X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Blogs

Scottish Tories: It's Time To Man Up - Spectator Blogs

26 January 2013

1:17 AM

26 January 2013

1:17 AM

Ruth Davidson became leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party in large part because she was the candidate favoured by the party establishment. Where Murdo Fraser suggested – rather too boldly as it turned out – the party should fold its tent and start again under a new banner, Davidson preferred a more cautious approach. Moreover, she said it was time to “draw a line in the sand” on the matter of transferring further powers to the Scottish parliament.

A little more than a year later it seems as though that line has been washed away by the tide. Perhaps it was a mistake to draw it in the first place. Davidson gave a speech yesterday in which she hinted – albeit only in broad terms – that the Scottish Tories are prepared to countenance some – albeit as yet undefined – form of fiscal autonomy for Scotland. If you think I think that it’s about bleedin’ time that happened then you’d be right.

Alan Cochrane was not impressed by the lack of detail on offer and, as so often, he has a point. But it was better than nothing even if it is also the case that talking about the need to differentiate the Scottish Tories from their brethren south of the border is the hoariest of familiar chestnuts. For that matter, we’ve had 15 years of Scottish Tory leaders apologising for the party’s past sins and pleading to be given a semi-fair hearing from now on.

[Alt-Text]


Nevertheless, this was a modest step in the right direction. Or it could be. If it is followed up. Davidson has opened the door to a more interesting, more useful Scottish Conservatism. The press now expects something to happen. It would be useful if that something did actually happen. This time. At last.

I wrote about it all for today’s Scotsman. Attentive, long-time readers may be familiar with the argument but, hell, here it is again:

In the present circumstances, Tory ideas matter more than the number of Tories returned to Holyrood. The Conservative task is to act as a battering ram deployed to smash the cosy “Scottish consensus”. This requires picking a few subjects, developing effective arguments and hammering the SNP and Labour again and again and again.

Why, Davidson could usefully ask, has devolution become an obstacle to reform rather than a means of delivering real change? Why is the Scottish NHS now less productive than its English counterpart? Why, most especially, do Scotland’s schools fail so many pupils? Davidson’s speeches are full of fine assertions on these matters but too often the detail is lacking. Should it not be considered a national scandal, for instance, that only 7 per cent of Glaswegian state-educated pupils will leave school with five good passes at Higher? Is it not embarrassing that, across the country, only 12 per cent of state school pupils achieve this “gold standard”?

A policy is not necessarily better just because it is swathed in tartan. Too often, in fact, Scottish distinctiveness is allowed to cover-up, or otherwise excuse, mediocrity. We are not as good as we like to think we are. This is not “talking Scotland down”; it is exhorting Scotland to do better.

The Conservatives should not be afraid of controversy. The years of sheepish, timorous, apologies should be put behind them. The Tories have served their penance. This is no time for hair-shirt Conservatism. On the contrary, the Conservatives have useful things to say on public sector reform, on welfare, and on taxes. The Tories job is to be Holyrood’s awkward squad, pointing out uncomfortable truths and demanding something better.

And:

It is apparent that Scots wish Holyrood to become something akin to a proper parliament. That is, one that has significant revenue-raising powers in addition to its present spending competencies.

Had they enjoyed even a modicum of gumption these past dozen years, the Tories could – and should – have been at the front of this debate. Instead they are, yet again, lagging behind.

Fiscal autonomy – or Devo-max or however else you wish to describe it – should be at the heart of the Tories manifesto. It is, after all, a conservative principle that a parliament lacking the power to tax is a parliament destined to favour bigger, more expensive, more interfering government.

One suspects, however, that the Tories have been feart of favouring revenue-raising powers for Holyrood for fear this would lead to Scotland being more heavily taxed than other parts of the United Kingdom. That may be a reasonable fear. But, if so, then this too reinforces the regrettable notion that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party does not trust Scotland to manage a greater share of its own affairs. When the national mood has been “Yes, we can” the Tories have sucked their thumbs and whimpered “Actually, we probably can’t. And even if we could, we shouldn’t.”

Whole thing here. But there’s this too: if you call your speech “Scotland First” and suggest this is a new approach it does rather risk reinforcing the negative stereotypes about the Tories that your speech is seeking to counter. Time, perhaps, to move on from this self-abasement.

UPDATE: I commend the Peat Worrier’s take on this to you. Is smart stuff.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close