Tory Conference: the first flickers of the Unionist fightback.
This party conference demonstrated that the party leadership have finally begun to take seriously the separatist threat north of the border.
Even if you spent all four days at conference, you could have missed it.
As you wended your way through the drink-filled receptions, corporate-sponsored stands and the occasional fringe event, you might not have noticed any change on the previous year. But if you attended the right events and listened to the right people, something was clear. For the first time since the devolution referendums in 1998, the Conservative Party is starting to consider seriously its role in the defence of the Union.
This wasn’t in Cameron’s conference speech – the current Scottish leadership elections meant that the risk of Cameron inadvertently appearing to support a particular candidate was too great. But it is clear that the looming prospect of a referendum on the continued existence of the UK has sharpened the minds of the leadership.
Cameron’s unionist credentials shone through on several occasions. For example, it is telling that one of the first billed items in the main hall was called “A United Kingdom”, where Annabel Goldie distinguished herself with a passionate defence of Scotland’s place within the UK.
At the Northern Ireland Conservatives reception, Owen Paterson reaffirmed the party’s commitment to developing a viable political presence in the province.
The Scottish leadership hustings was, by the standards of modern party conferences, positively electrifying. For the first time in a while, the word ‘unionist’ has begun to reclaim its place at the conference of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
For all this, there’s still a long way to go. Since losing the devolution referendums in 1998 the Tories have been rather adrift on the core constitutional issue of the Union. Cameron, an ardent unionist himself, has three different types of Conservative attitude to overcome if he’s to restore the party’s formidable unionist credentials.
First, he has to deal with the radical devolutionaries, the federalists, and the other assorted pseudo-unionist fifth columnists within the ranks of the party.
These are the people who, while describing themselves as ‘unionists’, advocate the continual weakening of the British state. They have had most of the running in what debate there has been around the union for a while, and it is about time serious effort was put into countering them.
The threat of these people is three-fold.
First, they are often more than willing to engage in attacks on other, more integrationist unionists, which can make the party appear divided and put people off. Second, their message is fundamentally pessimistic about the UK, and does much to sap the fighting spirit of others. Third and perhaps most seriously, there’s a chance that a radical devolutionary like Murdo Fraser could actually try to split the Conservative Party up.
The second group Cameron has to deal with are the Little Englanders. These are the people who make the arguments that the union should break up either because England has to pay for it, Scotland votes Labour, or both.
There is something fundamentally distasteful about advocating the partition of the country for electoral gain, but this group of (usually hard-right) anti-unionist Conservatives pose a serious threat. They can whip up English grievances over the union’s finances and could well prevent the party from uniting around the ‘Yes to the UK’ referendum campaign in 2014.
The Tory Right harbours enough ill-will towards Cameron that the risk of their trying to knife him at the expense of the country can’t be entirely ruled out.
The third group is a collection of sufferers of two similar conditions – apathy and defeatism. The great bulk of Conservatives are instinctively pro-UK, even in England where unionism is not a day-to-day concern. But since devolution there has been this inevitable sense that the tide of history is somehow against them.
They’ve seen nationalists claim ever increasing powers for the devolved administrations; they have been glutted with pessimistic editorials about the fate of the nation. Many of the younger generation cannot really remember a time before we were reduced to one MP in Scotland, or when we regularly used our party’s full name: Conservative and Unionist.
It is this constituency that Cameron will really have to win over if he is to have any chance of winning over the country. He needs to drive home to the Conservative rank and file that, for the first time since the 1920s, the existence of the United Kingdom is under threat. He then needs to give them reasons to care.
Cameron is at his best when he is delivering positive, visionary messages. If the union is to survive the 2014 referendum, he’ll need one.
It is vital that he starts to craft it now, and directs it at his own rank and file. The task of enthusing Conservative activists about the defence of the UK can’t be left to the start of the campaign – we need our foot soldiers ready.
This party conference demonstrated that the party leadership have finally begun to take seriously the separatist threat north of the border. Moving forward, it is vital that they begin to transform the Conservative Party into a campaigning machine fit for the fight.
Henry Hill is a UK Conservative blogger and author of the popular Dilettante blog. He is the Editor of Open Unionism and tweets at @Dilettante11
Print
I'm all for devolution, provided each of the devolved parts has exactly the same rights and responsibilities, and is unable to interfere in the other devolved parts. England, of course should be devolved along the same lines as Scotland. I'm sure that the fact that the individual states in the US have considerable powers (more than we have from the EU) to act on most issues is what holds the US together.
Devolution to England will probably have to happen. Full on federalism? Dead against.
