tears from CCHQ. Without Scotland, they would be the more natural party of government for Westminster and England is much more a small c conservative nation than Scotland or Wales.
As for it being party policy, I cannot see it as ever happening. Abstaining (as I believe the labour party should do in Scotland if not even supporting a referendum) on the grounds of giving the people their choice would make perfect sense. So would allowing their msps, mp, councillors, members etc to campaign in which way they saw fit, though more likely the party in Scotland would officially campaign for a ‘No’ vote.
I don’t doubt most of the Scottish tories fundamentally believe in the union, but I am not so sure those of their colleagues down south do. Scotland is a drain to them. An obstacle in the way of their right to rule.
I also agree that a totally separate Scottish conservative party could do better. Low tax, small government etc etc could have its place and their still is a tory vote in Scotland and who says that in time it would not increase as other parties become less popular?
#6 by Malc on January 10, 2011 - 10:33 pm
I don’t disagree with much of what you say here. It was those sentiments that were behind my idea for the post – however unlikely its conclusion, I still thought it worth mentioning.
#7 by Jeff on January 10, 2011 - 2:24 pm
No name calling from me Malc. I’ve often thought the Conservatives may be the first of the UK unionist parties to tire of the half-way house of devolution and decide fiscal autonomy, at least, is the best alternative if the old United Kingdom is no longer option. And why not under Cameron? The right-wing of his party will increasingly get rankled with this coalition so, aside from Europe, the constitution and supposed ‘Jock-funding’ could easily be the issue they decide to make their feelings known with, whatever the party line is.
My only nagging objection would be that many Tories are not fussed about being 58 seats down as long as when they do get to govern then it is the full UK with all its history, pomp and military tradition that they get to play with. An ‘England’, while decidedly Tory, would lose a lot of that tradition and history that Conservatives are, quite reasonably, fond of.
#8 by Malc on January 10, 2011 - 10:32 pm
True – that’s probably the stumbling block. But I’m sure they could work out some kind of settlement in the divorce. Maybe they can get the castles and crown jewels at weekends?
#9 by neil craig on January 10, 2011 - 2:34 pm
I don’t see them formally calling for separation but Cameron would have to be some sort of saint or masochist to give way to the SNP on anything to prevent it. Labour needed the Scots, the Tories clearly don’t.
A comparisn can be made with Czechoslovakia where the old communist apparatchiks morphed into Slovak nationalists & won on a platform of demanding more money from Prague as the price of not seeking independence. The Czech government chose to interpret that as a demand for independence, though polls showed no majority for it, & waved them goodbye.
However Slovakia, standing on its own has not been the basket case expected.
#10 by Malc on January 10, 2011 - 10:31 pm
Yeah – that was my point. The Tories are still a toxic brand in Scotland, and don’t help him get a UK Government. Might be as well to ditch it… and your Czech-Slovakia analogy works. Except Slovakia are actually halfway decent at football…
#11 by Chris on January 10, 2011 - 3:59 pm
Or perhaps Cameron realises that most Scottish people don’t want independence, and a lot of those who do want it don’t think it is particularly important.
Why should he want to do something that would make his party even more unpopular?
#12 by Malc on January 10, 2011 - 10:30 pm
Can you rephrase that to “Could he do anything that would make his party more unpopular in Scotland than it already is?” If you do that, you can see that, though it is of course a risk, its not like the Tories in Scotland have much to lose by doing something risky, is it?
#13 by Amused Socialist on January 10, 2011 - 6:01 pm
Cameron cares deeply about his legacy and how he will be remembered. He hopes he will go down as a reforming PM who balanced the books and put Britain back on her feet.
Not as the man who destroyed her as a sovereign state. Only separatists think of such heinous crimes.
#14 by Malc on January 10, 2011 - 10:38 pm
Indeed. Though perhaps the best way to balance the books from a “South Britain” point of view is to ditch “North Britain” given the Barnett funding that we gain and they lose out on…?
#15 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on January 10, 2011 - 7:50 pm
no 1 there is already a bonefide Scottish conservative party its called the snp and in any Independent Scotland they would be fighting tooth and for all the right wing votes.
no 2 Cameron wants to be the prime minister not of the united Kingdom but of Great Britain in the mould of Churchill
the idea to him of being relegated to a minor office such as a little First Minister would make him physically sick.
sitting next to the Queen as the political leader of England,Scotland ,Cymru and Northern Ireland is to him
the absolute pinnacle of his entire life’s work(well not real work as we would know more a spiv like existence)
If you don’t understand that about Cameron then you really do not know him at all Cameron will never ever ever give up on the Union………..
