Who would have thought that David Mundell could have earned himself such a famous place in the history books – the last Tory in Scotland?Â
It’s not a tale that will see James McAvoy chomping for the lead role but if Murdo Fraser is elected as leader of the Scottish Conservatives, the first thing he will do is disband the party and start a new right-of-centre group in Scotland.Â
Although I strongly suspect that it is a vote-loser and will do little to change Ruth Davidson being favourite in the contest, the policy is not altogether stupid.Â
Most people in Scotland are displeased with the direction that Cameron and Osborne are taking the UK and, irrespective of what differences there are in policy between Scots Tories and rUK Tories, candidates north of the border will inevitably suffer by association. Detoxifying the Tory brand in Scotland, still (bizarrely) suffering electorally from Thatcher’s policies, may well involve dumping Cameron.
After all, we have seen recently how unforgiving Scotland can be in such situations, the electorate ruthlessly punishing Scottish Lib Dem MSPs for a UK coalition that was not of their liking, let alone of their choosing.
Don’t be surprised if Rennie dumps Clegg as swiftly as Fraser is trying to dump Cameron if there is simply no way to reconcile the electoral arithmetic. Â
The blatant downside of this policy is that it completely undermines Conservative arguments for the continuation of the union. If the Scottish Tories’ solution to Cameron’s direction of travel is independence, then why shouldn’t Scotland’s be the same? You can almost picture Salmond rubbing his hands with glee as he read the papers this morning, just as much as you can picture Cameron banging his head off the kitchen table.
A further boost for the SNP here is that a break up of the UK Tories, even just a suggestion of it, puts pressure on Labour to do likewise. The fraying of the border got a little bit looser this weekend.
Another aspect of this policy that I don’t understand is that the Tories are using electoral misfortune to justify severing links with London. The Scottish Tories however are easily the 3rd largest party in Scotland which is an important position to be in. In order to cement that position they should really be pushing for greater PR rather than a stronger shade of blue on their party’s saltire. Indeed, had the SNP fallen short of its majority there was every chance it was only going to be the Tories that Salmond could have realistically dealt with. I daresay Fraser would not have put forward such a policy in that instance. Indeed, I daresay there wouldn’t even have been a contest and Goldie would be enjoying her last stint as leader with a deservedly elevated profile.Â
No, this policy is too impulsive and too short-sighted, it is looking at the right problem and coming up with the wrong solution.
At the end of the day, once the contest is over, Murdo risks being out on a limb here. Politicians shouldn’t be punished for coming up with new ideas but what becomes of a senior party MSP who no longer wants to be in the party?
I suspect we’ll find out soon. Â
#1 by Angus on September 4, 2011 - 11:34 am
I’m all for it, as a nat. And also because it would be interesting to watch. The Tories are doomed in Scotland because the Tory party is rife with Scotophobic chauvinism now, in 2011 – never mind the Maggie race memory stuff.
#2 by ReasonableNat on September 4, 2011 - 11:35 am
Nail on the head! It wouldn’t work (they’d still be the tories and everyone would know it – even the Lib Dems are the tories now), it sets the wrong example if they’re arguing for union, even just for ‘not much more devolution’, I say, go for it 🙂
#3 by DougtheDug on September 4, 2011 - 11:41 am
Since the Scottish Conservatives are an integrated part of the Conservative party Murdo Fraser can’t abolish them because he hasn’t got the power even if the Sanderson review goes through and creates a regional leader. Currently the Conservatives are just like Labour in only having an MSP group leader. All he can hope for is that he gets enough Conservative members to jump ship and that the rest of the Conservative party will look favourably on the new party.
Under Murdo’s plans everyone in the Scottish region of the Conservative party would resign and join his new party. What the Conservative party just did in Scotland was to hold a review of their Scottish region under Lord Sanderson and what was recommended was that they have a leader with as yet undefined powers for the region and that it was a very bad idea to break with the rest of the Conservative party. If Murdo is to become the leader of the Scottish region of the Conservatives then the leadership changes based on that review will have to be voted through first. That will be a bit of a conundrum as the party conference will be voting through a review which is firmly against a new party in Scotland and then voting in a leader created under that review whose platform is a new party in Scotland.
You couldn’t make it up.
