The lady is for turning
- 26 Apr 07, 01:29 PM
With commendable sagacity, Annabel Goldie forecast that the media will report her speech today as a strategic U-turn. She鈥檚 right. They will. Because it was.
Or rather it was an S-bend. Miss Goldie opened this election campaign by declaring that the Tories would no longer obsess about the Union.
Instead, they would focus upon 鈥渂read and butter issues鈥.
Wise observers reckoned that was because the issue of the constitution had laid the Tories low. Across Europe, parties of the Right tend to rely substantially on the patriotic vote. They are flag wavers.
Over recent decades, in Scotland, the Tories picked the wrong flag. They were seen, arguably unfairly, as an English party. Scotland wanted to see political hands clutching the Saltire.
Slowly, painfully slowly, the Tories have struggled back from utter collapse - a collapse hastened by their opposition to self-government.
Hence, their decision this time around to major on issues like affordable housing, families, crime and drugs. Not the Union.
David Cameron signalled a change with his speech at Gretna Green.
The clue was in the warm-up act. He was accompanied on that occasion by David Trimble, the former leader of the Ulster Unionists who has joined the Tories.
You do not field a prominent Unionist when you are planning to talk about affordable housing.
Today Annabel Goldie delivered a speech in Edinburgh billed as her 鈥淪tate of the Union鈥 address.
So what is the Union鈥檚 condition, according to Miss Goldie? Pretty parlous 鈥 but open to rescue.
And would Miss Goldie mount that rescue? Under Scotland鈥檚 system, a First Minister does not simply emerge.
To be appointed FM, you have first to carry a vote in Holyrood among MSPs.
It鈥檚 an iterative system 鈥 with repeated exhaustive ballots. To win, you need an overall majority of those voting.
Annabel Goldie says there is 鈥 and will be 鈥 a majority of Unionist supporters in Holyrood.
Would she then join a Unionist coalition? Or at least vote for a Unionist First Minister?
She says no 鈥 or rather she declined, repeatedly, to answer when quizzed by the wicked media (self included.)
Why so? Because the Tories say their policies aren鈥檛 for sale, they won鈥檛 do deals.
Because, I strongly suspect, the Tory faithful simply wouldn鈥檛 countenance the idea of their party propping up Labour or the LibDems.
After all, their core pitch is that the 鈥淟ib-Lab pact鈥, as they call it, has been useless.
If it came to the bit, do I think Annabel Goldie and her colleagues would vote for Alex Salmond? Of course not. I think they would do their sums 鈥 and work out how best to thwart the SNP, if possible.
But they can鈥檛 say so now because it runs counter to their strategy.
You see, they don鈥檛 face these questions when they stick to 鈥渂read and butter鈥.
Then, it鈥檚 quite reasonable to say that they would judge each issue as it arises and vote accordingly.
But voting for a First Minister is quite different. It鈥檚 fundamental, the starting point 鈥 and the elementary choice is likely to be between the leader of the largest party supporting the Union and the leader of the SNP.
By reverting to the issue of the Union, Annabel Goldie prompts the issue of where she would stand in that choice.
The 91热爆 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Comments Post your comment
If the Unionist parties prevent Alex Salmond from being First Minister despite the SNP having won the largest number of seats then they will succeed in demonstrating exactly why the Union has to be dissolved.
While Annabel Goldie may be forming letters with the twists and turns that would do credit to an obstacle course, many electors are wondering if they are to be dis-enfranchised. These are those who asked for postal votes in Highland and Moray, in particular, but may be more widespread. The voting papers were supposed to come out from 24th April, then we heard about a printing problem.In today's press, there is something about the Post Office got them on Tuesday and they should be here Thursday! Post is past, but nothing yet.
Is it possible to use your press credentials to investigate just what is going on with these as the weekend is approaching and many holidays/oil change of shift and so on start then. So if these papers do not appear, then a large number of people(18,000 in Highland alone) are likely to be unable to vote - or even to be able to complete the papers and get them back in time. This seems a scandal in the making which is well worth a detailed analysis by the 91热爆 Scotland team.
What are the Scottish Tories for? What purpose do they fulfill in Scotland? They are an aged group, a rump of a party, that is widely despised and who continually find themselves crowded out of the political right by both Labour and the LibDems. They serve no purpose but to remind others of how the mighty can fall. It's time this lot was shown the door.
Scottish Conservatives were always an English party until their recent decimation; who could ever forget Gordon Campbell, George Younger, Malcolm Rifkind, Ian Lang and Michael Forsyth?
I have chosen to list those in living memory of the majority of bloggers, starting with Gordon Campbell who as Secretary of State for Scotland in Edward Heath鈥檚 administration voted along with all the cabinet to deny Scotland access to the revenues from North Sea Oil
鈥溾eath asked government departments in early 1972 to explore "novel arrangements" to help revive Scotland's economy with "its own resources"鈥︹
The slow painful struggle of the Conservatives from utter collapse through to today have seen them clearly 鈥榯agged鈥 as Scottish Conservatives in order that they routing received in no way reflects negatively on the English Party; should, heaven forbid that the Conservatives ever achieve success in Scotland they will again be categorised as part of the Conservative Party.
The cause and effect for this routing was clear to see, trading Scottish jobs for South West votes, turning Scotland into the UK testing ground, standing against the devolution wishes of Scots and the paternally incorrect stance of mummy knows best.
It must be said in balance that Tony Blair, especially with his loyal lieutenant Jack McConnell have continued the utilisation of the testing ground, anti smoking legislation and fortnightly rubbish collections to name but two.