And the strange thing is he detests and loathes most of the British peoples outside of the south East of England
#16 by Malc on January 10, 2011 - 10:28 pm
Actually, the bona fide Scottish conservative party is… the Scottish Conservative Party. But I’m sure some Nats will bite on your provocation.
Your second point though I will bow to. Of course he wants to be PM. All I’m suggesting is that he might find a way of extending his term in office… but at the cost of the size of his job. And yes – I know its unlikely (which is why I said it was a crazy idea!) but I’m sure it has been thought about…
#17 by James on January 11, 2011 - 9:20 am
John’s Budget suggests Mr Mxyzptlk is actually spot on. Tory cuts? Sure. Raise revenue? No way. I always argued against the Tartan Tory moniker on their behalf, but it’s just not possible anymore.
Although, tangentially, Kenny M and Ken C make a decent pair of pretty liberal Justice Secretaries. Sometimes the comparison isn’t all negative.
#18 by Malc on January 11, 2011 - 9:26 am
Actually James, If he’d said “centre right” I’d have ceded the point. But he didn’t – and there’s only one conservative party in Scotland. Of course, you can argue about what conservative means…
#19 by CassiusClaymore on January 10, 2011 - 7:50 pm
Not until the oil runs out……
CC
#20 by Malc on January 10, 2011 - 10:24 pm
Do I sense a cynic?!
#21 by cynicalHighlander on January 11, 2011 - 12:06 am
No I think a realist as the UK needs it to keep it afloat.
#22 by aonghas on January 15, 2011 - 2:22 pm
Oil revenues are less than one percent of last years deficit. To claim that they are needed to keep the UK afloat is exaggerating, just a little.
#23 by mav on January 10, 2011 - 9:51 pm
I’m naive. I believe politics is about convictions, beliefs, principles. Shout me down if you want. But based on that belief, and given that there is no evidence that the labour/libdems/cpnservatives are filled with people who don’t like the union, and a good deal of evidence that Cameron and the conservatives like and feel proud of being British, I’d just like to say this is the silliest thing I’ve read today. Not looked in this site for a while, and less likely to do so again.
#24 by Malc on January 10, 2011 - 10:23 pm
To be fair, I did say it was a silly idea myself. And I also never said there was any evidence that the “unionist” parties will “filled with people who don’t like the union”. But there may be some who don’t care that strongly about it either.
And I agree – and I’m naive too – in that I and you think politics SHOULD be about convictions and principles. But sometimes pragmatism/ electoral considerations trump them – and this is potentially one of those cases. As I said, I doubt it will happen, but there may be some consideration in a dark room at CCHQ somewhere about it…
#25 by DougtheDug on January 10, 2011 - 11:56 pm
There appears to be a major failure here to understand how the British establishment views Britain.
Losing Scotland would not be like a divorce for the Conservatives it would be like losing a limb. You may think of Britain as a political union which is a composite of two countries, a province and the remnant of a failed annexation but Cameron doesn’t. He thinks of Britain as one single unified country with provinces just as the Labour party and the Lib-Dems do.
In Scottish terms it would be like the Labour party encouraging the Highlands to form an independent country so they can have more control the central belt. Not impossible but very unlikely.
#26 by Malc on January 11, 2011 - 9:17 am
The last line is probably where I’d fall on the Tories for independence – not impossible but very unlikely. Of course it only makes sense from an electoral perspective – as soon as you use any kind of ideology, it falls. But then… is politics nowadays based on ideology… or electoral chances?
#27 by cynicalHighlander on January 11, 2011 - 12:09 am
North, East, West, South = News
N.Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland = ……..
Answers on a postcard.
#28 by CW on January 11, 2011 - 1:29 am
It’s not entirely ridiculous. Mischievous perhaps, unrealistic yes; but you’ll often hear it expressed on right wing blogs in exasperation at the perceived endless complaining of the bloody Jocks. Also, no less a conservative figure than Niall Ferguson has suggested it might be a good route for Cameron to follow for electoral reasons. Although Ferguson is known for being something of a mischief maker.
