AHC: Save Tory Scotland

In the 1955 UK General Election the Scottish Unionist Party and it's Liberal Unionist allies polled 50.1% of the vote and won a majority of the seats, a record that still stands to this day. From this zenith it was largely downhill all the way as two of the Party's main appeals, support for the Empire and the Protestant Orange vote began to fade. In 1965 the Unionists merged with the Conservatives but this did little to revive their fortunes resulting in their current parlous state which looks like they will poll a record low of around 10% in the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections.

So with a POD or POD's anytime after 1965, how would you get to a situation where the Scottish Tories have 20 Westminster seats and a minimum 25% of the vote? Not going through with the merger is the obvious one but by the mid 60's they do need to redefine themselves into a more secular party and possibly change their name. Even if the merger does go ahead was the subsequent implosion inevitable or could they still have managed to retain the "Soft Nationalist" vote which IOTL went to the SNP. I'm thinking in particular about the arguments over a Scottish oil fund in the early 1970's, something that Heath was apparently happy to grant but his own Scottish Secretary Gordon Campbell actually argued AGAINST as well as the impact of the Common Fisheries Policy. That's always struck me as being a potentially significant POD! Also if they were a much stronger party in Scotland and had managed to avoid becoming as toxic as they are seen, would any prominent members of Labour, the LD's or the SNP instead be members of the Unionists/Tories?

No Thatcher.

Preventing Thatcher, or someone like Thatcher, from leading the Conservative Party and putting forward similar policies. Things had been going downhill ever since the beginning of the Sixties but things only really began to actively implode during the Eighties.

The easy answer would be "No Thatcher" - but after Thatcher's defenestration in 1990, the Tories won 25.65% of the vote in Scotland in 1992 (although only 11 seats).

I reckon a good PoD would be somewhere after 1992 - the implosion of 1997 was the killer for the Scottish Tories.

Maybe a Scottish Tory leader replacing Major, and/or a creation of an oil fund and/or devolved settlement for Scotland, and/or no Blair. The challenge is really to squeeze out the Scots Nats and make the Scots Tory Party look like the defenders of Scottishness in the post-1992 era, I reckon.

Actually the answer may have been in the news lately. Have the Glasgow Rangers manager killed by an IRA parcel bomb, or even worse, have one go off at a game. Put it in, say 1971, preferably coinciding with a Tony Benn speech about giving Northern Ireland to the Republic. Combine that with Iain Macleod winning the Tory leadership contest and winning an election in 1970 (and not having a heart attack), and promising an escalation in hostilities, I think you could keep Scotland very much in the Tory camp.

AndyC said:

The easy answer would be "No Thatcher" - but after Thatcher's defenestration in 1990, the Tories won 25.65% of the vote in Scotland in 1992 (although only 11 seats).

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are a lot of Scottish Tories who would kill for that result now, but it's still pretty poor compared to before Thatcher were they could on average count on winning 20 seats.

AndyC said:

The challenge is really to squeeze out the Scots Nats and make the Scots Tory Party look like the defenders of Scottishness in the post-1992 era, I reckon.

Click to expand...

That's what they need to aim for, but after years of cementing themselves as an English party in the Scottish mindset, that's very unlikely. This has only got worse since 1997 for obvious reasons.

The Red said:

I'm sure there are a lot of Scottish Tories who would kill for that result now, but it's still pretty poor compared to before Thatcher were they could on average count on winning 20 seats.

Click to expand...

Oh, agreed. The point was that it showed an improvement on the Thatcher-period (24% and 10 seats) - I think it was the only area of the UK with a swing to the Tories in 1992. So it showed that the bridges hadn't been totally burned by Thatcher and there was an opportunity to rebuild.

A significant component of the 20+ seats pre-Thatcher was the Orange vote - even in a TL without Thatcher, could we really see the Tories winning seats in Glasgow today, as they did with the Protestant vote back then?

The Red said:

That's what they need to aim for, but after years of cementing themselves as an English party in the Scottish mindset, that's very unlikely. This has only got worse since 1997 for obvious reasons.

Click to expand...

Yes, definitely. A PoD AFTER 1997 would be too challenging to contemplate. Even any period after about 1993/4 would, I'd suggest, be too late. It would require them to go very heavy on it in 1992 after the GE to follow up their fleeting opportunity, IMHO.