And since Murdo Fraser said on TV that the new party would run joint candidates with the Conservatives for Westminster then Peter Mundell is unlikely to be the last Conservative MP in Scotland even if there is a new Scottish unionist Conservative-alike party created.
#4 by Tom Cresswell on September 4, 2011 - 12:36 pm
* David Mundell
* Ruth Davidson
At least you got Murdo’s name right 😛
But apart from the names, I agree with everything else written. The Torry leadership race looks set to have 3 candidates each offering a distinctly different direction for the party, and greatly making up for the lack of anything interesting happening in the Labour election…
#5 by Jeff on September 4, 2011 - 12:42 pm
Jeez, how embarrassing, I guess that’s what happens when you write a post BC (before coffee).
Yes, the Labour contest is a stultifying snoozefest. Good on Murdo for shaking up the Tory one even more. Infact, when I saw the headline ‘Lamont to stand for leadership’ I just assumed it was John rather than Johann such is the dismal state of the Labour situation. Though I might as well have thought it was Norman as good as I’m
doing with names today!
#6 by Tom Cresswell on September 4, 2011 - 12:59 pm
Too true. I found the Daily Record’s announcement of Johann standing (“Scottish Labour leadership contest heats up as Johann Lamont enters race”) as the greatest exageration of the year: Breaking News, the (hardly interesting) candidate who was likely to stand in the leadership election that currently has no candidates, and was generally expected to become the next leader, has announced she *might* stand!
I fear the idea of the Conservatives electing the 69 year old Lamont as the leader of their party would be a wonderful metaphor for the party in its current state, but it’d still be a better decision then to elect Carlow…
#7 by Jeff on September 4, 2011 - 1:03 pm
Haha, all true.
The fact that Ms Lamont would be (will be?) a spectacularly guff leader of Labour presumably goes without saying…
#8 by Allan on September 4, 2011 - 5:40 pm
I dunno about being spectacularly guff, but Ms Lamont is not (from what I can see) what Labour needs.
#9 by itsyourself on September 4, 2011 - 12:57 pm
The Scots Tory Party died today, unmourned by the nation after a long decline. No one was present, no one cared.
#10 by James on September 4, 2011 - 1:04 pm
I think it’s a commendable move. The CDU and the CSU work together, by and large, at a national German level. It means the leader at Holyrood will have real clout – even if (as on minimum sentencing) Ken Clarke was right and Annabel Goldie was wrong. For all Murdo’s fierce defence of the Union (the Unionist Party? seriously), it actually helps build a sensible post-independence politics too.
But you’re right, the pressure’s on Labour and the Lib Dems to get their act together – both continue to suffer from the dead hand of their UK level parties. There’ll be a shiny button for the first LD commenter that claims their notionally federal structure works well, by the way.
#11 by Richard Cain on September 4, 2011 - 1:39 pm
You’re right, James.
That the union is in terminal decline, that Scotland and England are slowly but surely diverging, is almost beyond debate in all reasonable circles.
What is truly astounding however, is that the “Conservative and Unionist Party” has awoken to the fact before the Lib/Lab Parties.
Murdo is obviously sticking his neck out here, so fair play to the guy. He’s thinking ahead, which doesn’t come naturally to a conservative (small or big “c”), unfortunately I think he’ll struggle to convince the rest of the party.
Although I wouldn’t support them myself, I think Scotland would benefit from a right-of-centre party that didn’t have the baggage that the Tories carry. However Murdo might find this easier to accomplish by just leaving the Tories and starting his own party.
#12 by John on September 4, 2011 - 4:21 pm
“What is truly astounding however, is that the “Conservative and Unionist Party†has awoken to the fact before the Lib/Lab Parties.”
Maybe not. There is probably still an institutional memory of the Scottish Unionist Party amongst Tories. They would effectively be going back to the structure of 1910-1965.
Whereas neither Labour or the Lib Dems have ever had such a history.
#13 by setindarkness on September 4, 2011 - 2:39 pm
If Labour and LibDems do the same as Murdo proposes, then all five* parties in Scotland will have separate Scottish parties – natural effect of devolution.
Once they have done that, they will look to their own party and Scotland’s interest ahead of the rest of the UK – and the devolution process will feed itself
If not independence something very similar.
* keeping James happy
#14 by Don McC on September 4, 2011 - 2:47 pm
I think if Murdo is successful, it’ll not be a matter of if but a matter of when Labour and Lib Dems do the same.
