Welsh v Scottish Tories
October 28, 2009 by David Torrance · Leave a Comment
This from today’s Scotsman:
TURN your minds back to that memorable night in 1997: a Labour landslide; an end to 18 years of Tory rule; and, in Scotland and Wales, not a single Conservative MP left standing. Now turn your attention to next year’s general election: polls suggest that Cameron’s Conservatives may end up with, at best, two or three seats in Scotland, while in Wales they could secure up to a dozen constituencies.
A YouGov poll in yesterday’s Western Mail (Wales’s equivalent of the Scotsman) serves to illustrate the gap between the two. While Labour scored 34 per cent, the Conservatives were just behind with 31 per cent, with the Welsh Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, trailing on just 15 per cent and the Liberal Democrats on 12 per cent.
Compare and contrast with the most recent Westminster voting intention poll for Scotland, which puts the SNP on 38 per cent, Labour on 25 per cent, the Conservatives on 18 per cent and the Lib Dems on 14 per cent. As the Scotsman revealed earlier this month, this is likely to give the Tories just two seats in Scotland at the next election.
The Welsh poll, if translated into seats at the general election, would give the party an astonishing twelve seats, a gain of nine on its 2005 tally of three. For a party which (as in Scotland) got none in 1997, that is quite a turnaround. And when you put it in total constituency context – Wales has 40 compared with Scotland’s 59 – it is even more remarkable, not to mention unsettling for the Scottish party.
Polls, however, are polls. As the old adage dictates, the only poll that truly counts is polling day. Yet even that does not provide respite for the Scottish Tories vis-à-vis the Welsh. At the European Parliament elections in June the Conservatives in Wales beat Labour in the popular vote for the first time in living memory, while in Scotland – and despite largely successful attempts to depict the result as a triumph – the party came third and its vote share declined.
The Welsh Conservatives, then, are obviously in rude health. But then that has at least something to do with the state of Plaid Cymru. Like their sister party, the SNP, Plaid are in government in Wales, although only as junior partners in a grand red-green coalition dominated by Labour. The weakness of Labour also goes some way to explaining Conservative strength: the poll shows the party to be in a dismal state in one of its historic heartlands.
All of which begs the obvious question – why are the Conservatives on the march in the Principality but not in Scotland? In terms of policies, leadership and historical context, there is little in the Welsh experience that differs markedly from that in Scotland. Indeed, until recently party support in the two component parts of the UK followed similar patterns. Indeed, while Scotland returned one Tory MP in 2001, Wales remained a Tory-free zone.
Greater cynicism about the devolution experiment in Wales may also go some way towards explaining the performance gap. Famously, the referendum there barely scraped a “yes” vote for an Assembly while in Scotland there was a decisive majority endorsing a Scottish Parliament. In leadership terms the Welsh and Scottish Conservative parties also had their share of problems: in Wales Rod Richards was forced to resign as leader following accusations of assault (he was later cleared); in Scotland David McLetchie stood down following pressure over taxi expenses in 2005.
Analysis of the parties’ respective performances in the devolved institutions may offer more by way of an explanation. Although both have a similar proportion of seats (12 out of 60 in Wales; 17 out of 129 in Scotland), the Welsh party has been remarkably good at gaining constituency seats, most recently winning five at the 2007 Assembly elections. This suggests strong party organisation which simply does not exist north of the border.
It seems to have little to do with leadership. The YouGov poll, for example, shows a big gap between those who rate the Welsh Conservative leader, Nick Bourne, as opposed to the party as a whole, while in Scotland Annabel Goldie is often revealed as her party’s biggest asset. But there are tactical differences. In Wales, Bourne began the process of “detoxifying” his party long before David Cameron came along.
This took several forms, but vocal support for the Welsh language and an early acceptance that a coalition with Plaid Cymru might, at some point, become necessary, are the most prominent examples. As a result, the Tories are no longer depicted as being “anti-Welsh” in Wales, while the same cannot be said of the party in Scotland. Goldie’s policy of a la carte support for the SNP, meanwhile, seems to have had little impact on party support.
Scottish Tories protest that Scotland has a more crowded political arena, while Wales lacks a Nationalist movement with a big ‘N’. There is, to be fair, something in this. Plaid Cymru are markedly weaker than the SNP, and still presents itself as ostentatiously left-wing, to an extent Alex Salmond and his party abandoned long ago. This means that in Wales there is no competition on the centre-right, while in Scotland the SNP’s ease with the neo-liberal agenda prevents the Scottish Tories maintaining a unique political identity.
