Euan McColm: Are Carlaw’s assassins any better at defending the Union?

You’ve got to hand it to the Conservative Party. When it comes to the art of the swift political assassination, none of their opponents can measure up.
A matter of months since Jackson Carlaw was voted leader, his role will be temporarily filled by his predecessor. Picture: John DevlinA matter of months since Jackson Carlaw was voted leader, his role will be temporarily filled by his predecessor. Picture: John Devlin
A matter of months since Jackson Carlaw was voted leader, his role will be temporarily filled by his predecessor. Picture: John Devlin

The announcement on Thursday from Scottish Tory leader, Jackson Carlaw, that he was resigning his position was a glorious example of political patricide. Just six months after he won the contest to succeed Ruth Davidson, Carlaw’s decision surprised the inhabitants of the Holyrood village. I daresay Carlaw was among the many who did not see this one coming.

Within moments of the release of his statement, in which Carlaw said he had reached the “painful conclusion” that he was not the best person to lead the case for Scotland remaining in the UK ahead of next year’s Holyrood election, Conservative spinners were briefing the media about what would come next. MP Douglas Ross – a former member of the Scottish Parliament – has been lined 
up as Carlaw’s successor. While he waits 
for his return to Holyrood (the proportional representation voting system means Ross is guaranteed a seat after next May’s election), former leader Davidson – who plans to quit the Scottish Parliament in 2021 – will resume combat with Nicola Sturgeon, taking her on during First Minister’s Question Time, each week. So, a fait accompli, then.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Doubtless, many will agree with Carlaw’s conclusion that he is not the best person to defend the Union at this time.

I wonder, though, whether Ross will be any more successful. He’s hardly, after all, a high-profile figure.

Tory spinners point out that his pro-UK and pro-EU positions in recent referendums show him aligned with the views of the majority but it’s quite the leap from there to a place in which he is the great defender of the Union. Some party figures are placing a great deal of faith in this largely untested politician.

Among those who believe Ross is the best man for the job is Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The great irony there, is that Johnson is personally responsible for the damage the Tory brand has suffered in Scotland in recent years. He is, after all, the personification of the sort of braying Tory toff much despised north of the border.

The Carlaw resignation doesn’t just point to problems within Scottish Tory ranks. It reminds us of something fair bigger than that. It reminds us that, though the 2014 referendum ended in a resounding victory for the pro-UK Better Together campaign, there is currently no obvious figure to take forward the defence of the Union. If there were to be a second referendum any time soon, who would take on the role filled by former chancellor Alistair Darling six years ago?

Davidson made a decent fist of that role, delivering a clear pro-UK message that attracted the support of voters who would never previously have considered voting Conservative. But Davidson is off to the House of Lords next year and – even if she were persuaded to lead a future fight to preserve the Union – the idea of a Tory Peer taking on Sturgeon in a future referendum campaign should make unionist hearts sink.

Scottish nationalists will, I’m sure, be viewing this Conservative chaos with glee. But those who dream of the 
break-up of the UK still face considerable obstacles.

Despite endless SNP spin about the imminence of indyref2, the power to call one remains with the prime minister. And if anyone out there in Natland reckons Johnson is about to green light a referendum which he risks losing then they’ve not thought things through.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Nationalists may argue that an SNP majority in next year’s Holyrood election would create a mandate for another vote on the constitution but this, I’m afraid, is not so. A government cannot be mandated to exercise a power it doesn’t possess.

Anyone – whether Scottish nationalist or pro-UK – who hankers for an end to the grinding, enervating division of recent years must prepare themselves for disappointment.

Ross – when he becomes Scottish Tory leader thanks to this stitch-up – will have some solid evidence on which to base his pro-UK case.

It is undoubtedly true that Treasury intervention has saved countless Scottish families from falling into poverty during the coronavirus pandemic. The relative wealth of the UK has benefitted workers across these islands.

Yes, the committed nationalist will insist that an independent Scotland would have done the same – perhaps more – to help those in need during this crisis, but the numbers don’t add up. The SNP’s sustainable growth commission – headed by former MSP Andrew Wilson – made clear two years ago that the establishment of an independent Scotland would mean some financial pain, at least in the early days of secession, and the coronavirus crisis has only made the challenge of creating a viable independent Scotland more difficult.

Of course, facts are deeply unfashionable in politics, these days. From Tory cabinet minister Michael Gove’s assertion that people are tired of experts to Sturgeon’s refusal to engage seriously with big questions about the economy of an independent Scotland, we see plenty of evidence that populist politicians prefer to engage with the emotional rather than the intellectual.

The refusal of the UK government to give the go-ahead to a second referendum will not kill off the constitutional question. Rather, it will make that argument more fraught.

Ross sits on the bench, just now, awaiting the call to battle. When his time comes and he is crowned the Scottish Conservatives’ third leader in less than a year, his mission will be to loosen the SNP’s grip on Scottish politics.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

There is a world of difference, however, between identifying a task and actually accomplishing it.

Carlaw – a decent man with socially liberal instincts – was quite right to say that he was not the person to lead the defence of the Union at this stage. But just because Carlaw was the wrong man for the job, it doesn’t mean Ross is the right one.

There is no quick fix for the problems facing unionism in Scotland, right now. If Douglas Ross and those who orchestrated the removal of Jackson Carlaw from his post don’t understand that, they’re in for quite the bumpy ride.

Comments

 0 comments

Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.