The Tories need to become Scots nationalists. Honestly

azzuri · The Tories need to become Scots nationalists. Honestly

see - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-2523566,00.html

The Tories need to become Scots nationalists. Honestly

Matthew Parris: Columnist of the Year

Catalonia, from where I write, occupies the top-right-hand part of Spain. Abutting France, it includes the Mediterranean end of the Pyrenees and the Costa Brava. Its capital is Barcelona and the country (for it feels itself to be a country) is modern, industrialised and populous — but its heart and soul are still in its wild, empty scenery, rural hinterland, and long and intermittently abused national history.

Catalonia has a lesson for the Tories in their attitude to Scottish nationalism in the year ahead. You will be hearing a lot about Scotland as the March elections to the Edinburgh Parliament loom. Parallels with Catalonia, though inexact, are striking. So whenever I say “Catalan” or “Catalonia”, think “Scottish” or “Scotland”. Come with me on this short Iberian excursion even if you know nothing of Catalonia. To see why, let us start with two used-to-be’s.

There used to be a serious centre Right in Catalan politics. Now it stands no earthly chance of forming a government in the devolved Catalan parliament. The reason is simple: the Partido Popular — a staunchly conservative party that formed the previous Spanish Government — has turned its back on the reality of Catalan nationhood. The PP stand (in British terms) for the “Union”, and against further devolution. Its support has sunk below 20 per cent in Catalonia. Many Catalans would feel it a betrayal to vote for it. The Socialist Party of Spain has performed a balancing act on Catalan nationalism but (in power in Madrid, and sharing power in Catalonia) it is stuck on the fence and vulnerable.

The second used-to-be is this: Catalans used to be a rather conservative people. Underneath, they still are. Sober, even sombre, self-respecting, ingenious and self-reliant, their lives are bound up with saving, investment, work, community, family and their culture. They can be a little dour. The rest of Spain may call them grasping, provincial and tediously fixated on their nationhood, but should acknowledge that Catalans have contributed disproportionately to the achievements of the united kingdom of which they have been part.

So much for used-to-be’s. Now for two should-be’s. There should be a Catalan Conservative Party. It could win. But only progressives and independents ever embraced the Catalan identity and cause with any courage. This identity is so precious to Catalans that many persuade themselves they are leftish free-thinkers, though they most assuredly are not. Others vote for a mainstream nationalist movement called Convergència, vaguely populist, a centrist-opportunist party and repository for Catalan conservatives too attached to their nationhood to vote PP.

Secondly there should be in Madrid a Spanish national party on the centre Right, combining forces under a conservative banner with a Catalan sister-party. The PP needs the brains and the guts to tell its supporters elsewhere in Spain that the only way to stop Spain fragmenting is to back a union of nations-within-a-nation, ceding to peoples like the Catalans and Basques the autonomies they yearn for. Step by step this is coming anyway. Nothing will stop it.

So why, by persistently (and unsuccessfully) pouring cold water on the nationalisms of small nations, should conservative politics lose the affections of millions of inherently conservative people? Why hand the initiative to opportunistic single-cause nationalistic movements? When, as a conservative party, you have so few votes to lose in a devolved part of the kingdom, why not surrender to reality and embrace what no conservative should have difficulty in embracing: a people’s sense of nationhood? I have slipped unintentionally into talking about Scotland and the Tories. Good. Other columnists, too, have been writing about the apparent rise in separatist sentiment there. They rage entertainingly against Alex Salmond and the SNP. It is not difficult to rage against Mr Salmond but it is not enough and it will not do.

Among English commentators the default position (never quite stated but never far beneath the surface) is that separatist politicians are dishonest opportunists and it is about time the Scots grew up and realised which side their bread is buttered on. Among Scottish commentators in our national British media the view tends to be that separatist politicians are dishonest opportunists and it is really rather sad that they want Scotland to turn its back on so much that we in the United Kingdom can share.

The Conservative Party should arm itself against both approaches. We should ask why, if the Scots Nationalists are such transparently dishonest opportunists, they are doing so well. Naturally a separatist party will pick up what grievances it can find lying around and make hay with them. Naturally it will sow mischief and trade on resentment. Naturally it will gloss over inconsistencies in its vision for the future, fudge logic, shun hard choices and play to emotion. That is what independence movements do. If Mr Salmond is to be indicted for rabble-rousing, playing up the promise and playing down the difficulty, he must share the dock with George Washington, Jomo Kenyatta and Nelson Mandela.