Stop the merger with the UK Tory party and keep a CDU/CSU type relationship!

If you stop the merger of the Conservative Party with the Scottish Unionist Party then you would not have a situation where the Tories lose ground so rapidly.

A little known fact is the current bastion of the Labour Party, the Daily Record, backed the Scottish Unionist Party over the Labour Party up until just after the time of the merger. After this time the paper started implying that the Tories were little more than an English Party whose only interest in Scotland was when the leadership came up for the grouse shooting. Stop the meger and even if they switch support, they cannot throw the label of not being a Scottish party onto the Tories.

I would support one merger though, as the SUP never stood at local levels, instead deferring to the Scottish Progressive Party which stood in opposition to Labour(and vice versa). If they merged this would help the SUP immensly at a local level.

With an improved local orginisation and the media not being able to portray them as a foreign party they may have done far better. There is an elephant in the room however.

I suspect that once North Sea Oil emerges, they would have to act in a quasi-nationalistic manner to maintain the huge amount of support which went to the SNP. A form of home rule and supporting a high percentage of the oil money heading to Scotland would, I expect suffice. It may have precluded the rise of the SNP.

Just a few thoughts.

AndyC said:

Oh, agreed. The point was that it showed an improvement on the Thatcher-period (24% and 10 seats) - I think it was the only area of the UK with a swing to the Tories in 1992. So it showed that the bridges hadn't been totally burned by Thatcher and there was an opportunity to rebuild.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see why this happened, was it because the Liberal vote went down? I'd still argue that this wasn't much of an advance outside of a sort of surviving Scottish rump of Conservative seats, something the Scottish Conservatives have had, although this coming election may change all that...

AndyC said:

A significant component of the 20+ seats pre-Thatcher was the Orange vote - even in a TL without Thatcher, could we really see the Tories winning seats in Glasgow today, as they did with the Protestant vote back then?

Click to expand...

Not without PR, no, they'd probably do better though, and be able to win several seats every election across the rest of the country.

AndyC said:

Yes, definitely. A PoD AFTER 1997 would be too challenging to contemplate. Even any period after about 1993/4 would, I'd suggest, be too late. It would require them to go very heavy on it in 1992 after the GE to follow up their fleeting opportunity, IMHO.

Click to expand...

1997 was the end IMO. Thatcher had significantly reduced Conservative support and the bitterness towards her may have eventually led to a scenario that we have now but the fact that they lost every single seat, and literally became an English party, ensured that the only thing the Scottish Conservatives have a to look forward to is long term decline. I agree that the PoD needs to be just after the election, although it needs to be a sort of continuing theme of 'much less goes wrong' throughout the term to avoid that perfect storm. With that they might keep a few seats in Scotland and keep something of a presence in the wilderness years until they can realistically try and rebuild support.

The Red said:

It would be interesting to see why this happened, was it because the Liberal vote went down? I'd still argue that this wasn't much of an advance outside of a sort of surviving Scottish rump of Conservative seats, something the Scottish Conservatives have had, although this coming election may change all that...

Click to expand...

Yep, the Lib Dem vote dropped 6.11% on the combined Alliance vote (19.2% -> 13.09%), but they kept all nine of theirr seats. The big surprise was the drop in Labour vote by 3.4%: 42.38% -> 38.98% and loss of Aberdeen South to the Tories. The SNP jumped from 14.04% to 21.48% but didn't change their number of seats (3)

The Red said:

1997 was the end IMO. Thatcher had significantly reduced Conservative support and the bitterness towards her may have eventually led to a scenario that we have now but the fact that they lost every single seat, and literally became an English party, ensured that the only thing the Scottish Conservatives have a to look forward to is long term decline. I agree that the PoD needs to be just after the election, although it needs to be a sort of continuing theme of 'much less goes wrong' throughout the term to avoid that perfect storm. With that they might keep a few seats in Scotland and keep something of a presence in the wilderness years until they can realistically try and rebuild support.

Click to expand...

I was considering a PoD along these lines:
Major resigns following Black Wednesday in October 1992. A compromise candidate between Heseltine (negatives amongst the Tories: he stabbed Thatcher) and Portillo (too young) comes through: the Defence Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind.

