Out-of-touch Tories still do not get post-devolution Scotland

F FURTHER proof were needed of how far the once dominant Conservative and Unionist Party in Scotland has fallen it has been provided by the interventions of the two candidates who have so far declared themselves in the race to succeed Annabel Goldie as Tory leader.

This week, Tory MSP Murdo Fraser claimed an early single question independence referendum, forced on Alex Salmond and which the SNP lost, would make Scotland more positive about the United Kingdom. This strategy would, be proclaimed “kill independence” and “break the SNP”. This is simply wishful thinking, bordering on the delusional.

First, Mr Fraser seems to think he can force the First Minister’s hand when the SNP command a majority in the Scottish Parliament and can claim to have a mandate from the electorate for the timing of any plebiscite.

Second, he demonstrates a curious lack of both knowledge of the SNP and the history of devolution. The Nationalists under Mr Salmond have cannily played a gradualist game, building as a party, forming a minority administration and then taking a majority, all the time forcing the pace on constitutional reform.

Even if the SNP lost an early one question referendum, it might be weakened, but is unlikely to disappear. The Parti Québécois survived referendum losses in Quebec, for example. And Mr Fraser should remember that Labour’s then shadow Scottish secretary George Robertson once declared devolution would kill nationalism. We all know what happened.

Yesterday it was the turn of fellow MSP Jackson Carlaw who criticised the decision of retiring leader Miss Goldie to back further tax powers for Holyrood, claiming they were designed “to appease arguments for separation” rather than improve the government of Scotland. Such language was ill-judged both in its analogy and its analysis.

First, to use the word appeasement in the context of Miss Goldie’s support for the Calman commission – and also by implication criticise Mr Fraser who has always favoured greater powers for the parliament – is particularly crass, drawing, as it does, comparisons with those who failed to oppose fascism.

Second, Mr Carlaw should acknowledge that the strong case for giving the parliament more powers is not a matter of appeasement but of accountability, making the Holyrood politicians responsible for raising the money they spend – a sound Tory policy which, if properly applied, could expose the SNP’s tax and spend instincts and could, ultimately, strengthen the Union.

From the evidence so far, we can only conclude the Tory Party, after all these years in the wilderness, still does not get post-devolution Scotland. We must hope that if she stands – and we hope she does – new MSP Ruth Davidson provides a more reflective, more modern and more realistic vision for the centre-right in Scotland.