If a people are treated like children, we must not be surprised if their politicians do not always play politics like grown-ups. Until a people start visualising themselves as a country — not just in the realms of the patriotic imagination, but at the practical level of tax, law and administration — there will of course be a romantic unrealism, and a negativism too, in the attitudes they strike.

But rather than bewail its aggression or pick at its obvious inconsistencies, we Conservatives should consider the possibility that separatist politics in Scotland appeals to something real and deep in the electorate: a need that cannot be answered by scorn, or wished away.

If we sense this, we must ask ourselves a second question: can Conservatives, consistently with our own principles, try to answer this need in a way that reconciles it with our own hopes for Britain? I think the answer to both questions is “yes”. A Conservative vision of the Union could be of a deep and permanent alliance of equal nations within a common economy, each with the dignity of self-government, each raising taxes for what they did alone, and sharing taxes for what they did together. The disparities in population between England and Scotland will be fatal to this structure only if we want them to be. Other federations and unions take such problems in their stride.

Disparities in wealth will only prove a stumbling block it we want the Scots to stumble; there is otherwise no reason why the richer parts of the Union should not voluntarily help the poorer parts, as they always have, as makes sense in any common market.

When we English mutter that the Scots should not expect us to subsidise them if they don’t want us to rule them, we should ask ourselves what we mean by this. That the justification for subsidy is that it purchases subjection? What are we saying here? Is this really England’s motive — to buy a nation off? Conducted at that level the argument is more imperialist than unionist, and destroys itself by inviting the response “save the money and let the ingrates go”.

“Save the money and let them go” will prove the natural (though unintended) destination of unreconstructed Tory unionism. By deploying in England a poisonous argument about subsidy and ingratitude, it will poison itself when the English draw the obvious conclusion.

If the Union is to be saved, Tory unionism must be reconstructed. The time to begin is this year when, as seems likely, the Labour Party loses power in Edinburgh. A tremendous row will follow, and persist. It may be for the next generation to decide where the devolutionary road ends; what’s important for today’s Conservatives is to be pushing forward in Scotland rather than pulling back: to be seen as part of the engine, not the handbrake. Unfamiliar as the ground may seem, the Conservative Party will soon have the chance to get on the right side of this argument. They should take it. They have nothing to lose.

IF Convenor

He started out so well, and then fell into the old crap of unquestioningly accepting that Scotland is poorer than England and consequently subsidised.

Scott2006

Parris seems to be embracing more devolutionary powers while at the same time advancing a new highly unlikely position for the Conservative Party in Scotland.

A pro-Scottish Conservative Party could easily cause a split from the British-Scottish Conservative Party position it occupies at the moment. In the future would a Conservative Party in Scotland seek to convert to a pro-Independence position? I don't see them playing with fire anytime soon.

Parris avoids the conclusion that the Conservatives in Scotland suffered meltdown of their core vote as a direct result of 18 years of continuous British-Conservative policies which was probably 13 years more than Scotland could stomach. Do we want Scotland to be in a position again where at the British level of administration and government a rump party of perhaps a solitary MP rules the roost? The money allocated to Holyrood's Parliament could be reduced significantly causing perhaps great resentment. Mr Parris considers none of these while promoting a greater nations-within-a-nation brand of Conservatism I just can't see catching on with the present Scottish electorate.

Matthew Parris wants the Conservatives in Scotland to get on the right side of the question (Independence question or fuzzy greater nationalist question?). Maybe he is suggesting they do that by being "dishonest and opportunists" which he lazily ascribes to the SNP.

His article fails to state any positive moves that a real political party might take to revive its fortunes. Typical media-former-politico smoke-and-mirrors bar-room comments.

Aventinian

No offence, it's a ridiculous idea.

If the Tories changed to Nationalists, almost their entire vote would switch to the Lib Dems.

Not to mention that I doubt you'll find one person within the party's ranks who'll speak even remotely favourably on Scots Nationalism. It's like asking the SNP to become British nationalists for electoral gain.

Incidentally, the Tories are probably the most supportive of new (ie, fiscal) powers for the Scottish Parliament out of all the non-separatist parties represented.

