Tom Griffin (London, OK): ConservativeHome has today published a survey of 144 Tory candidates in the 220 most winnable seats for the party at the next general election.
One particularly eye-catching detail: 54 per cent say "the Union should be defended at all costs", while 46 per cent would "not be uncomfortable about Scotland becoming independent."
On the face of it this is a remarkable result for a party whose unionism traditionally has been a core value.
However, O'Neill at A Pint of Unionist Lite suggests that there may be less to the story than meets the eye:
Firstly, I also don’t think the Union should be maintained at "all costs"- in the unlikely event that a majority voted against the continuance of the UK then, believing in the standard principles of democracy, I couldn’t in all conscience support any resulting extra-parliamentary action or, (God forbid) terrorist campaign to maintain the Union. The fact that over 50% of prospective Conservative MPs apparently would is actually slightly disturbing.I
It may the that the 46 per cent are actually more on line with the low-key approach to fighting Scottish nationalism set out by David Cameron in 2006, in a speech which acknowledged that independence was conceivable:
I don’t believe that, in the 21st century, Scotland will be cowed or intimidated into remaining part of the UK through fear of the economic consequences of going it alone.
Those of us who believe in the Union have got to do better than that.
This magnanimous tone is likely to be tested as the Tories work out their response to the Calman Report on the future of Scottish devolution. It will ring hollow indeed if they are the party to break up the emerging consensus in favour of more financial powers for Holyrood.
Comments
Tom, neither O’Neill’s nor your explanation rings true.
Dealing with O’Neill first. The two options can be seen as setting out the two poles between which Tory candidate’s opinions are likely to be found. Both contain ambiguities. ‘At all cost’ could imply acting with violence, as O’Neill suggests, but it’s stretching it to say that this would be assumed in the case of an internal political issues in a Western Democracy. The use of the double negative in the second option suggests it could encompass a range of attitudes, from being happy to see the back of Scotland to having only mild regret at it’s leaving. So the question seems to really be asking "in which general direction do you lean?" It’s spinning a unionist line to suggest it amounts to "At all costs [including violence]" yes or no?
Your own suggestion, that it is part of a strategy towards countering Scottish nationalism sounds far too calculating. The fact that most, if not all, of them are likely to be contesting English constituencies suggests that, even if we were to assume a calculating element, the implications of their answers can be seen in an entirely different light. They are far more likely to be reflecting a growing sentiment in England. Any cursory glance at the comments to items on this issue in ConservativeHome will show that readers of that site are split on this issue with the majority prescribing to the position of ‘good riddance’. There may here then be evidence of something going on in the Tory grass-roots. There is certainly an attitude common in journalistic and political circles in London that Scotland is freeloading and I’ve also read that such an attitude is common amongst Cameron’s existing back-bench MPs.
It seems more likely the response to this survey is a genuine reflection of the tension within the Tory party between its traditional support for the union and a growing sense that the union is already broken by the creation of the Scottish Parliament. The lack of a strong unionist message from Cameron and Goldie may be undermining unionist support within the Tory party itself. Defending a union where Scotland is perceived to be feted at England’s expense may not be a policy many feel able to take to the public. The Tory party is increasingly Janus-faced when it comes to Scotland. To appeal in Scotland they are trying to be seen as fully accepting devolution while in England they are more likely to be found citing the iniquity of Labour’s wanton vandalism in relation to the constitution.
Alex Buchan
I think a fair few Tories would be quite happy to wave good by to Scotland (Goodbye and keep sending the Whiskey) as well as Wales. It would leave an England far simpler to win and keep in Tory hands. It's just that they can't openly state that before the Brit public. Perhaps it's like the Cannabis issue. Many a politician would be happy to legalise it they just haven't got then balls or integrity to say so in public. The Cornish Democrat
Good riddance indeed.
Post Calman and post Michael Martin constitutional equivocation 'Let the people decide' ( but only sort of kiddy-on Blair-Lordsy - stylee) has a humorous ring.
Come to the bit all the Daily Mail values they've been absorbing wil rise to the fore . The room for 2006 sophisticated Cameronian language will fade quicker than a bout of pro-Murray bandwagoning.
Post new comment