Richard Cook: Leaders-in-waiting must put themselves forward

A LEADERSHIP contest looms for Scottish Conservative members. Despite the Scottish Parliament lapsing into summer recess not one candidate has declared their intention to stand - let alone put forward any sort of argument as to the future direction of the party they might hope to lead.

Successive election results point to an aging Conservative vote in Scotland and to a social phenomenon, most simply explained as people who back Scottish Conservative policies and like Scottish Conservative candidates finding themselves unable to vote Tory for fear of being stigmatised by the brand.

So what policies need to change to attract a new generation of Conservative voters in Scotland? How should the Scottish Conservative Party be structured to maintain a distinctive Scottish brand at Holyrood? Could the Scottish Conservative Party be able to fund itself if it reduced or broke ties with the Party in England? And how is the stigma to be removed from the brand?

The forthcoming leadership election must be a contested affair. There seemed little choice in October 2005 other than to allow a coronation, in the circumstances that led to a change in leader. Given the urgent need to stop the electoral rot, this time the membership have a right to hear arguments for and against a change in direction, whether that be in policy or party structure.

Proper debate as part of a leadership election need not mean disunity and should not mean losing candidates are doomed to a future on the back benches. David Cameron had robust debate with his rivals for leadership and all three losing candidates made it to his Shadow Cabinet table. It is this sort of mature outlook that Scottish Conservatives need to look to as the future of their party is decided.

Of particular importance is a policy debate around the Union, fiscal autonomy and future constitutional referendum. While some favour greater autonomy for the Scottish Parliament, the majority of members and activists still believe devolution will prove to be a stepping stone to independence and that devolution of additional powers from Westminster to Holyrood will be yet another step towards the break-up of the United Kingdom. It is essential that candidates from each side of this debate put themselves forward to argue their case.

Lord Sanderson's report makes it clear a confused leadership structure led to a lack of accountability, making it imperative leadership candidates tell members just how they will lead the party and what changes they would want to make to party structure. For activists, desperate to see a revival in party fortunes at a local level, being given options in terms of party structure will mean the leader they elect has a clear mandate to make changes which build on the work undertaken by Lord Sanderson and his commission team.Then there is the age-old debate about whether to loosen or to cut ties with the party in England. As yet no one has explained to me why a distinctly Scottish brand can only be achieved by severing ties with the UK party and, more importantly, I have yet to hear anyone make any sort of case as to how a separate party in Scotland would fund itself.

The vast majority of money raised by Scottish Conservatives comes from donors keen to associate themselves with the party which is either in or is likely to form the next government of the United Kingdom, with its leader as prime minister. Without a "Focus on Scotland" dinner addressed by the UK leader and wealthy patrons associating themselves with Westminster politics, how would Scottish Conservative fight general elections, to Westminster and Holyrood, with anything like the spending power they have had of late?

Murdo Fraser and Jackson Carlaw look likely to stand for election as leader. Both have long histories in the party, both have campaign funding in place and take distinctly differing views on a range of policies which will be key battleground issues for the party's one member, one vote electorate.

Is there a possibility of wild card entrants? I think the membership would welcome a broadening of the debate and a third and indeed fourth candidate would add a new dimension, with distinctly modernising candidates likely to attract members keen to see the sort of brand modernisation undertaken by David Cameron in England and Wales replicated here in Scotland.

Ruth Davidson is your outside bet, part of the 2011 intake to the Scottish Parliament and relatively unknown to many party members outside core activists and members in Glasgow and the west. She is media savvy, has a good sense of humour, is keen to promote social action through community involvement and openly gay.

Another possible entrant with a realistic chance of winning the leadership is John Lamont. His local association now represents significantly more than one in ten of the party membership (the leadership electorate) and he is the only person in the Scottish Conservative Party who can say with any confidence that he has been able to overcome the stigma of the party brand. Murdo, Jackson and Ruth all have to tell members how they would set about changing perceptions of the Conservative brand in Scotland while John simply needs to say he knows how to win despite the brand.

Now is surely not a time for candidates to be timid, nor does declaring mean they are being disloyal to Annabel or the party.Members, and the electorate at large, deserve to know how the next leader of Scotland's only centre-right party intends to lead debate in Scotland and the first candidate to declare may just find they build up a head of steam it is difficult for latecomers to overcome.

• Richard Cook is an advisor to ThinkScotland and a former vice chairman of the Scottish Conservatives