What Next for Scotland?
The Scottish Tory party is a mess. Please feel free to send TB thoughts on what next, what beyond a much needed change of leader, can be done. A Caledonian conspirator writes:
As you will probably know (or are at least aware of the arguments for), Scotland has historically and traditionally been a conservative country. My countrymen’s recent dogged and, frankly, frustrating attempts to blame Thatcher for the countries woes are now unfounded. Our inability to take responsibility for ourselves, and corresponding blind loyalty to Labour, has done us more damage in the last couple of decades than Lady T ever did.TB's unionist credentials have softened since he moved to London. Regarding the ideas pitched here? Full fiscal yes but keeping the head of state, defence and FCO control and he might just be on to something...
The meaning of “the union” has always been influx. The Scots and English have always had a different law, education and health systems and both countries have maintained their own separate cultures – hence the reason that a union was required (otherwise it’d just be one country). But then you know all this…
How do we wrestle Scotland back from the grip of a destructive, corrupt and entrenched Labour party who do nothing but take their vote in Scotland for granted?
I would suggest that the Tories need to acknowledge the new constitutional reality in the UK and revise their interpretation of ‘the union’. (One of the features, for me at least, of the recent leaders debates was that the BBC clearly had not. I’m not suggesting the SNP should have got an equal footing, the constitutional anomalies would have been as good as impossible to address, but there was little recognition of this when the debates were being agreed between the broadcasters (I could be wrong here)).
So, basically, I think the Scottish Tories should publically acknowledge what many of them do in private. The Scots should be granted full political and fiscal autonomy. This is completely consistent with conservatism (de-centralisation / individual responsibility / etc) and would create competition between the two countries (which, again, a key feature of conservatism). This would probably need a complete separation between the Scots Tories and the Westminster based party to assure the Scots that connections to the ‘nasty party’ have been severed but an ideological partnership could be retained.
We could then redefine the union as a cultural and social one. Free labour movement, both countries could leave the EU (they would have to – and I’d argue for Scotland to stay out and join EFTA), etc, etc…
As you rightly claim, an effective right of centre party is completely absent from Scotland. This is not only damaging (in terms of political arguments in Scotland being almost arbitrary) but it is inconsistent with the political make up of the Scots psyche.
Sure, there’d be problems and tension but to pretend that the current arrangement is doing anything other than sour the relations between the two countries is deluded.
Unionism is British nationalism. We should all have the courage to be nationalistic about our individual countries, rather than some strange ‘union’ that exists between them. Nationalism is a good thing as long as it does not lead one to think their nation is superior to other nations.
Consistent with this, I believe, my nationalism is all about individual responsibility and recognising Scotland’s failings as much as it is about promoting its strength. When I argue for an independent Scotland I do very much from a pro-England, and pro-English, perspective. Two great countries which are locked in a tense and unconstructive relationship.
When Hamilton and Button came first and second driving for McLaren in a recent Grand Prix it was billed as a British victory. Nonsense, it was an English one, and I was delighted for them. If I was English I would have wanted this to have been described as an English victory. I certainly didn’t feel the Scots should have been recognised, even implicitly.
Posts