Annabel Goldie's defence of the Union took place in a debate in which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were represented, but not England. There you have the nub of the problem. If Conservatives really wanted to save the Union they would have the courage to say that devolution was a bad idea and should be reversed.It would lose them no more support in Scotland or Wales than they have lost already to say to the Scots and the Welsh, decision time, either we can all share a state on the basis of individual electoral equality, with no special arrangements based on internal borders, or you can be completely independent, which is it to be? If they opt for independence, so be it. We can all get on with running our own affairs in a sensible and planned way, without the constant blackmail of nationalist movements.
Re: Dilettante's attitude to federalism. It's good to see that you have such an open-minded approach to new ideas. Your attitude towards devolution to England suggests that England is very much an afterthought for you. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that you'd rather England didn't even exist. The idea of any union is that it treats all its members equally. The British state fails this basic test miserably and repeatedly.
The danger to the 'Union' isn't English nationalism per se. It's the 'Union's' continued persecution of England that poses the risk.
I did consider federalism fairly, but I have rejected it. Disagreeing with you is not evidence of closed-mindedness.
There does need to be some form of devolution in England to balance the union. However federalism - the transfer of sovereignty to the devolved institutions - is a step too far.
Dilettante, its "transfer of sovereignty to the devolved nations" not institutions, good attempt though..
I get no sense that the conservatives or indeed the other unionist parties have even a vague idea of how to tackle Salmond or Scotland. I also take issue with the term "separatist" you make me sound like some dastardly rebel skulking in the shadows. I see myself as Scottish, and I am asking you to make a positive case for the union. So here I am - Never for one moment considering voting Tory but was one of the undecided when it came to independence, now I wish to see the Union consigned to the dust bin. it is no longer fit for purpose. You are all very good at selling the Union to yourselves - sell it to me, sell it to every man, woman and child in this nation. Make your case. don't sit here talking about how great your Union is to yourselves. Share your vision with us. But you can't can you. You can't even think of one positive thing to say about it.
You see here is the problem. Your party was pretty much nailed to a wall by the Scots electorate in 1997. Your party then decided to stand against the majority again when you campaigned against Devolution. You were defeated decisively - and your party has been in this position ever since. I suspect your party has never really come to terms with this defeat and now carries too much baggage, to much injured pride to make the changes it has to. The only way forward for your party is to stop talking amongst yourselves and re-engage with the Scottish people and find your own distinctive "Scottish" voice. If you come waving a Union Jack and talking about Britain or refer to Scotland as a region or as North Britain, then you are as Alex Massie said "Trapped on the wrong side of History and what's more, happy to be there" It's not the name either as you quite rightly identified - its the policies that are killing you and your attitude to devolution. The core vote of the conservatives is dying out. Although it polls almost the same as the Lib dems and the SNP, its 400,000 voters are now spread too thinly to dominate any area effectively. If the Scottish parliament has been a first past the post system, your party would have been consigned to the History books long before now.
I say this to impress upon you the herculean task that you have before you, but also to draw your attention to one other problem you haven't considered. Your party is still so unpopular and still evokes much anger and hatred in large areas of Scotland, that I suspect you will lose any referendum, as the desire to stick the knife in one last time will prove too much of a temptation for the majority of Scots. This is simply because they will see your Unionist campaign as a Conservative campaign. And that is a word that doesn't carry much weight up here or indeed much respect.
-
PM David Cameron's speech didn't cut it for true Tories
-
Instant View: A Tory party speech that reassured Cameron's party, instilled confidence in the UK
-
Don’t believe the reports – the Conservative Party is more united than ever
By Guy Stagg
-
A Conservative Party suicide wish?
-
The Tory conference missed the opportunity to win over disillusioned Labour voters like me. Here's why
-
It's going to be a tough week for David Cameron at the Tory conference
-
Leaving the politics aside, Scotland deserves freedom
-
Bad week for The Guardian
-
Cameron loses to Miliband, but beats the Speaker
-
Noam Chomsky’s half-truths and distortions are still loved by the British Left
-
PMQs: Luckless Miliband won for the third time in a row, but there was one rather large problem
Sign up to receive updates from
The Commentator website!
I think it is a great idea - the breakup of the Union that is; things that have passed their used by date should be reorganised for a stronger future.
But I don't think you have really recognised the true danger - it is not in the 5 million or so Scottish voters that you will find the real impetus for change; it is the approximately 60 million people of England that will probably bring down this ill-fated and dysfunctional union; and you ignore them and their concerns at your peril.
I am not a youngster and therefore not in your apparent area of concern, and I have voted for the conservatives all my long life, but I will never vote for them again until they put forward a workable plan to create a truly English devolved Parliament. Without that this union is doomed; with an English Parliament in a federated union, you might have a chance to save it.