Nevertheless, the disparity between the state of Welsh and Scottish Conservatism remains embarrassing for the party north of the border, not to mention frustrating for David Cameron: if his colleagues in Wales can take on Labour and the Nationalists, then why not in Scotland? Perhaps the Tory brand in Scotland is just too toxic, too immune from warm words and smart political tactics.
There appears to be no formal mechanism by which the Welsh and Scottish Tories (beyond meetings of the Shadow Cabinet at Westminster) can swap notes, but arguably there ought to be. There could be fewer than five months until the next general election, perhaps Annabel Goldie should despatch a key aide to Cardiff as a matter of urgency.
David Torrance is a freelance writer, journalist and broadcaster.
DAVID TORRANCE
ENDS
Political déjà vu
October 11, 2009 by David Torrance · Leave a Comment
I think it was Arthur James Balfour who declared that history doesn’t repeat itself, politicians merely repeat one another. Well there was a double does of political déjà vu this weekend from the SNP and Labour. First of all, First Minister Alex Salmond has said that a hung Parliament would be the best outcome of the next general election, maximizing SNP influence and ensuring that London, according to Salmond, could be ‘hung by a Scottish rope’ if no party wins a majority. The funny thing is, Salmond raised the same scenario in the run up to the 1987 general election, forging an alliance with Plaid Cymru and warning that he would want Ravenscraig protected in return for his party’s support. Labour, meanwhile, are also at it, reviving, yet again, the ‘Tartan Tory’ tag to present the Nationalists as Conservatives in disguise. Today the party launched its ‘Vote SNP, Get Tory’ campaign. ‘Everyone remembers what they did in 1979 to get the Tories into office,’ said Stirling MP Anne Maguire, ‘Now they are preparing to do the same again. Scotland will not be fooled.’ Full marks to both parties for lack of originality.
The Modern SNP: From Protest to Power
October 10, 2009 by David Torrance · Leave a Comment
Another new book, but this time not by me. I am, however, a contributer along with a whole host of politico-academic stars. My chapter is on the ’79 Group.
Publisher’s blurb:
“The Scottish National Party has played a significant role in the politics of Scotland in the last forty years. In particular it has contributed to and shaped the impact and dynamics of devolution. This collection brings together academics, writers, commentators and analysts of Scottish politics to address the nature of the SNP: its position in Scotland, its influence on devolution, its role as a minority administration and its relationship with other institutions in Scotland, the UK and Europe.”
You can order this Edinburgh University Press publication from amazon.co.uk. You can also read editor Gerry Hassan‘s recent piece on his book in the Sunday Times.
Cameron unlikely to solve Tories’ Scottish conundrum
October 7, 2009 by David Torrance · 1 Comment
A belated posting about my piece on the Conservatives and Scotland in yesterday’s Scotsman, not online in full so here it is:
CONSERVATIVE leaders always end up feeling frustrated by Scotland, perplexed that their warm words, tailor-made initiatives and endless visits do not produce the same political capital they do in England and, intriguingly given recent voting patterns, Wales.
Disraeli got so irritated by the ingratitude of North British electors he declared that the “Scotch shall have no favours from me until they return more Tory members to the House of Commons”. His successors – yes, even the much-maligned Margaret Thatcher – have managed to keep similar sentiments private.
David Cameron is but the latest in a long line of Tory Party chiefs to try and win over the Scots. In Manchester this week the charm offensive continues. Although the agenda boasts no more Scottish content than usual, a beefed-up media strategy aims to demonstrate that Scotland is never far from Dave’s thoughts.
But those thoughts are realistic. Cameron knows that any electoral progress in Scotland is bound to be modest, while unlike some of his predecessors he realizes that there’s no magic solution to his party’s performance in a Scottish context. His pitch in next year’s general election will be simplistic yet straightforward: it is a British general election to choose a British prime minister; in that context the SNP is irrelevant.
While the party’s poll lead over Labour in England and Wales fluctuates between seven and 15 points, in Scotland it is flat lining, although private polling suggests a vote share of more than 20 per cent in Scotland come polling day. Even so, as Saturday’s Scotsman speculated, the number of Scottish Tory MPs returned could as low as two – just enough to staff the Scotland Office with a Secretary of State and deputy.