If we reach the stage where even that arch-Unionist party Labour has a truly Scottish party, then devolution will become really interesting.
#15 by Craig Kelly on September 4, 2011 - 1:26 pm
Jeff, I’m not sure if I agree with your appraisal. I do agree that Salmond et al will be rubbing their hands in glee at Murdo’s proposal, and I agree that it’s a pretty good idea. My problem is the suggestion that this is a knee jerk, whimsical answer to the Tories problems in Scotland.
Murdo Fraser is known to be very pro-devolution. A position which does him no favours within his party (the reality being that many Scottish grass-roots Tory members would happily turn back the tide on our recent constitutional changes). He is an astute politician and aware that there is significant room for a centre-right party in Scotland. It’s just that the Tories are still toxic in Scotland. This is no mere re-branding exercise. If done properly, Murdo would be the perfect person to lead a socially conservative, low-taxation, strong on law and order, and pro-devolution party. Maybe even soft on independence.
The SNP’s ‘something for everyone’ approach has been successful when there has been no young pretender to the crown of ‘Scotland’s Party’. But a centre-right party in Scotland, freed from the shackles of London association, could challenge that position. The SNP would no longer hold a monopoly on being purely Scottish. Many of the SNP’s newly found establishment friends in Edinburgh could quickly revert to type if provided with a viable alternative.
I don’t believe Murdo is purely reacting to circumstance or making a headline catching grab for leadership. Rather this suggestion fits perfectly with his pro-Holyrood position. If I were Salmond I would welcome the suggestion, whilst being slightly apprehensive of its potential. The cosy consensus of Scotland’s ‘left-leanings’ is a fallacy that not only Murdo Fraser is aware of.
#16 by James on September 4, 2011 - 1:37 pm
That’s the kind of comment that makes me love this place.
#17 by Jeff on September 4, 2011 - 2:10 pm
I like to think the article was pretty good too 😉
Just joking. That’s a robust and perfectly fair challenge Craig but I still think the policy will create more problems than it solves for true Tory unionists, whether it’s enacted or not. To what extent is Murdo such a beast? It sounds like you’ve got a much better handle on that than I so, yeah, absolutely fair points.
#18 by Anon. on September 5, 2011 - 1:52 am
Agreed. Good on Murdo for taking this position; somebody needed to do this within a unionist party, if only because somebody needs to propose a more equitable party structure for unionism to form an intellectually credible multinational argument. Sadly I agree that Murdo might well come up against a wellspring of Thatcherites and arch-unionist anti-devolutionist ‘look-at-your-passport-there’s-no-such-thing-as-Scotland’ types.
#19 by ReasonableNat on September 4, 2011 - 1:49 pm
Sorry, but, the LDs have been murdered up here just for going into coalition with the tories once, once!
Any party with a permanent association with the tories in westminster will be doing what the LDs have been shafted for doing – namely causing Scotland to have to suffer a tory government in Westminster. Any party that does this will suffer the same fate, guaranteed, doesn’t matter what it is called or what its policies are.
#20 by setindarkness on September 4, 2011 - 2:43 pm
But the Scottish LibDems are in general agreement with the UK libdems. Supposing a completely separate right-wing party led by Murdo was done properly, you could see them coming out right and apposing certain UK Tory ideas and policies. The electorate are not stupid and will not be so quick to punish them as there are doing with the LibDems
On the other hand, if this *is* merely a rebranding exercise, then the electorate are not stupid and will punish this “new” party – which will probably die a short and painful death
#21 by ReasonableNat on September 4, 2011 - 2:52 pm
Apologies, I don’t want to labour the point 😉
It isn’t about policies. It doesn’t matter how much they disagree with with Westminster Tory policies, if they prop up a Westminster Tory government (and with joint candidates that is exactly what they would be doing) they would be causing Scotland to be governed under Westminster Tories, and hence to suffer all of the effects of Westminster Tory policies. There is just no way out of this logic.
#22 by Indy on September 4, 2011 - 2:01 pm
I think it is the correct policy irrespective of whether you are a nationalist or a unionist. The fact is that there are a significant number of voters in Scotland who have a fairly right wing view on matters, who support a small state, free market economics and so on. Though I don’t agree with that point of view I think it is right that they should be represented democratically and their views should be given a voice.
