The Scottish Conservatives must at long last decide what they are for

It is a smart question on the obvious level that many small-c Conservative Party sympathisers know what they are against, but all too seldom have given much thought to what they are for, other than expressing it as the opposite of what they are against (and such polar opposites are not necessarily true).

I cut my teeth during the political heyday of the Cold War, often violent trade union unrest and Irish republican murders. It was, back then, relatively easy as a Conservative to decide what one was against. But what, indeed, was one for?

When, over time, these challenges became settled or evolved into different and less absolute threats, I found many Conservatives were unsure of what to say, what to rally behind. While they were happy that many of their demons had been defeated – or so they thought – finding a unifying common bond became harder as they split off in different directions as they pursued what they were for. Without the common bond of what they were against, their ideas and priorities for change were often radically different, if not mutually exclusive.

Some Conservatives – like myself – would look to liberalise and deregulate, to release and spread freedoms from erstwhile state regulation, while others would find their own constitutional and institutional frameworks to support that invariably strengthened state control through different channels.

That schism was especially evident in the Conservative Party’s approach to the European Economic Community, which was turbocharged when it became the more enveloping and invasive European Union. Eschewing hard won national democratic governance by contracting out decision making to unaccountable technocrats became a division of what Conservatives were for and against, and remains so at parliamentary level to this day.

In Scotland most, but not all, Conservatives were against constitutional devolution, preferring devolving directly to people, for instance through closer management of their schools, hospitals and all-purpose councils, rather than creating a legislative parliament.

Many feared an Edinburgh Parliament would centralise power in favour of the political class from the industrial Central Belt, would weaken all local authorities, be it those of our great cities or idyllic rural redoubts, and would make taxation higher in Scotland, with only the fleet-footed wealthy able to escape the price.

Some were greatly troubled a Scottish Parliament might only strengthen the fortunes of the SNP and Scottish nationalism in general, finding agreement with Labour’s Tam Dalyell that it was “a motorway to independence with no exit routes”. Nevertheless, displaying their democratic losers’ consent after losing the referendum, they resolved to try and make Parliament work so the United Kingdom would indeed remain whole.

Now, after 25 years of the Scottish Parliament, the party members face choosing their fifth leader and it’s as good a time as any to ask themselves the question – what are they for?

One would hope the potential leaders of the Scottish Conservatives would know what they are for, but beyond the low-hanging platitudes it is not at all clear. Hard work and commitment is all very well, but should be a given. What are their specifics ideas, policies and strategy to obtain power to deliver them?

Why do they routinely spout euphemisms? Can they not call a tax cut a tax cut and explain why they are necessary and how they would deliver them?

The potential Scottish Conservative leaders need to be braver by being explicit, passionate and coherent about what they are for, going beyond the cliches and slogans of social media.

If they are serious about ever sharing any levers of power with other parties in Holyrood, they need to think seriously about what common ground they can establish and how they will not be excluded simply for being Tories.

As others have shown, under a proportional voting system power is more easily obtained as an accepted minority when governing parties share your policies, but lack the votes to deliver them, than by becoming the main opposition, but are viewed as lepers.

When Ruth Davidson plotted a course for her version of the Tories to be closer to, if not replace the Liberal Democrats, she created the opportunity for a Reform-type party to emerge. And so it has proved.

With possibly five years of Nigel Farage’s Reform at Westminster, there can be no doubt the party will stand candidates in the 2026 Holyrood elections. It is already standing candidates in Scottish Council by-elections.

Key to any response must surely be to recognise the strategic error in not embracing Brexit by providing a home for the million Scots who voted for it, the majority from outside the Tory party, rather than chasing Liberal Democrat remainers.

This should tie-in with rebooting the Scottish economy, with creative solutions for encouraging entrepreneurs and innovators that other parties are not interested in.

Other specifics must tap into particularly strong Scottish attitudes – such as valuing and repairing our education as a route to meritocracy – and expanding equality of opportunity rather than equality of misery through public service reforms.

If the next Scottish Conservative leader is able to answer Bernard Ponsonby’s question about what he or she and the party is for, without flinching for a second’s thought, they will at last be ready to offer hope to Scots wanting better futures irrespective of the constitutional settlement.

- Brian Monteith is a former member of the Scottish and European parliaments and editor of ThinkScotland.org