Party strategists, of course, refuse to be gloomy, pointing to the recent Euro elections in which a Westminster constituency breakdown showed the Conservatives taking six seats. This is misleading, for not only was the turnout desultory, but the party’s vote share worse than in 2004; indeed it marked another reduction in vote share, as there has been at every election, UK, Scottish or European, since 1997.
All of David Cameron’s planning for Scotland should he form a government next June has, therefore, to take account of this unpalatable context. Despite offers to work with Alex Salmond, warm words about treating Scotland “with respect” and a promise to make UK ministers answerable to MSPs, a Cameron government will be on the defensive in Scotland almost from day one. There will not even be the luxury of a honeymoon.
The SNP and Labour, meanwhile, will zealously dust off all their 1980s battle cries. Cameron will constantly be reminded that he has “no mandate” to govern Scotland (despite the existence of a devolved parliament, which was supposed to bury that constitutionally illiterate complaint once and for all) while every careless remark and botched initiative will immediately be decried as “anti-Scottish”. Puerile, yes, but an inescapable fact of Scottish political life.
Cameron does have some plus points, relatively speaking. He is not, as Labour mischievously claim, “even more unpopular than Margaret Thatcher in Scotland”, although his party probably is. At UK level Cameron is undeniably an asset and although not wildly popular with Scots there’s no evidence that he’s deeply unpopular either. For a Tory leader in Scotland, that can only be a good thing.
Annabel Goldie will also provide a useful personality buffer in her capacity as leader of the Scottish Conservative Party. A million miles from Tory hate figures like Michael Forsyth, she even enjoys constructive relations with the SNP. This may blunt SNP attacks without eliminating them. Her speech at conference yesterday, which had unprecedented prominence, was assured, realistic and hit all the right notes with predominantly English delegates.
While Vince Cable’s recent prediction that a Tory victory would trigger a “constitutional crisis” in Scotland was overblown, there is also trouble brewing when it comes to constitutional reform. Historically, Scottish Conservatives have always been adept at practicing pragmatic Unionism, be that the creation of a Scottish Office or the steady transfer of more administrative powers from London to Edinburgh during the 20th century.
But of late that instinct seems to have deserted them. Instead of endorsing the recent recommendations of the Calman Commission on Devolution, which the party initially signed up to, the party is in little-publicised disarray: some MSPs reject the notion of more financial powers outright; others are lukewarm and only a few are genuinely enthusiastic.
When I asked a senior party figure which of Calman’s recommendations Cameron would implement on becoming prime minister, I was told “the stuff about mutual respect”. Conveniently, that doesn’t require any legislation, just warm words. David Cameron is good with warm words, but he isn’t that good. Cue inevitable accusations of backtracking and cries of “same old Tories”.
There is also the English dimension to consider. A recent survey of Tory candidates revealed a worrying indifference when asked about Scotland; a majority even said they wouldn’t lose any sleep over Scotland leaving the Union. Indeed, scratch a Tory delegate at this week’s conference and the result isn’t exactly positive. Cameron, therefore, will not only have to keep a close eye on little Englander backbenchers, but also his party’s grassroots.
Apparently Cameron likes to see himself as a modern Harold Macmillan, while comparisons with his Old Etonian predecessor, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, are a favourite of the commentariat. There is a possibility that he could instead become another Edward Heath. Both were reforming Young Turks who promised an end to the old politics; both were much exercised by the Scottish question, Heath with his much-vaunted “Declaration of Perth”.
In government from 1970-74, however, Heath reneged on his pledge to devolve power to Scotland and his government was destroyed by events, largely economic, but also of its leader’s own making. Assuming the current recession continues Cameron too could be undone by events. Scotland, quite naturally, would slip down his list of political priorities.
Thursday, the last day of conference and the date for Cameron’s keynote speech, is also “Great Britain day”, when the party’s Shadow Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Secretaries will talk about “building a stronger
union and a greater Britain”. During visits to Scotland Mrs Thatcher was fond of quoting Disraeli’s dictum that the Tory Party is a “national party or it is nothing”. For obvious reasons it’s an aphorism unlikely to be adopted by Dizzy’s 21st-century successor.
DAVID TORRANCE
ENDS
Good Morning Scotland
October 2, 2009 by David Torrance · Leave a Comment
I was on this morning’s Good Morning Scotland talking about what makes a good Scottish Secretary (this weekend is Jim Murphy’s first anniversary in the post) with former First Minister Henry McLeish. You can listen to it on iPlayer, I’m on at about 8.40 a.m.