Leaders debates in Scotland are underway. Early noise on them is what you’d expect: Nicola Sturgeon dominant, Kezia trying hard to make Labour still sound relevant to Scots, but not quite making it; the Lib Dems and Greens struggling for relevance as well; Ruth Davidson looking like she should be the leader of the opposition in a few weeks time, while being weighed down by her party over and over again.
The Tories are screwed as a brand in Scotland. Everyone who knows anything about UK politics has known that for a long time – it seemed weird to even have to type something so obvious. The collapse in the 1980s and then another in the 1990s that essentially removed them as even a minority voice in Scottish politics made that clear. In fact, you’re seeing it now in the form of Ruth Davidson’s leadership of the Scottish Conservative Party: lots of unionists or Scots who aren’t that keen on the SNP for other non-Indy related reasons quite like her. Many more of them would vote for her party – if that party was anything other than the Tories. So why do the Scottish Conservatives persist with a link to a party in England that can only cost them votes?
Even back in the days when the Tories mopped up their fair share of seats in Scotland (until the late 1950s, lest we forget, the Tories vied consistently with Labour for most seats there), they were actually two parties in Scotland that shared the whip: the Unionists and the National Liberal and Conservatives. The Unionists always got most of the Tory seats back then (although it should be noted, usually needed the NL&C votes for the Tories to be considered the “biggest party” in Scotland). Why not ditch the Tories altogether, say they won’t take the whip from them even, and start a new Unionist Party unencumbered by a Thatcher related past?
I have been trying to think of what they have to lose, but to paraphrase Karl Marx, I can come up with nothing but their chains to a brand that will always be negatively perceived in Scotland. Seriously, what’s stopping them? Money, I suppose, but surely there would be wealthy Scots willing to prop up a party fully dedicated to unionism. It seems to me that all that is needed is a little bit of moxie – although, given the rough ride new political parties get in Britain, I suppose there has to be some empathy with the hesitation. But only some.
As it stands, Kezia Dugdale will probably be the leader of the opposition in the Scottish parliament still after the May elections, if one was being honest (I have predicted the Tories coming in second in Scotland previously; now I’m not so sure). Even in a era when Scottish Labour appears to be on a path of irreversible decline and the Scottish Conservatives have a leader most Scots like and who doesn’t come across as anything like a stereotypical Tory, the Blues still probably won’t breakthrough. Should that come to pass, the Tories in Scotland should seriously think about what their next move will be.
I think it would be a bit weird to begin the establishment of a Unionist party by devolving yourself from a national one!
Also, the Conservative party is currently the only truly national UK party; it is the only one to contest seats in all parts of the UK. Labour don’t; the Lib Dems don’t. That’s quite important, I think, for the image of the one party firmly committed to the idea of the Union as a true single-nation union with one, national politics (rather than a sort of federalised system).
So in order to maintain that, if the Scottish Tories were to become the Unionists, the national Conservative party would have to field candidates actively opposing their former colleagues. Which would be a bizarre situation.
And finally, if members of the new party were to be elected to the Commons, presumably they would vote with the Conservatives most of the time, so they would be de facto taking the whip anyway — and voters would see through that. But, on the other hand, presumably they would not be able to take ministerial posts if the Tories were in government, as now, as they weren’t taking the whip (unless there was a coalition and, again, voters would see through that). So they would have all the disadvantages of being seen to be effectively Tories but without the advantages of possibly taking a rôle in government.
Basically, it would be a complete mess: that’s why it won’t happen.
“I think it would be a bit weird to begin the establishment of a Unionist party by devolving yourself from a national one!”
Clearly you are ignorant of Irish and Ulster political history.
Clearly you are ignorant of Irish and Ulster political history
Curious as to which party you mean. The DUP (and other splinter groups) split from the UUP, so they didn’t devolve themselves a national party.
