Kenny Farquharson: Toxic Tories must get used to life on fringe

WHEN students of business studies are learning about branding, their tutors point them towards a particularly instructive case study.

It's the decision to change the name of Britain's most notorious nuclear power plant from Windscale to Sellafield. The idea at the time was simple: a new name would allow old associations - in particular the infamous release of massive amounts of radioactive material in 1957 - to be consigned to the past. A bright new sunny name redolent of fragrant fields rather than gnarly gale-swept rocks would herald a bright new sunny future.

Well, we all know it didn't quite turn out like that. Julian Gorham, creative head of the Brand Naming Company, explains that name changes are pointless without meaningful structural evolution. "Windscale, Sellafield, it's the same thing, isn't it? Nothing has changed." Change, he says, needs to be fundamental. A name change on its own won't fool anybody, for the simple reason that "you can't hide your history".

Given that I usually write about politics you can probably see where this column is heading. Just now the Scottish Tories are indulging in one of their periodic bouts of agonised soul-searching. This happens after every election setback, so as you can imagine, it is a pretty common event. This time, however, they seem to be taking it even more seriously than usual.

A commission has been set up under Lord Sanderson to examine how the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party can re-invent itself. The fact that they have entrusted the modernisation of the party to a 77-year-old peer with a record of opposing gay rights is neither here not there. Let's, for once, not get into personality politics (normal service will be resumed next week, never fear).

Last week the seriousness of their predicament was underlined when leaked minutes from the party's general council revealed the view of Scottish Tory deputy leader Murdo Fraser that the Conservative brand was irredeemably "toxic" in Scotland. Another senior figure in the party said the Scottish Tories risked "becoming just a pressure group". No-one has yet used then phrase "radioactive".

The answer, according to collective wisdom, is a name change. Among the possibilities being discussed are the Scottish Freedom Party, the Scottish Reform Party and the Scottish Unionist Party. Hmmm.

Let's just examine those, shall we? Surely a Freedom party would be confused with the party that actually stands for freedom, albeit in its Mel Gibson sense? Wouldn't a Reform party have to have a programme of, well, reform? And as for the Unionists - the name the party fought under in its heyday in the 1950s right up until 1965 - well, really, where do you start?

It's worth dwelling on this last option because it seems to be many people's favourite, despite being the most stupid idea in Scottish politics since Kenny MacAskill decided to make it illegal for a 20-year-old to buy a bottle of wine. I mean, come on. How divorced are these people from the realities of life in urban Scotland, especially in the west, with Belfast just a flute band march away, if they are unaware of the negative connotations of the word "unionist"? How could they possibly see it as a way to broaden the party's appeal? Even if just seen in the strict context of the union between Scotland and England, without any Northern Irish taint, this new name would have the effect of narrowing the party's platform to a single issue. What this betrays, bizarrely, is a fundamental failure to understand the nature of Scottish Conservatism.

Those Scots who are happy to vote Tory do so for a range of different reasons. Some are social conservatives who dislike gay rights, immigration and the erosion of 1950s-style Christian family values. Some are old-fashioned economic liberals who dislike state involvement in markets and who favour a low taxation economy and a small public sector. And yes, others are die-hard unionists who see the Tories' key function as defenders of the 1707 treaty that created the United Kingdom.

The trouble is, not all Tories sign up to all three of these strands of thought. There are economic liberals who welcome a more tolerant, inclusive and secular society. There are social conservatives with nationalist leanings who would be entirely relaxed about Scotland becoming independent. There are diehard unionists who are quite content with the social democratic consensus that opposes private sector involvement in the NHS and Scottish schools. Like all political parties the Scots Tories are an informal federation of disparate interests, held together by the discipline necessary to present a united front to the voters.

Any attempt to move the party in any one of these three directions would be to risk losing support elsewhere. Now, it is often good for a party to move beyond its core vote to seek new support, as Tony Blair did with New Labour and David Cameron has done with the UK Tories. But in those cases the route map was obvious. Can the same be said about the necessary direction of travel for the Scottish Tories? I suggest not.

The lesson Julian Gorham of the Brand Naming Company might offer the Scottish Tories is simple. No matter how toxic, rebranding is useless unless accompanied by fundamental change, because you can't hide your history.

But which fundament to change?

I understand the frustration of those on the centre-right of Scottish politics. Scots, after all, are a small-c conservative people. But conservatism is not their defining political characteristic. Scots seem happier signing up to concepts of social justice (Labour) or national identity (the SNP), even if they share other instincts with Tories. Maybe the Tories have to face up to an unpalatable truth. At this point in history, the only role for them in Scottish politics is on the fringes.zxz