My feeling is that they will always remain a minority in Scotland, will probably never reach above 25 per cent or so in electoral terms, but that’s not the point. The basic function of a proportional electoral system is to ensure that all points of view are represented and can have some input into democratic decision-making. So I don’t think it is a short-sighted policy at all, I think it is pretty long-sighted. After all, there is nothing intrinsically right wing about supporting the Union – while almost everyone agrees that the association with the UK party is damaging to the Scottish Tories.
#23 by Malc on September 4, 2011 - 2:10 pm
Thing is, there’s a massive issue potentially arising here for the Tories.
What if they go ahead and elect Murdo Fraser as leader, then he takes this motion to conference – disband, and start a new party – and is defeated? Doesn’t that undermine their new leader, just as they have given themselves a fresh start? And wouldn’t that be a typically Tory thing to do?
I’m with James – I like the model, based as it is on the CDU/CSU model. However, as Jeff rightly points out, its basically a terrible metaphor for the Union. “This union of parties isn’t working for us any more – let’s make our own and depart from the UK party”. The Nats would have a field day.
#24 by Tom Cresswell on September 4, 2011 - 3:03 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/04/scottish-tories-new-party-fraser?CMP=twt_gu
“Fraser’s leadership campaign has already attracted a number of prominent supporters, including the Manchester United manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, the former speaker of the Scottish parliament, Liz Smith, and the senior Scottish Tory MEP Struan Stevenson.”
Oh, the guardian, you do make me giggle, where to begin…
#25 by Gryff on September 4, 2011 - 3:40 pm
It makes perfect sense for the Conservatives in Scotland to do something pretty radical, clearly Scotland has a normal number of Right and Centre Right leaning folk. For the conservatives it must be enfuriating that a goodly proportion of them are voting for avowed left and centre left parties, not just as an occasional protest, but on a regular basis.
#26 by Gavin Hamilton on September 4, 2011 - 4:44 pm
This is such an interesting question for the non nationalist parties in Scotland.
I have often heard it argued that Labour, Conservative and LibDems have to be more Scottish – for each of them that is the route to doing better in Scotland.
I think amongst LibDems, analysis of what to do in the future was – very simply – split between either a) be more Scottish and b) explain better about what we are doing and why (oh and deliver some good stuff we care about/ be a brake on some bad Tory stuff)
Here we have Murdo in the Tories suggesting a couple of interesting things, and fair play to him to throw this into the mix for debate analysis and a democratic testing.
I don’t know the answer. My suspicion is it doesn’t really help – they will still be the Tories like the CDU/CSU are still the Christian Democrats.
Their brand outside of about 15% of voters still seems v v toxic – even to just touch it!
I think non nationalist parties need to focus on what they believe – their anlysis of the world around them and their ideas and solutions – there will be a ‘market’ for each of them and it is not written that the SNP will be with the angels forever.
The Tories do need to de-toxify and it is probably important that we have a Scottish centre right party arguing the case for small govt and low taxes etc etc as part of our political mix.
As someone said, Thatch is long gone now and it seems more grown up to approve or disapprove of Tory ideas on merit rather than out of Tribalism set way back in the mists of time, like the Eloi and Morlocks in The Time Machine
#27 by JPJ2 on September 4, 2011 - 4:55 pm
If Murdo wins the leadership he will destroy the Scots Tories-not because he is wrong, but because a sizeable chunk of the membership will disagree with him strongly enough to split their small party asunder.
#28 by Allan on September 4, 2011 - 5:58 pm
I think as has been said elswhere, the Tory party will only be turning the clock back to pre-Heath times when there was a Scottish Unionist Party that was small c conservative. But that was a time when the main Tory party was a lot more pragmatic and not driven by idealism – which was brought to the party by the likes of Thornycroft and Powell.
Of course if Fraser does win and gets his way (still some way off), it will see the reaction of the other “main” parties. A new soft right scottish party, if it exorcises the memory of Thatch, might take votes from the SNP and maybe push Labour leftwards (as they have been veering rightwards of late).