The UUP itself wasn’t founded by a breakaway group from a national party, was it? It’s not like the Conservatives in the 1890s had a local branch that broke away to form the Irish Alliance (like the article suggests for Scotland). I was under the impression that it was quite the reverse: rather than being a rebel breakaway group from the national party, the Irish alliance was a local group formed to resist Home rule, which then allied itself to the national party. Perhaps I’m wrong. Am I wrong?
That’s the direction I would expect a Unionist group to take: a local group joining up with a national party. Uniting, as it were.
The reverse — a local branch splitting itself off from the national party and then, presumably, competing with them in elections — still seems bizarre to me and, well, contrary to the spirit of Unionism…
Ah. It’s a bit more complicated…
There were Conservative and Liberals Irish MPs across Ireland, which was under direct rule from London, from well before the 1880s. They contested seats with the Irish Nationalists.
When the Liberal leadership in London moved to backing Irish devolution, the Conservative party merged with dissident Liberals and retitled itself the Unionist Party.
When the Unionists / Conservatives during the first world war began to flirt with compromising on Irish devolution, the Irish Unionists broke from their national London-based leadership to fight for continued union with England and Scotland, as they did not now feel their own leadership would back them as much as they wanted.
When southern Ireland left the UK after the Civil War, the remainder of the Unionists in the North reorganised themselves as the Ulster Unionist Party.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives gradually returned to their original name in the rest of the country.
The DUP then split form the UUP in the 70s.
So yes, all the Irish Unionists are linear descendants of a party that split from a British party in order to fight for continued union with Britain.
I can see that happening again, or a variation of it, in Scotland.
Ah, yes, right, I was thinking of when new parties were initially founded. But yes, there have been instances of breaks being caused by the national parties betraying the local party would like (the Anglo-Irish Agreement drove a wedge between the UUP and the Tories too).
However, that wouldn’t be the case here: the national Conservative party is still committed to the Union, so the Scottish branch couldn’t plausibly complain that they were being betrayed, Home Rule Act-style.
Further more, your assumption that a new group would automatically run in competition with the ‘official’ Tories is not inevitable.
The two parties could allow members to be members of both parties simultaneously, as the LibDems and the Alliance do.
This is pretty similar to how the Bavarian Christian Social Union work in Germany – they are a sister party to the Christian Democrats, but hold their own policies and the CDU / CSU is effectively a permanent coalition.
It may well be weird from certain perspectives, but human beings are good at making ‘weird’ into ‘normal’. They do it all the time.
The two parties could allow members to be members of both parties simultaneously, as the LibDems and the Alliance do
But the Lib Dems don’t stand candidates in opposition to Alliance candidates. It’s fine to be a ‘sister party’ when you’re not actually running against each other.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, would either have to stand candidates in opposition to the new Scottish party, or give up being the only UK party to stand candidates in all parts of the country — and I can’t see either of those options being acceptable to the Conservatives.
This is pretty similar to how the Bavarian Christian Social Union work in Germany
But that works because Germany is a federal system — the UK isn’t and Conservative policy is opposed to more UK federalism, so it would seem hypocritical for them to adopt a federal-style stance on this issue. It would smack of opportunism.
Not to mention that the whole point is supposed to be to disassociate the Scottish party from the Conservative ‘brand’. How would that work if they were seen as, effectively, the CSU to the Tories’ CDU, in a permanent coalition?
Voters aren’t stupid, you can’t just change the name and expect them not to notice the connection.
Do the Tories really run in Northern Ireland? If so, they don’t try very hard. I think UKIP runs candidates across the country though. I suppose it could sort of work if the local Tories don’t insist on keeping the old party going and if they insist that they would not necessarily sign up to a Tory government in Westminster but only back it on certain conditions. That strategy could fall into a LibDem-shaped hole eventually though…
Do the Tories really run in Northern Ireland? If so, they don’t try very hard
Yes, they do, and no, they don’t.
See: http://www.niconservatives.com/