Duncan Hamilton: Who'll speak for Scotland? Certainly not you, David Cameron

Published on Saturday 26 December 2009 18:55

THE big political story of 2010 will be David Cameron. For all the recent Labour "recovery" in the polls, the Tory leader remains odds-on to become our new prime minister.

Yet, even before the keys to Downing Street change hands, it is already clear the election of a Tory government will divide the United Kingdom and pose fundamental questions about how we are governed.

The most recent polling suggests the Tories will win no more than two seats in Scotland. Pause and think about that: a Tory government representing us on the world stage, with the power to start wars, the chance to sign international treaties and the responsibility to chart a course out of economic oblivion – and doing so on behalf of the people of Scotland, without a democratic mandate.

Regardless of a Conservative triumph in England, this will be among the worst Tory performances ever seen in Scotland. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher's party won 22 seats. In 1983, that dropped to 21. In 1987 and 1992, the Tories won ten and 11 seats respectively. In 1997, they lost every single Scottish seat, while in 2001 and 2005, they secured victory in one seat only.

In other words, at no stage of Conservative rule between 1979 and 1997 (a period covering some of the most profound social and industrial dislocation in modern Scottish history and the infamous poll tax) did a Tory government win fewer than ten seats. Yet in 2010, we will be asked to accept that a party victorious in no more than two Scottish constituencies can somehow speak for Scotland? That cannot be right.

Remember the sense of outrage and cries of a "democratic deficit" in the 1980s and 1990s? Scotland united in refusing to accept we should have a government in Westminster that did not reflect the will of the people? Yet here we are, only months away from another electoral outrage – the election of a British prime minister supported by England and almost uniformly rejected by Scotland. "One Nation" Conservatism? Well, yes, if that nation is England.

Aha, say some, but didn't the creation of the Scottish Parliament provide the answer? Of course not – for the Scottish Parliament, at best, is an alternative forum for Scottish political debate, with largely minor powers to tinker on the edges of the big issues of the day. It was specifically and deliberately designed to add democratic accountability to the powers of the old Scottish Office, with the added benefit of legislative time that was not present for Scottish issues at Westminster. And that is it – not a single point of genuine influence on the big issues of the day: climate change, the "war on terror", the creation of a 21st-century EU, or entry into the euro.

So, why the silence from our political parties? Labour and the Liberal Democrats won't flag the problem, because it makes an unanswerable case for much more substantial constitutional change than they are prepared to countenance. Are they really going to spend all that time on Calman just to spend the election being drawn into an argument that logically ends in independence?

It would, of course, be open to the Lib Dems to promote vigorously their own policy of federalism as a solution, but you'll see the devil ice-skating to work before that happens.

And I suppose for the SNP, the least said the better. If the Tories seize power in Westminster and institute savage cuts and unpopular policies with only a sprinkling of Scottish MPs, then Alex Salmond will have five years of political "shooty-in". No incentive there for shouting from the rooftops.

But the truth is that this is bigger than any party. What is wrong here is systemic. If Cameron wins the next two elections, are we really saying Scotland will put up with a decade of a UK government led by a party we have specifically rejected?

Of course, this is emerging as a problem only because, whatever it is that Cameron is selling, we are not yet buying. He seems curiously ill at ease in Scotland – as Tony Blair used to be. His latest press comments when in Scotland this month were positively cryptic. When asked how many seats the Tories would win in Scotland, our Dave said simply: "The Cameronians must march swiftly and march light". Terrific, thanks for clearing that up. Who does this man's soundbites, Eric Cantona?

The point is that Cameron, like Blair before him, plainly sees Scotland as simply a problem to be managed. His definition of success is neutralising Scotland as an issue. That might help him win power but, as Blair discovered, the Scottish issue will not go away.

Worst still, Cameron has missed a fabulous chance to seize the agenda. Since 1999, the Tories at Holyrood have been apologising for their previous behaviour and desperately trying to show that they have a positive contribution to make. The Tories signed up to Calman precisely to show that they could be radical.

But then, just when it mattered most, David Cameron ran from the conclusions of the report he had himself supported and tried to boot the issue into Row Z until after the general election. It looked weak, self-serving and sly. It also, at a stroke, once again presented the Scottish Tories as the "anti-Scottish" party.

It was a decision of staggering tactical naivety and one which ensures that, even if David Cameron does prevail in the 2010 general election, he will do so as the prime minister of a fundamentally disunited kingdom.