Davidson's speech confirms No will not be the end of the story

Davidson's speech confirms No will not be the end of the story

by Alex Massie
article from Tuesday 26, March, 2013

RUMOURS OF LIFE within the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party are the kind of whisperings in which veteran observers of Scottish politics have learned not to place too much faith. Grim experience teaches us that these occasional stirrings of something interesting are generally followed by a relapse into stultifying ennui. This is as depressing as it is predictable.

So we should be wary of assuming that hints the party is finally prepared to consider making itself relevant for, really, the first time in nearly 20 years will actually come to anything. Like fans of the Scottish football team, we have been here before and we know better than to waste too much energy on hope.

Nevertheless there are signs that – at last – something may be stirring inside the Tory party. This time it may even be something that resonates with people who might, in normal circumstances, actually consider voting for Conservative candidates.

Since I have had occasion to criticise Ruth Davidson sharply in the past, it is not only fair but also necessary to note that the speech she will give today marks a welcome step forward. The Tory leader will argue that it is time for the Scottish parliament to enjoy significantly greater revenue raising powers. The "principle is clear" she is expected to say, "if you spend the public's money then you must be accountable to the public, both for how it is spent and how it is raised".

Just in case that message is insufficiently clear, Davidson will repeat it: "A parliament with little responsibility for raising the money it spends will never be properly accountable to the people of Scotland".

Well, there are few things so joyful as the sound of a sinner's repentance. Better a late conversion than no conversion at all. Some of us have been making exactly this point for years and wondering why a right-of-centre party should be so blind to - or perhaps afraid of – such a crushingly obvious conservative principle.

Davidson herself has needed some persuading. She was elected as the Continuity Candidate after Annabel Goldie stepped down and it sometimes seemed as though her youth and biography was expected to compensate for a lack of fresh ideas and persuade voters that the Tory party had "changed" or "moved on".

That dog never showed any signs of hunting. Instead, Davidson has slowly – too slowly for some – inched her way towards some of the views espoused by her erstwhile rival Murdo Fraser. She cannot go as far as suggesting the party dissolve itself and start again (as Fraser recommended) but her apparent embrace of more devolution is a welcome step in the right direction.

It is not just that some form of fiscal autonomy – the details of which still require some working out – is a sensible idea that might yet help revive the right-of-centre cause. Better still, it makes an argument in favour of better government.

As for the constitutional question, it suggests that the Tories are edging towards a position from which they may actually trust the Scottish people. Not before time you may say and you would have a point. Nevertheless, though they have waited until the party is on the brink of extinction they do seem, at last, to have recognised the full extent of their predicament.

At last, however, it seems there has been a recognition that the party's dismal predicament required action. It is a testament to the party's ossified state that a move that seems so obvious to so many others still merits being considered radical in the context of the Conservative party's recent history. Such is life.

Fiscal autonomy – or something like it – finally gives the Tories the chance to campaign on financial matters. Holyrood elections have tended to be competitions to see whether Labour or the SNP can offer more sweeties to the general public. They have been giveaway contests. But if Holyrood must court unpopularity by raising revenues for itself there is, at last, a chance for the Conservatives to offer a coherent vision for a lower-tax, smaller-state future. There will, finally, be some need to match spending to revenues. And that means "normal" politics, so long absent from Scotland, will have arrived.

The Tories may not win many more seats – at least not yet – but devolving tax raising powers means they can be a meaningful part of the conversation. Even better, they can offer an alternative to a Scottish consensus that prefers to focus on inputs at the expense of outputs. This too is worth a cheer or two.

It may be true, as the SNP has suggested, that the Tories have only reluctantly reached this point. Moreover the nationalists may be right to suggest it is only the threat of independence that has prodded the Tories into action. Be that as it may, there is at last some sign of intellectual life on the Tory benches.

Not only that, Davidson's move – in conjunction with comparable shifts by Labour and the Liberal Democrats – give the lie to the idea, tenaciously held by nationalists, that a No vote in the referendum ends the discussion about Scotland's future. It suits the SNP to pretend that is the case but, despite their apparent certainty on this, the nationalists are, I think, mistaken. A No vote does not end the story. If Ruth Davidson and the Tories can recognise this so, I fancy, can the electorate.

ThinkScotland exists thanks to readers' support - please donate in any currency and often

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter & like and share this article

User Comments

Alex good article. Dare I say it I agree with you , that the SC&UP is not dead but at 13% of the popular poll no matter what they do I don`t see them charging forward with nothing more at this late stage of promises of doing something different? I for one won`t hold my breath. What is it Ruth says today - “the Scottish Conservatives are not, and never have been, a party which stands in the way of the ambitions of Scotland’s people.” Did I read this correctly? Which party opposed devolution up to their back teeth, in the face of overwhelming support for the principle and totally alienated themselves almost from the Scottish psyche? This is another poor attempt at re-writing history just as in the recent speech at the Goodenough College in London. I suggested then, Ruth should keep her day job and not look to meddle in historical debate, and this speech dosen`t enthuse me to think that the “leopard “ has changed its spots. The SC&UP, I am sure have assessed by the time next year comes round, the continued negative way the Coalition in Westminster, may still be operating ( if its is still there) the Scottish People might just say – “ Surely we can do better than that !!! “ They have dithered , and done nothing until it is possible too little far too late for them to get their acts right. Nothing in the speech today says that Ruth, and the current set up and front bench can do anything to counter that.

Posted on Tuesday 26, March, 2013 by Jim Terras
Not sure anything is new. Scotland has had the right to lower/raise income tax by 3p from the start and can now do 10p yet none of them (but UKIP) has had the guts to campaign on lowering or indeed raising it.

Posted on Tuesday 26, March, 2013 by Neil Craig