More pertinent is the possibility of the Tories embracing fiscal autonomy. There are always whisperings of younger Tory MSP’s being keen on the idea. The big white elephant in the room where that is concerned is, of course, oil.
#29 by Malc on January 11, 2011 - 9:20 am
Yeah. I wasn’t trying to be mischievous, honest guv. I genuinely think it would help the electoral chances of the Tories, both north and south of the border. And of course that comes at a cost – a high one if you are a unionist.
#30 by Chris on January 11, 2011 - 9:52 am
It’s even more farcical as it implies that Scottish Independence is in the gift of the British Prime Minister. The Scottish people have this choice and consistently show no enthusiasm for it.
#31 by Malc on January 11, 2011 - 10:57 am
Two things.
First – arguably Scottish independence actually IS the gift of the PM – or at least the UK Parliament. The Scottish Parliament has no jurisdiction over the constitution, so if independence was on the table, it would have to be legislated for at Westminster – and the PM (or his party) would have to put it on the table, so I can’t see why you are faulting me on that point?
Second – when have the Scottish people ever had this choice? If you are referring to elections… well, how many elections are fought solely on one issue? I agree that independence is currently – and at most points in the past – a minority concern (ie – less than 50% of the population before the Nats shout me down) but the only way for your statement to have any real meaning is to actually ask them the question.
#32 by Indy on January 11, 2011 - 10:56 am
The SNP is centre left, not centre right. It’s to the left of Labour, the Lib Dems and Tories but to the right of the Greens and SSP/Solidarity.
Mr M is just joking about the SNP being more right wing than Labour. Labour used to be left wing but have not been left wing for a long time and they are certainly not campaigning against the SNP from a left wing stance but from a right wing stance e/g. their preposterous rhetoric on knife crime (straight out of the Daily Mail), supporting the drinks industry on minimum pricing, pro privatisation of public services etc.
#33 by James on January 11, 2011 - 11:23 am
I’m still waiting for any evidence of anything leftish done to tackle poverty since 2007. Cutting local taxes to cut local services relied on by the poorest doesn’t count.
#34 by Indy on January 11, 2011 - 11:48 am
Maybe you should start by asking how do you tackle poverty in the first place without controlling the economy.
If I look at the Green website for example it talks about a universal approach to benefits, moving towards a citizen’s income, curbing excessive pay and bonuses. increasing the minimum wage, better parental leave anda Citizen’s Pension. All well and good – and in the case of the approach to benefits, a minimum income and the Citizen’s Pension SNP policy is the same as the Greens – but there is absolutely hee haw that any devolved administration could do to implement any of that, is there?
So you are left with the option of increasing taxes – which includes increasing taxes on the poorest. It’s a peculiar form of brilliance you appear to share with certain Labour councillors of my acquaintance. Let’s introduce a living wage – and then claw it back in increased taxation.
#35 by James on January 11, 2011 - 12:05 pm
You know I agree we should have more powers, but there are progressive and regressive ways to use existing powers. Land value tax would be much more progressive, for instance, and so too would be supporting local authorities rather than slashing their budgets. I’m amazed that your approach seems to be to equate taxes with taxes on the poorest. It’s not the approach we’d use.
#36 by Neil Craig on January 11, 2011 - 12:09 pm
Its really 3 separate questions.
Should Cameron as Conservative leader be happy wiuth Scottish independence?
Should the Conservative party in England promote separation?
Should the Scottish Conservatives support separation?
In matters of pure self interest the answers should clearly be yes, YES & no. If the Tories wish to try some new policies on the basis that they can’t do worse there are manyu sensible ones, such as tax cutting, which are anathema to the rest of our political class. This would be much more popular among potential supporters whereas going for independence would only be popular among people who would never under any circumstances vote for them anyway.
#37 by Indy on January 11, 2011 - 12:16 pm
Even if you could get a Land Value Tax passed by the SP – which is a big if- it could not be implemented immediately. Your own paper does not suggest it can be brought in till 2015. So, while you may be able to make a case that it might be a better form of taxation than council tax/business rates in the long term, it is not going to be a revenue raiser in the next term of parliament. Ergo when you talk about increasing the ability of councils to raise revenues you are talking about increasing council tax.
#38 by Colin on January 11, 2011 - 1:49 pm
Why would Cameron want to “ditch Nick and Vince”? They’re serving brilliantly as lightning rods. In an odd way, Scotland’s presence in the Union at the last election has actually ended up helping the Tories.