“Detoxifying the Tory brand in Scotland, still (bizarrely) suffering electorally from Thatcher’s policies, may well involve dumping Cameron.” – The mystery is not why the Tory brand in Scotland is still toxic, the singlehanded destruction of insustries that could have been invested in thus averting many of the problems Scotland still posesses being the main reason. The mystery is why when asked why they hate the Tories, many Scots go for their cack handed attempt to re-organise local government finance with the Community Charge. There are better reasons.
#29 by Jeff on September 4, 2011 - 6:06 pm
Good points Allan. I (somewhat embarrassingly) couldn’t tell you what the Poll Tax is or was. I suspect I’m not alone.
(though, to be fair, the poll tax isn’t the reason I don’t vote Tory)
#30 by douglas clark on September 4, 2011 - 6:36 pm
Allan @ 27,
Well, yes. Though you have not given any reason a Scot would should or could vote Tory:
Or is that it?
#31 by Allan on September 4, 2011 - 8:17 pm
I’m not sure I would be the best advocate for the Tory brand Douglas. As to causes, then the destruction of the heavy industries after the strangulation of the supply of money and its effect on the economy are good starting points…
http://humbug3.blogspot.com/2009/05/was-thatcher-good-for-scotland.html
#32 by Craig Kelly on September 4, 2011 - 6:53 pm
I’ve followed Murdo quite closely for a few years. During a debate at Dundee University, I asked where he would draw the line in terms of handing more powers to Holyrood (this was 3 years ago) and his response was, ‘there should be no line’. Murdo’s a social and cultural unionist. His strengths as leader of a centre-right party in Scotland would be that he is probably very similar to a large swathe of middle class SNP voters. His weakness, and biggest obstacle to this whole suggestion coming to fruition, is that the grass roots of the Tory party are dyed in the wool unionist.
Essentially, I think Murdo’s suggestion would have significant electoral potential – that old tartan Tory vote amongst others – but he wouldn’t receive support from those within his own party. He seems almost too pragmatic for his base.
I also agree that this is surely a natural result of devolution. All of the parties in Scotland will move to, at least some form of, independence from their London parents. How much is this indicative of a move towards independence? “UK wide parties don’t work, so the UK doesn’t work.” I’m not convinced by that. I’m more inclined to think we’re moving into a more sophisticated stage of devolution and this is merely an articulation of that.
Oh, and I did think it was a great article Jeff.
#33 by Jeff on September 4, 2011 - 7:13 pm
Wow, I’m genuinely stunned by that response from Murdo to your question. Maybe he does need to be in a new party but one quite distinct from the one he currently shares with unionists. You say that he is “too pragmatic for his base” but is it not the case that he may just be too ideologically removed from his base to lead them? Scotland deserves to have a party that will make a full-throated defence of the union. With Murdo in charge, would any of the three parties provide this?
For me, I just hope this doesn’t dominate and stifle the devolved Tory policy-generating process. They could have a real chance to roll out a host of ideas but timidity and constitutional affairs may get the better of them.
Anyway, long way to go in this contest. You appear to be an SME so please feel free to send in a guest post if you wish.
#34 by Barbarian on September 4, 2011 - 7:38 pm
I think Murdo comes across as an “old school” Conservative. His idea does have merit, and to be honest they should dispense with the old Tories since they are an irrelevance nowadays.
#35 by Craig Kelly on September 4, 2011 - 8:35 pm
I think that’s probably fair. Murdo is a great asset to Holyrood, but perhaps his unionist credentials leave something to be desired (for those that way inclined).
Excusing my ignorance, ‘SME’? But sure, I’d love to submit a post at some point. Thanks.
#36 by Jeff on September 4, 2011 - 9:50 pm
Subject Matter Expert. I’ve just realised that that might be crap chat confined to our office!
#37 by Aidan on September 5, 2011 - 11:24 am
No, it’s crap endemic across financial services. 😉
#38 by Gavin Hamilton on September 4, 2011 - 10:48 pm
Tartan Tories?
Do tartan Tories exist? Have they ever existed?
I thought this was just a term of political abuse invented by Willie Ross in the early 1970s to slag the SNP off so as to keep tribal left wing types in the Labour fold.
ie if you are not Labour you are a Tory.
But didn’t really stand up to analysis because there has since the 1950s been a strong demand for a non socialist alternative to the Conservatives.
