Why Scottish Tory split from UK party won't fool the target voters

Having received the support of potential rivals, US Vice-President Kamala Harris is now a cert to take on Donald Trump, but the nomination will be known at or before the Democrat Convention in mid-August. By contrast, it could be the end of September before a new Scottish Conservative leader is voted in, and not until November will a new UK Conservative chief take over, only days before the next POTUS is elected.

The Scottish Conservative not-sure-if-I-wannabes have kept newspapers supplied with articles and interviews about where the party has gone wrong without the authors claiming to be the one to fix it. Who knew they were so coy about their ambitions?

Meghan Gallagher, Liam Kerr, Graham Simpson and Brian Whittle all said they had not decided whether to pitch to replace Douglas Ross, but all showed enough leg to make it clear they planned to seize the opportunity to raise their personal profiles and those of their pet interests, even if the big prize escapes them.

A cynical interpretation

Part of the reticence is because the shape of the contest hasn’t been finalised, but now justice spokesman and former investigative journalist Russell Findlay has declared himself a candidate, it’s decision time for the others if they’re not to fall behind. The party’s Scottish management board contacted elected representatives, association chairs and regional council members two weekends ago to ask for suggestions about how to improve the process, with a deadline of this Friday, a move designed to demonstrate willingness to consult but interpreted rather cynically by some as evidence they didn’t know what they were doing.

Damned if they did or didn’t, but all should be known a week on Wednesday, by which time the serious candidates will all surely have broken cover. The qualification process is relatively straightforward, with each needing the support of 100 members, which means it’s feasible for a candidate to stand without support from any MSPs, unlikely to succeed and a significant issue for the parliamentary party if they did, but possible all the same.

That’s not a problem for Mr Findlay, with the endorsement of several high-profile colleagues already. While details like the number of hustings and campaign-cost limits have yet to be agreed, it’s now expected the new Scottish leader will be in place before the UK conference in Birmingham starts on September 29, but not in time for the new Holyrood term at the beginning of the month, or to respond to the new Programme for Government, usually the week after.

Findlay vs Kerr

It means that when the official opposition should be getting stuck into the penultimate legislative plan of an exhausted SNP government, it could instead be embroiled in the last stages of the leadership contest. Maybe the pace will pick up, but the legislative programme would have provided an early set-piece for the new leader to make a mark at the start of the road to the 2026 election.

Equally unfortunately, it already seems the contest could be dominated by debate about party identity and structure, with education spokesman Liam Kerr making the most obvious pitch in a Scotsman column for the resurrection of Murdo Fraser MSP’s defeated 2011 prospectus for a schism from the UK party.

If, as I suspect it will, the contest comes down to a head-to-head between Mr Findlay and ex-employment lawyer Mr Kerr, attention could therefore be drawn to ideas about party identity, which will inevitably concentrate the membership’s minds, but be of little interest to the wider electorate.

NHS, roads, quality jobs

Most candidates agree the contest is an opportunity to debate ideas which should be the basis of the 2026 manifesto, but that will be more difficult if the oxygen is sucked up by wrangling over internal management structures. Writing in The Times two weeks ago, Mr Findlay said as much, acknowledging there may be a need for a “sensible review” of the relationship with the UK party, but acknowledging “the name of that party won’t make any difference to people who want a more resilient NHS, the roads fixed, safe communities and the creation of quality jobs”.

Maybe other candidates see party identity as a means to create difference, but it runs the danger of members voting on the basis of a single issue rather than who makes the best leader. It would be far better to see who can best articulate the right-of-centre case, and if Mr Fraser is, as some commentators have been saying recently, the best leader the Scottish Conservatives never had, then it can’t be forgotten his chance was blown by making the 2011 contest about reorganisation.

Financial headache

My advice to any hopeful is to park the schism schtick, promise some sort of commission like the 2010 Sanderson Review if you must, but don’t make it the central plank of your campaign. There are several good reasons for this, one being that having just lost 250 MPs and remaining donors waiting to see what happens with the direction of the UK party, there is even less money than there was in 2010, and a separate Scottish party would face an immediate financial headache which could constrain the ability to fight an effective campaign in 2026.

The second is the reality that those at whom the identity change is aimed – the many Scottish small-c conservatives who don’t vote Conservative – won’t be fooled for a minute into thinking it’s an entirely different party, so it comes back to the quality of the leadership and the programme on offer, not the head office brass plate.

The new leader won’t have time for distractions and Ruth Davidson proved the truth of the words of that great Irish political philosopher Frank Carson: it’s the way ye tell ‘em.