Brian Monteith: Old Tory should work with new order

The Scottish Party leader, Ruth Davidson, will deliver the last of three keynote speeches that were intended to give her some political weight when she announces a party commission to consider further powers for Holyrood.

Not surprisingly, former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Forsyth, has got his retaliation in first by questioning in public the need for such an announcement. This must mean that in private he is livid.

It should be remembered that in Davidson’s campaign to become party leader, Michael Forsyth gave her his endorsement only after she pledged to draw a line in the sand and not support any more powers for the Scottish Parliament. This was not unexpected; Forsyth had already had a heated debate at a Tory Party conference fringe meeting with Murdo Fraser over the same subject and had a track record of opposing further transfers of power – so it was only a matter of time before Davidson engineered a Pavlovian response that could help her ticket.

What is unexpected is that Forsyth appears surprised that Davidson has chosen to break her word and sanction a policy change. Maybe he’s losing his touch, but I would have thought this should have been entirely predictable to the master tactician and political strategist.

Firstly, Forsyth had already been turned over by David Cameron when he was asked to chair a party Tax Commission that produced a weighty and formidable report only for it to be shelved. This was such a pity, for the government would not be in its current economic doldrums if it had taken even a smidgeon of Lord Forsyth’s advice.

Secondly, David Cameron had brutally emasculated his Scottish leader’s pledge when, on a trip to Scotland, he announced that more powers would indeed be possible but only if Scotland voted No first. (This was a tautological absurdity, for if we vote Yes we would get more powers whether he liked it or not.)

This left Ruth Davidson in an embarrassing quandary from which she has had to extricate herself. Not wishing to look insincere, she has spent some time carefully getting to a position where she can explain how she has come round to believing that more powers are desirable and will be possible – and that moment arrives tomorrow at the Royal Society in Edinburgh.

Davidson can hardly be blamed for working to get herself back into the political game, for to do anything else would have left her standing outside, peering in, with no-one caring what she had to say.

All this party politicking apart, Forsyth must also have recognised that from a Conservative point of view, there are still many unanswered questions over the Scottish and British constitution that deserve answers – and that these responses could only mean some further changes would be required.

From a Tory perspective, the Scottish Parliament does not work as well as it should: it is spendthrift, much of its legislation is poor, its record of scrutiny could be improved, its committees are overrated, it has no second chamber and its institutional links with the Palace of Westminster leave much to be desired.

Likewise we have the Scotland Act yet to be applied and tested, the Barnett Formula clearly needs re-engineered, the West Lothian question remains unresolved and the House of Lords requires reform.

Also in Scotland we have a dysfunctional strata of unaccountable quangos and agencies, a sclerotic set of local authorities whose responsibilities need reassessed and community councils that have been waiting since birth to have real powers so that local people can take greater control of their own destiny.

In all of these areas I would expect Michael Forsyth to have trenchant, robust and even radical views that might actually help Ruth Davidson and his party to find favour with the electorate. For that reason at least I think Forsyth should look to be more accommodating and understanding of Davidson and seek to help her. If she fails and ultimately falls on her sword, the charge that Forsyth withdrew his help and support could not then be made.

More importantly, it could help Forsyth find a way back into becoming a major force in the British Conservative Party rather than be considered as Mr Angry fuming from the sidelines. I’m surely not alone in thinking that were he in the Commons today, he would be a senior member of the Cabinet or providing a realistic double-act with David Davies, a leadership in waiting for when Cameron fails in 2015.

Unfortunately, it is his views on Holyrood that have become an obstacle to greater acceptance and appeal. Like suffrage for women, the Scottish Parliament is here to stay. More than 15 years after Scotland voted for devolution, Michael Forsyth should see that it too is not going away. This does not rule out the fact that many of his fears came to fruition or that his warnings were proven correct, but it does require him to take a new approach to ensure that Scotland is not saddled with a system designed to benefit the Labour Party and entrench collectivism.

In improving upon devolution, Tories should this time round play their part in developing a consensus across the unionist parties, especially firming up how the parliament can become accountable for what it spends. Ruth Davidson should therefore develop a commission that not only reports back before the independence referendum on 18 September 2014 – she should look to take evidence from critics such as Forsyth and opposition reformers such as Douglas Alexander and Ming Campbell, as an acknowledgement that any post-referendum outcome should seek the largest possible cross-party support.

By establishing where there is common ground amongst unionists, Ruth Davidson’s Conservatives can deliver a tactical advantage to the Better Together campaign. It would be a perverse response if Lord Forsyth was to become an obstacle rather than a catalyst for victory.