Brian Monteith: Conservative sound and fury signifying nothing

The Scottish Tories’ campaigning efforts have missed the bigger point, and leadership elections will serve to prove it

The votes to decide the Scottish Conservative leader are piling in, and the candidates are making one last effort to convince those still to choose.

As an interested observer, I wish all of the contestants well; it is important for the political health of Scotland that there is a credible alternative to the collectivism that has become the political creed of Scotland’s establishment.

It is also crucial if we are to have a mature democracy that those members of the public who hold right-of-centre opinions are given a voice that can articulate their views.

It is impossible to know who will win. The electorate that makes the choice is not Tory politicians, the largest number of whom appear to support Murdo Fraser; nor is it the media, many of whom have fallen for the former BBC staffer Ruth Davidson; it isn’t even the party activists who seem split in their affection for Fraser, Davidson, Jackson Carlaw with Margaret Mitchell left a good bit behind; it is the members, roughly 8,000 in number – a group whose views on leadership are unknown.

Fraser’s audacious decision to say that he would create a new party has set the tone of the debate, with the other candidates responding in varying degrees of negativity sometimes bordering on viciousness. I have characterised their approach as the “shout louder” tendency, as they believe that being noisier will somehow transform the party’s prospects. It is now apparent that in desperation to trash Fraser’s bold stratagem there is a new variant of shouting louder, the “work harder” tendency.

It is just as foolish and wrongheaded.

Back in 1999, with 17 MSPs elected (soon to be 18 after winning the Ayr by-election) the party suddenly had an army of full-time advocates-cum-social workers that could be seen helping constituents, campaigning to save schools from closure, having roads repaired or upgraded. There were countless press releases, TV and radio interviews, petitions, newsletters and, in David McLetchie, a new leader who was clever, witty, and had no baggage – as he had never been elected before.

With each MSP having at least two further staff based in Holyrood and the constituencies, together with a six-strong research and press team that was twice the size of anything available to the party head office during its 18 years of government, the Scottish Conservatives had at their disposal an unprecedented boost to their cause. Through salaries and expenses the Scottish state apparatus, over the first eight years of devolution, pumped more than £15 million into the Tory party. At no time before had it ever enjoyed such largesse for its politicians to control.

Add to this the annual subsidy of almost £1m from Irvine Laidlaw, as well as the financial aid raised by Sir Jack Harvey and the regular transfer of funds from the London head office and it is difficult to comprehend what more might have been done.

And yet, over those years, the Scottish Conservatives have seen their Holyrood and Westminster vote slump to embarrassing levels, just above single figures.

Despite all this evidence and more describing the futility of the Tory cause, there are still people who believe if only the Conservatives would shout louder and work harder they could turn the tide.

Not only is this approach delusional, it is an insult to the many who have sweated blood for their cause.

The reason for this is because the perception the Scottish public has is that the Tories are shouting and working for the Westminster-based party in Scotland – rather than for a Scottish-based party in Westminster.

Members, activists and politicians can all make more cogent arguments, they can employ the best and most expensive advertising agencies and they can flood the country with free newspapers but until the party’s motives are seen to be putting Scotland’s interests first, it will all be for nought. A young dynamic new leader is not the answer because hard work is not what has been lacking.

The leadership campaign has been noticeable for the lack of any original policies but that matters little, for the only policies that will be worth their salt are those that are advocated by a Scottish party, not a British one.

When I first wrote of the need for a new unionism in these pages in 2006 it was about the need to champion the benefits of the union and deliver a positive and uplifting message rather than use scare stories about what would become of us all if Scotland was to become a sovereign independent state. So far, only Fraser has recognised that this must be the approach to make unionism popular.

The position of Scottish unionists of all parties must surely be that Scotland should wish to be a member of the United Kingdom whether it is the poorest or wealthiest member nation.

We should not be too proud to accept financial help when calamity presents itself, nor should we shirk from helping others in Britain when economic depression befalls them. It is this sharing of risks and opportunities, this solidarity, and the defence of individual freedoms that unionists should advocate.

It is noticeable that only Fraser talks in such a manner. Indeed, his opponents have taken their negative and fear-ridden support for the union into their campaign in pursuit of leading their party. Fraser has been accused of trying to split the party, to cause division, separation and divorce. Sound familiar?

His critics have said that 18 months will be wasted arguing over a new name and fighting over the corpse of the old party. Some have said that they will continue to stand for office under the old flag. If Fraser wins, he will have obtained a mandate for change that demands respect for the membership’s choice by the losers who should fall into line or fall on their swords.

Fraser has stated he will abide by the decision of the members; will Davidson and Carlaw do the same?

• Brian Monteith is policy director of ThinkScotland.org.