#39 by Colin on September 5, 2011 - 10:46 am
They have little to lose, so this is their chance to try something new to shake things up. Both Murdo Fraser and Jackson Carlaw are proposing something new, with the latter wanting to return the party to its anti-devolution roots. Surprisingly, it’s Ruth Davidson who’s the boring choice here, as she seems to want to carry on more or less as they are.
But I suspect Jeff’s right that Fraser’s suggestion is a vote loser within the party. Pity.
#40 by Iain Menzies on September 5, 2011 - 11:55 am
I see alot of talk about how this would undermine the, i guess i have to do this, “conservative” case for the union. I don’t see how. In Northern Ireland you have the SDLP, up for reunification but take the Labour whip in westminster, and the UUP pro union but do there own thing.
The organisation of the Scottish Tory party, or whatever replaces it makes no difference to its ability to advocate the union, unless it takes a policy decision not to, which ain’t gonna happen.
Also this is nothing new. A good part of Craig Kelly’s comments above are from a year plus of me hectoring him. I think the first time i heard this idea suggested, and with Murdo’s name attached was about 6 years ago. I think you MASSIVELY overestimate the resistance there will be from the Tory membership…..not counting Forsyth…..and on the whole i tend not to count him….
#41 by ReasonableNat on September 5, 2011 - 1:58 pm
Naw! It’s the (delicious) metaphor, not the technicalities! If independence is good enough for the Scottish Conservatives, it must be good enough for Scotland too…. They’d make a (bigger still) joke out of themselves.
#42 by Iain Menzies on September 5, 2011 - 3:46 pm
you say independence i say devolution 😉
#43 by Ian Henry on September 5, 2011 - 12:36 pm
If there is an independent party standing in Scotland and a separate conservative party standing in England and Wales then the BBC couldn’t allow Cameron to take part in leadership debates as his party isn’t national. (As they did with Salmond).
#44 by Iain Menzies on September 5, 2011 - 1:13 pm
You aren’t actually serious are you? That is an argument that holds no water at all. I could counter it by saying that Nick Clegg isnt really leader of the Scotish Lib Dems, but theres an easier and more relevant point. In the leaders debates the only leader who could actually claim to be a national candidate was David Cameron, and it was only the Tory party that was in any meaningful sense putting up candidates in Northern Ireland….what with the UUP link up. Moreover, no one is suggesting that the Scottish Conservative successor party wouldnt take the Conservative whip in Westminster, so cameron would rather be the head of a party seeking election be the head of an electoral pact seeking election.
#45 by Jeff on September 5, 2011 - 1:38 pm
Ian raises a very interesting point though. Assuming Scotland stays a part of the UK, assuming the Scottish Tories disband and assuming that Cameron wins the next election, the PM would be a member of a party that had no representation in Scotland whatsoever.
I appreciate that this is the case for NI already but maybe Scotland would prove a tipping point too far.
#46 by Iain Menzies on September 5, 2011 - 1:53 pm
I guess the only response to that would be, and i suspect this is something that you will hear alot from murdo, is that all that would mean would be a return to what was the case for the majority of the 20thC under the old unionist party.
#47 by Andra on September 5, 2011 - 2:06 pm
I expect the new Scottish party could/ would be invited into coalition with the Conservatives even if the Conservatives had a majority on their own. This would allow Scottish MPs to take position of Secretary of State for Scotland and other government office.
#48 by Doug Daniel on September 6, 2011 - 9:50 am
To be honest, I’m not sure it would be any more of a problem than their current situation. I know 1 MP is technically representation, but it already feels like they’re an English government, which is doing nothing to improve their fortunes up here.
#49 by mav on September 6, 2011 - 10:08 pm
I had thought that too. However, history proves me wrong, albeit in a rather convoluted way. See the Scottish Unionist MP for Kinross and West Perthshire, 1963-64.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Douglas-Home
#50 by Ian Henry on September 5, 2011 - 2:14 pm
No I wasn’t being very serious, just taking a cheap shot at the beeb.
That is exactly the reason given by the BBC for refusing to allow Alex Salmond or Angus Robertson to take part in the leaders debate for the Westminster election.
I am curious as to how they would rewrite the rules to allow Cameron but not Salmond.
#51 by commenter on September 5, 2011 - 10:40 pm
Here’s the rule: Cameron – hundreds of MPs that 90% of the viewership can vote for, could end up PM, therefore gets on the panel. Salmond – double figures MPs that 9% of the viewership can vote for, therefore doesn’t get on the panel.
