Scotland could soon have two parties on the right – all that remains to decide is who they are

We are being told through competing media briefings the choice that will face Scottish Conservative members will be between Murdo Fraser relaunching a leadership bid that was rejected in 2011 – with him again raising the prospect of the party returning to its pre-1965 independent status – and a variety of candidates who will wish to continue being immersed in the UK Conservatives, with political autonomy for policy decided and delivered at Holyrood.

In practical terms there are advantages for either approach, although to date these have not yet been fully explained, other than the highly pertinent question of how the funds for an independent Scottish Tory party will be raised.

Simply blaming poor policy choices or embarrassing behaviour of Westminster colleagues as justification enough is more than a tad condescending, offering more than a whiff of Scottish exceptionalism that is ill-deserved.

Let us remember it was the craven and shabby behaviour of erstwhile Scottish leader Douglas Ross – backed by a management board that included other local luminaries – who contributed to the record low Scottish support. Over the years the Scottish Tories have avoided bad policy choices by simply not having many positive policies of note – and then allowing Tory MSPs to vote against their own group anyway.

If there is to be an independent Scottish Conservatives it first has to waken up to the fact that the Scottish defeat was not made by Boris Johnson or Liz Truss, but by its own failure to attract voters to its cause. The breakthrough of Reform UK in Scotland was not because it had a charismatic leader or well-funded campaign – it had neither – it was because Scottish Conservatives did not play to their potential strengths and present a valid Conservative alternative. This created the space for Reform UK to mop-up disenchanted support crying out for a party that reflected their views.

The broad church nature of the ruling political parties we have had for the last two-hundred or so years are a direct reflection of the first-past-the-post system we have used for Westminster parliamentary elections. Winning a majority of seats so a Prime Minister can be invited by the monarch to form a government means that Whigs and Tories, Liberals and Conservatives and then Labour parties have, by necessity, all established coalitions of competing views and interests that had more in common than what divided them.

In this way they could amass enough support to win elections, coalescing around a fashionable philosophy, viable policies or a particular leader.

These coalitions of interests represented originally the competing landed aristocrats, then came the new industrial magnates vying for votes from the middle and working classes, and then professionals and regional or sectoral interests.

Now, in Scotland, these parties built on coalitions of evolving interests are about to see some change, as twenty-five years of devolution using a proportional voting system is, inevitably, undermining the big tent approach of the Scottish Conservatives.

They may very well split to form one or more political parties who would rather form external coalitions by negotiating political power with other groups – rather than being a pre-existing coalition created through history to win a majority of votes.

Those not in agreement with the division would be able to continue to operate as an all UK party, because the proportional voting system usually rewards parties that obtain above six percent with some seats in the regional lists.

We could therefore have two conservative-leaning parties winning, say, enough vote shares of around 10 per cent each and returning a combined total of around twenty or more MSPs – a healthy number that might be less toxic in the formation of a coalition executive.

This potential break-up of the Scottish Conservatives is given further encouragement by the arrival of Reform UK as a viable electoral force in Scotland. Often ignored by pollsters as uncredited “others”, the nascent party has reached seven percent in a real poll that matters The impact came because it stood candidates in every seat and relied on the impact of Nigel Farage across the broadcasters and social media (especially Tik-Tok) to appeal to new voters.

If Reform UK can maintain its current momentum in Westminster by showing the divided Conservatives how to provide a rational opposition to Labour – while developing a credible portfolio of policies with good communicators to put them across – then there is no reason that in Scotland it cannot break into double figures. At this point we could be faced with three parties of the right in Scotland, probably an unsustainable situation – even with proportional representation – which would require a rationalisation through one falling away due to lack of electoral support.

The likelihood would be the more outspoken Reform UK could take over the role of the old Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party while the independent Scottish Conservatives (no doubt under new branding) would likely drift to a quasi-Liberal policy-light position while arguing for further constitutional powers. Appeals for federalism would no doubt surface as it would be in its self-interest to build itself into the foundations of devolved institutions.

A new less toxic Scottish conservative party might just be acceptable to other parties looking for partners to form a Scottish Administration at Holyrood – but it also might find itself smaller than a more populist and hence more popular “true” conservative party evolving from Reform UK. If this was the outcome in the 2026 election it would reflect a welcome return to policy-driven politics after two decades of constitutional strife.

It is too early to predict accurately until we hear the competing propositions – but this democratic evolution has a long way to run.

Brian Monteith is a former member of the Scottish and European parliaments