David Cameron did signal a change with his speech at Gretna Green but I feel that had more to do with welcoming Scottish Conservatives back in from the cold; David Cameron possibly hopes that Scottish views on Margaret Thatcher, the Poll Tax and Malcolm Rifkind have faded into oblivion, I鈥檝e news for him, they have not.
The Tories like the Liberals claim their policies aren鈥檛 for sale or compromise, they won鈥檛 do deals; I鈥檝e news for these two minnows, it is currently their only chance of power and as the minority partner their bargaining position is not as strong as their rhetoric. I await their statements on coalition post the election.
From way back when.....the creation (or reconvening) of the Scottish Parliament, I had thought that we were being offered the possibiltiy of a new kind of politics.
Politics "in the round", reaching for consensus and not "yaboo"; inclusive and drawing on citizen involvement and the best of specialist expertise.
In this environment, I had understood that stable minority government, legislating issue by issue (and not legilslative confetti on the latest "whim") would be entirely possible. And that "fair play" would mean the leader of largest party would be first minister.
Instead, parties and media commentators seem bent on "squeezing" the potential of this wider-thinking model rooted in proportional representation into the old models operating in Westminster from first past the post. The dangers of permanent majorities taking no account of opposing views are plain for all to see - Iraq. Time for a change in more ways than one.
And, by the way, my understanding is pretty clear that SNP are standing on a platform of establishing credibility as a government within the existing parameters of the Scottish Parliament. The question of independence will be determined by referendum of the Scottish people.
The more the other large parties oppose such a referendum, the more I am inclined to support it.
I'm still thinking about how to vote. I'm also still outraged about Iraq. Of course, mostly about the human suffering caused but also (at a time of further reflection on political process) about the manner of the political decision-making which brought it about. An administration with a big majority which first made a decision then, at best, ignored the advice of its own intelligence experts, at worst corrupted the process by which such advice was processed. Finally, insulted the intelligence of its citizenry (to whom it owes its power)and ignored massive demonstrations of its avowed disagreement.
If anyone can tell me how a devolved, as opposed to an independent parliament could prevent this happening to the Scottish citizenry again, I'd be really glad to hear. I've got lots of pals in England, Wales and Ireland.
BT's blog is spot on, yet again.
By nature, I am suspicious of flag wavers, and historically the Tories have repeatedly wrapped the Union flag around themselves like a cloak but seldom worn it with dignity.
As a still 'undecided' I want to know where Ms Goldie and presumably her part will cast her/their vote for FM. If she's not prepared to tell me, I can't see me voting for her or them.
And it is an issue of considerable importance; it may decide if Scotland gets a 'workable coalition' with some strategic vision for the country's future growth, or a minority exective who will continually have to struggle to get any policies implemented at all over the next term.
The question should be put again, and it should be answered!
Without trying to be too sectarian about it, presumably Goldie reckons she will not need to consider her options after the elections.
If she is actually in a strong position (i.e. gets 4 or more extra MSPs), then she gets to a point whereby she may be an attractive coalition partner. In those circumstances, why would she not be willing to join in a coalition to get her policies through. After all, there is no chance, for example that there will be a majority in parliament for the blanket reduction in council tax for rich and poor pensioners. She could however manage it in a coalition.
Logic dictates that she reckons that they are going nowhere and will try and keep her current crop of MSPs on a 'we stand on our principles' basis.
If I were Ms Goldie I would not risk usurping democracy by ganging up with the other unionist parties to prevent Alex Salmond becoming First Minister.
This isn't Zimbabwe.
The parties would ignore the decision of the electorate at their peril.
Any attempt to subvert the result would without a doubt result in huge electoral costs to them.
The Tories have not even caught up with with fact that there is a parliament in Edinburgh yet! The debate has moved on from pre devolution days! The Tories will never recover in Scotland as they refuse to engage fully in the process of constitutional change!
This pig headedness is not just damaging the Tory Party where it appears there are no dissenters to lets wave the Union Jack till it kills us viewpont, it is also damaging to Scotland as they are not making a much needed contribution to political debate in Scotland!
Constitutional change is an ongoing process now and I think that the Tories should engage in the process in a positive manner and not the negative manner that they have displayed since Thatchers era!
Do they wish to be consigned to the dustbin of political history!?
Or is the the case that the Tory Party in Scotland is incapable of thinking any independent thought at all?
Sure, the Tories certainly wouldnt jump into bed with the dreaded SNP, but the Lib Dems might! Something to think about when deciding who to vote for!
History has shown us clearly what happens to those who do not respect the wishes of the Scottish electorate; it would be dishonest to claim that the timescales between cause and effect have always positioned these episodes of disrespect and retribution as near neighbours.
Evidence of lesser timescales, resultant from education and self determination are more forthcoming; ignore the wishes of the Scottish Electorate at your peril.
If the Tories are in reality going to support the 'Lib-Lab Pact' they hate so much, without buying any influence - by joing the coalition - then they should say so.
"Vote Scottish Conservative, deny yourself a voice."
Can someone please explain when we have this collection of Unionist parties, why none of them use the most obvious symbol of the union - its flag. Could it be that they do not want their parties associated with such a negative symbol, its image tarnished by association with empire, extreme right wing organisations, sectarienism, the clearances, thatcherism, weapons of mass destruction (trident) and illeagal wars.
Yet for the benifit of thier careers they are only too happy for Scotland to remain associated with all the above. This thought came to me as I drove through Gordon and noticed the main Unionist threat to Alex Salmond in that constituancey, the ever opportunistic and unprincipled Lib-Dems are using (Abusing) the Saltire on thier posters as they alledgedly fight for the Union (funny world).
The Scottish(sic) Tory Party are nothing more than an anti Scottish pressure group.