#52 by Andra on September 5, 2011 - 2:13 pm
What are the name options for this new party?
Ruled out will be: “Conservative”, “Unionist”, “Christian”
Options for consideration: “Scottish”, “Progressive”, “Liberal”
Is “Scottish Progressive Party” the leading option?
Or “Progressive Liberal Party” that would be a shocker for the LibDems – send it a strong message of change – and give the new party access to 30% of the vote in one swoop.
#53 by Iain Menzies on September 5, 2011 - 2:56 pm
why on earth would Unionist be out?
#54 by Andra on September 5, 2011 - 3:41 pm
I’m sure the party would be a Unionist party for the forseeable future – but the word might alienate some, and might dilute the message that the party’s first responsibility is Scotland and the Scottish Centre Right agenda. It would be wrong for the party to be seen as dogmatic Unionist.
Nationalism is thriving because Unionism is not working for everybody. The solution is to prove that the Union can work; not to dogmatically demand the Union but then not fix the causes of the problem (weak economy, lack of confidence, over reliance on Public Sector, etc).
Personally, I think the Union is the scapegoat, not the reason, for all that is wrong in Scotland. A party that names itself the Scottish Scapegoat Party is doomed to failure, and will continue taking the blame until the Union fails. The party needs to get onto firm ground and start working for it’s main priorities – if the party is successful and gains 30% of the vote then the need for Nationalism will fade.
#55 by Doug Daniel on September 5, 2011 - 11:46 pm
Alternatively, as the constitutional question becomes more pronounced in people’s minds, perhaps being seen as the standard bearer for unionism could play out well for the Tories?
#56 by Richard on September 5, 2011 - 4:56 pm
Is the problem for the Tories not that the conservatism it promotes is out-of-kilter with that desired by much of conservative Scotland?
While I expect many of Scotland’s lawyers and businessmen still vote Tory, the section of our society that seems to have turned its back on the party most dramatically is small-town Scotland, whose English counterparts form the backbone of Conservative support south of the border: places like Montrose and Nairn, which would be staunchly Tory in England, yet support the SNP. The problem in these towns is not with the Conservative brand: it’s with Conservative ideology.
When the dominant Conservative ideology was that of One Nation Toryism, the party’s support in Scotland was robust. Its combination of social conservatism, promotion of small business, and support for state provision chimed with the views of conservative Scots who recognised the importance of community and compassion. The adoption of neoliberal economic policies has been seen by that part of Scotland as alien to those traditional Scottish values. If Murdo Fraser wants the Scottish Tories to become a political force again, he needs to look at the Conservatives’ policies, not the Conservatives’ branding. And this coming from a man who will never, ever vote Conservative….
#57 by Iain on September 5, 2011 - 5:48 pm
Finally enough, Salmond blamed Thatcher’s social policies rather than her economic policies.
The collapse of the small town conservative base might be better explained by the centralised funding of the Scottish Conservatives – with successive leaders becoming overdependent on big donors at the expense of the network of constituency associations.
#58 by Erchie on September 6, 2011 - 8:03 am
That isn’t correct.
Salmond said that Scots objected to her social policy more even than the economic policy.
He used a fairly normal turn of phrase that opponents and press seem to have suddenly forgotten existed and decided to misinterpret.
“I wasn’t the mugging I objected to so much as the colour clash on the mugger’s clothes”
Does that mean I accepted and welcomed the mugging, no.
Same for Salmond’s statement
#59 by Andra on September 5, 2011 - 7:01 pm
He needs to look at branding and policies. I saw him on tv the other day/night being asked for examples of what policies might be different – the best he could come up with was policy towards the Comman Fisheries Policy. To me that it anti-european rhetoric – and zero out of ten for substance as far as 99% of the polulations is concerned. If he’s scared to contradict Central Office then he’ll go nowhere. He could easily say that Scotland is more pro-Europe than England (being pro-union and anti-EU is a rediculous contradiction), less anti-imigration (we need more people); there must be others.
#60 by Jamie on September 5, 2011 - 11:16 pm
I object a lot to how much Murdo and the press have been using the term “centre-right” to describe them. The Tories are not centre-anything, they are well and truly right wing by Scottish standards. That is their problem. The brand is toxic because the policies are. A new name wont change anything.