Holyrood Magazine
May 17, 2009 by David Torrance
I was at the Scottish Tory conference in Perth this weekend, mainly to sell copies of my new book, but also to see David Cameron’s keynote speech. To coincide with the annual gathering, I had an article analysing the party’s prospects in the most recent edition of Holyrood magazine. Unfortunately, its editorial content isn’t online, so I’ve included it in this posting:
David Cameron will mention many things in his speech to the Scottish Conservative conference later this month, but among them is unlikely to be any reference to Margaret Thatcher, who almost exactly 30 years ago made her first public speech as Prime Minister at the same gathering of the Scottish Tory faithful in Perth. The omission says a lot about the party’s recent past, its confidence at present, and its prospects for the future.
In a way it is understandable. Cameron and his advisers know that any mention of the Iron Lady in a Scottish context, particularly words of praise, would dominate coverage of the weekend, and not in a good way. Cue a flurry of press releases from the SNP and Labour reminding Scots how wicked and damaging Mrs Thatcher’s reign was north of the border. Silly and unfair, yes, but something Cameron can do without as he plans his path to Downing Street.
But is Scotland an important part of that path? Scottish Conservatives certainly hope so, but the evidence is mixed and not altogether encouraging. First we must consider the leadership. At a UK level David Cameron is obviously an asset. And although not wildly popular (although his first visit to Scotland was, like Thatcher’s in 1975, greeted warmly), there’s no evidence that he’s unpopular either. For a Tory leader in Scotland, that’s a good thing.
At Holyrood, meanwhile, there is Annabel Goldie. The target of regular sniping from right-wing commentators, if assessed by most normal criteria – performance at First Minister’s Questions, public recognition, and, not unimportantly, sheer humanity – then she continues to do well. True, Goldie isn’t a policy wonk or as slick as Cameron, but she represents good-humoured stability for a party which had a difficult period culminating in the resignation of her predecessor.
And talk of Goldie being replaced is political fantasy. Not only is there no obvious successor, nor is it likely that one would magically “emerge” during a leadership contest, but no appetite for a leadership challenge. She was elected unopposed in late 2005 and with Murdo Fraser still in place as deputy leader, an election contest this side of the general election is extremely unlikely.
Two relatively new members of the Scottish Tory hierarchy are Andrew Fulton and George Kynoch, Chairman and Deputy Chairman respectively. Both tend to see politics from a very Westminster perspective, the sort of people who glean their politics from the Daily Telegraph and don’t pay too much attention to the Holyrood angle. But they compliment each other well: Fulton isn’t terribly political but amiable; Kynoch has more political nous but is harder edged.
There’s also Michael Crow, or ‘Mike’ Crow as he’s rebranded himself since joining the party from a successful career at Scottish TV. As director of strategy and communications he’s successfully planted a lot of helpful media stories, as well as make specific campaigning issues – most notably Edinburgh’s trams fiasco – more closely identified with the party. He’s also been closely involved with planning this May’s conference.
In terms of strategy, however, the Scottish Conservatives remain unimpressive. Too much policy at Holyrood – in spite of the more rigorous approach taken at Westminster – is formed on the hoof, without proper consideration of overall direction, ideology or tactics. The Scottish Government’s proposed (and now abandoned) privatisation of 25 per cent of the Forestry Commission is a case in point. After prevaricating the Tories decided to oppose it, despite having spent much of the 1980s trying to do much the same via the Scottish Office.
The real test of how the Scottish Conservatives are doing, however, is next year’s general election. (The European Elections in June are less important, and almost certain to return just one Tory MEP.) The target seats in this respect remain virtually unchanged from 2005: Angus, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Perth and North Perthshire, the Edinburghs South and South-West, Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Berwick, Angus, Dumfries and Galloway, and Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (DCT). Argyll & Bute is the only new marginal since the last election.
In DCT sits the party’s only incumbent MP, Shadow Scottish Secretary David Mundell. Although he’ll most likely win come the election, the same can’t really be said of any other key marginal candidates. Labour have given up in DCT and are busy concentrating their fire on the neighbouring Dumfries and Galloway, which former MP Peter Duncan hopes to recapture, but beyond that it would take a very good day – and a tight squeeze of the Lib Dem vote – in order to return any more than two or three Scottish Tory MPs.
When I recently asked a senior Tory if it was conceivable that the party could enter the general election with one seat and also emerge with one, he replied “yes” without much hesitation. That said, a lot could happen between now and next June. The recession could deepen, more scandals could engulf the Government and perhaps, just perhaps, a sizeable number of Scots will turn to the Tories, swinging every seat identified as marginal their way. Party number-crunchers point to YouGov polling, which shows a consistent level of Scottish Tory support at around 20 per cent.
When Margaret Thatcher addressed her Scottish troops in Perth on 12 May 1979 she was able to report battle gains of six seats in Scotland. “You are in better heart and more united than for a very long time,” she said. “And so you should be.” Whether David Cameron can make a similar boast this time next year is not a racing certainty, but nor is it a complete impossibility.
Comments
Feel free to leave a comment...