#39 by Chris Jones on January 11, 2011 - 3:25 pm
Not a bonkers idea at all, and one that has been discussed in the pub on many occasions… Just some things to chew on:
– The Tories were the biggest party of Scotland until they took a stance to disassociate themselves with sectarianism and the grubbier elements of west-coast unionism in the late 50s and early 60s…. Labour was only too happy to fill the void and give those unsavoury types a home, and continues to do so. The Scottish Conservatives have already demonstrated that they are not unionist at any price. Labour on the other hand are addicted to that built in Scottish bloc vote in Westminster.
– There are known “nationalists” in the elected ranks of the Tories in Holyrood and elsewhere… I’d support the idea that fiscal autonomy is something they would readily accept for all the arguments put forward already.
– It would detox the brand in Scotland, firmly putting away that Thatcher image that gets dragged up by Labour. As a chap from the North East of England I’ve always found Labour’s use of that up here particularly obnoxious. Remember how Jim Murphy launched their election campaign in the empty space left behind by Ravenscraig… whilst omitting to mention that his pal Mandelson had just weeks before presided over the closure of the steel industry in Teesside.
– Whilst the politics of the Tories are the opposite end of the spectrum to mine, where I do respect them is that they have consistently been one of the most adaptable of political beasts. Despite the moniker I would suggest they do change better than most…..
#40 by Dilettante on January 12, 2011 - 4:36 am
OK, here is the simple reason that Scottish Conservatives aren’t a centre-right pro-independence party: they aren’t pro-independence. Strange, huh? Like David Cameron, they are unionists. Becoming a pro-independence party would involve jettisoning something they believe in very strongly, which rather challenges the point them their being in politics at all. Its the same for the national party: there are sections that want an independent England, but there are others for whom the UK is our country and we shall try to win there, and lose there if necessary.
Labour didn’t do well in the south, yet you don’t see anyone in Labour arguing for us to break that off from a Socialist Republic of the North.
#41 by Malc on January 12, 2011 - 8:40 am
Do you remember Tony Blair? Do you remember how Labour were a socialist party in the 1980s? Do you remember how Tony Blair changed that because it wasn’t working electorally? Maybe they didn’t believe as strongly in their socialism as the Tories believe in the union…?
Look, I’m not saying its likely or imminent. All I’m saying is it could be an electorally smart move, which is effectively what Labour decided when they became “New Labour”. Possible, but not probable.
#42 by Mad Jock McMad on January 12, 2011 - 5:19 pm
There is growing anger against Cameron’s proposed Scotland Bill amendments in North Briton and these amendments are increasingly being seen within the prism of Thatcher’s slash and burn of the 80’s.
Two eminent economists have told the Scottish Parliament advisory committee on these amendments that the proposal will create a ‘perfect economic storm’ which will destroy the Scottish economy for decades.
I know at least two senior Scottish Tories who can only see disaster in putting Labour’s attempt to reign in the SNP into practice. Lord Forsyth has put his head above the parapet and said stop this nonsense now. The other can not because of his position with in the Holyrood Parliamentary Party but agrees whole heartedly with Forsyth.
On current polling analysis the Scottish Tories will be returning no MSPs from the West of Scotland, even on the list vote, so bye bye Annabelle.
Matthew Parris in a Spectator article suggests Scotland and England are drifting apart and sees it as ‘no bad thing’.
The split is there already there, its just the wonks at Westminster will not let themselves see it and are struggling to hold on the remnants of English Empire, just like Churchill, and just like Churchill they will fail.
#43 by B S on January 15, 2011 - 1:43 am
As a supporter and fully paid up member of the SNP I would welcome the Scottish Conservatives changing tack. I always enjoy the way Ms Goldie and the FM deal with each other during FMQ’s. It makes a change from listening to the hot air bellowing from the labour benches and the nonsense from the Lib Dems. I and many other nationalists (small n) rather like a lot of the Scottish Conservatives policies, and have to admit I also like Auntie Bella.
The assumption that more Scots would vote Tory if they supported either full fiscal autonomy or independence is completely true. I have friends of many political colours who would be tempted to switch if this were the case. Until then, they will always been seen as an English party or “Thatchers Party” which both strike a negative cord with the majority of Scots.
#44 by Exiled Nat on January 16, 2011 - 12:36 pm
Paraphrasing John Major
Unionists, put up or shut up.