IF Convenor

The major flaw in your theory, Aventinian, is that "almost their entire vote" amounts to... not a lot. The idea, I think, is to revive their fortunes and that means getting more and possibly different people to vote for them. To do that they have to do something different.

Mr. Parris is correct in his assessment that the Scots are naturally conservative but, as long as the Conservative Party remains unchanged (i.e. the descendants of Thatcher) they will never fare well in Scotland. Almost the entire natural Tory constituency has already switched to the Lib Dems and the only way to get them back is to become different from the UK Conservatives. If they don't do it, another Scottish party will fill the vacuum on the centre-right and kill the last remnants of the "English Party" forever in Scotland. I couldn't care less if the existing Tory Party becomes more Scottish or a new party takes its place but Scottish politics needs a functioning centre-right party which can gain a respectable portion of the vote.

Either way, the new Conservatives have to be Conservatives and forget the Unionist part or they will never flourish.

Aventinian

IF Convenor

By not forgetting it you are doing exactly what Matthew Parris says the Tories are doing, failing to change in a way which would make them electable. You seem to have some affection for them so I'd have thought you'd like to see them elected some day. At the moment they are going nowhere.

Generations with no direct experience of Thatcher, etc. are hardly likely to turn out for a bunch of old ladies in tweed suits with blue rinsed hair.

Aventinian

There's no point in having a consistant party identity if you drop its raison d'etre at a whim - in fact, it'd be electorally dishonest to the masses.

And if that's your view of the Tory Party, I doubt I'll change it. However I do remind you that it is probably the biggest party on university campuses and has policies that are attracting more and more young people who are sick of Labour nonsense and the ingrained socialism of this country.

IF Convenor

The "ingrained socialism of this country" (Scotland?) is a myth. Scots are naturally conservative and would support a centre-right party if only they found one which represented their views. The fact that they do not support the Tories in large enough numbers reflects on the non-representative nature of the Tories, not the "ingrained socialism" of the Scots.

Now, you can either stick to your "consistant (sic) identity" and wither away, or become what people want to vote for and enjoy victory at the ballot box.

Aventinian

Well, no offence, but the Tory Party will not change itself for the worse simply to appeal to populism (and I think turning it into a Scottish Nationalist party would actually lose it votes).

To say that the Tories died because of some sort of bizarre change of identity is nonsense. I remind you that the Unionist Party only joined with the Conservatives in England and Wales when the party started losing support in great numbers. Before that it was an entirely separate and self-governing party.

Tell that other famous Tory party, the SNP, to become economic liberals. There are plenty of Nationalist left-wing parties after all.

IF Convenor

This thread was started with an article about the need for the Tory party to change. I didn't start it, I am merely commenting. If the article had been about the need of the SNP to change to become electable I'd have commented on that.

If opinion polls are to be believed, the SNP is doing rather well in its current guise, the Tory party isn't.

And if you believe that a political party won't change itself to become electable... where have you been for the past thirty years? Do you think Thatcher's Tories were identical to the party of Macmillan or of Heath? Do you think David Cameron is trying to get elected by keeping the Tories exactly as they were last year or the year before that? Need I mention "New Labour"?

Aventinian

The Tories aren't doing particularly poorly, that is the problem. Yes, they've become the third party, but they still manage to take a respectable proportion of the Scottish vote. Power works like the swinging of a pendulum in British politics (I forget who said that) - it was no long ago that we were lamenting the inevitable death of the UK's Labour Party.

A political party will change, but there's no reason for it to change its central principles - it might as well dissolve. The Labour Party, to be honest, hasn't changed as much as people suggest. It has come to terms with capitalism - but can you really imagine, in this day and age with the ideological war long since won, them doing anything otherwise? They're still a socialist party.

Cameron, despite giving the party a new image, is still very much a Tory. Of that I am certain. Environmentalism should be a matter for Conservatives; the problem previously was that the party was obsessed with Europe and other such issues that nobody really gave much of a toss about in reality. Equally Thatcher was still very much of the Tory standard, her election more reflected a social change: it was the working classes, now acceptable in politics, who pushed the principles of economic liberty. Without them, the Tories never would have changed, indeed they'd never have had to so long as they only had to contend with Labour.