With a Scot at the helm of the Conservative Party, and Major available as a scapegoat for the tabloid press, I can see a scenario where the Tory-Labour swing ins Scotland is noticeably less than in the rest of Britain. It's also possible to have Rifkind concentrate on reviving fortunes in Scotland as a prototype for renewing the Conservatives in the rest of the country. I think it could be done (nothing apart from an ASB could prevent a big Tory loss in 1997 Britain-wide, but a different leader could reduce the loss, and if Scottish, preserve the Tories of Scotland).

The ASBs remove the chip from every scottish person's shoulder, making it possible for them to vote for the conservatives in the 21st century....

Thanks for the suggestions folks! It is easy to say "No Thatcher" but unless economic policy had been very different from 1945 then Britain is still going to experience relative economic decline and Scotland is going to be particularly hard hit by that. So without a change in direction during the 1950's and 1960's then the circumstances that led to Thatcherism remain. I have often read that what many people in areas like Scotland, the North of England and Wales objected to in the 1980's was not so much the loss of so much industry, because many people realised that it was doomed but rather the way in which it happened. There certainly was an element on the Tory Right that was gleeful at de-industrialisation, seeing it as payback for the way the miners brought down Heath. A more sympathetic response and greater efforts to attract new jobs may have headed off some of the bitterness

FletcherofSaltoun said:

I would support one merger though, as the SUP never stood at local levels, instead deferring to the Scottish Progressive Party which stood in opposition to Labour(and vice versa). If they merged this would help the SUP immensly at a local level.

Click to expand...

That would be my thinking too. Merger with the Progressives gives them a substantial base in local government that can be used to build up their electoral support for GE's, instead of relying on the shrinking Orange vote.

FletcherofSaltoun said:

I suspect that once North Sea Oil emerges, they would have to act in a quasi-nationalistic manner to maintain the huge amount of support which went to the SNP. A form of home rule and supporting a high percentage of the oil money heading to Scotland would, I expect suffice. It may have precluded the rise of the SNP.

Click to expand...

Perhaps Heath follows through on the Perth Declaration and sets up a referendum on a Scottish Assembly as well as the other things? One of the reasons why Labour has been so dominant in Scotland until recently is that they are seen as the Party that delivered devolution. If the Tories had done that 40 years ago then perhaps they would have earned that mantle and even if they had merged it would have been harder for Labour to pin the "English Party" label on them?

Having looked at the Rifkind potential PoD in 1992, I reckon that the Tories could plausibly have held 4-6 Scottish seats in 1997, giving them a shot at rebuilding afterwards (they'd have taken back one more in 2001 as well)

Held in ATL; lost in OTL:

- Eastwood (lost to Labour) - needs 1618 votes to swap
- Perth (lost to SNP) - needs 1572 votes to swap
- Aberdeenshire W and Kincardine (lost to LD) - needs 1332 votes to swap
- Edinburgh Pentlands - leader's boost (lost to Labour) - needs 2432 votes to swap; nearly managed it in 2001 in OTL.

Possible held/probable retaken in 2001
- Galloway and Upper Nithsdale from SNP (actually retaken in OTL) needs 2812 votes to swap and got them in 2001 in OTL.
- Aberdeen South - dropped to 3rd in OTL in 3-way fight; needed 1961 votes to swap.

So there would be a core on which to rebuild and the obliteration of 1997 would be avoided.

No Thatcher or Thatcherism isn't the answer. As said above given Britain's relative economic decline from the 50s onwards some form of backlash against the post-war consensus in the Conservative Party is almost inevitable. Plus, if you look at the Tories' electoral record before Thatcher the rot had set in long before her. In October 1974, the election just before Thatcher took over the party, the Scottish Tories came third and got a lousy 24% of the vote, down from about 37% in 1970 and 42% in 1964. One of the problems was that the Scottish Tories retained the grouse moor image long after the rest of the Conservative Party had abandoned it. They failed to seize the support of lower middle class and skilled working class voters - which, ironically enough, Thatcher was crucial in grasping in England. Potentially if the Scottish Unionists retain their independence and permit younger men to take control of the party earlier on - Malcolm Rifkind, Michael Ancrum (I know that contradicts what I said earlier about losing the 'toff' image but the Earl of Ancrum was a very capable politician), Ian Lang and the like.

Actually I think you might do worse than look at the career of Michael Forsyth. Forsyth was MP for Stirling and a staunch Thatcherite, yet he managed to retain his marginal seat through the Thatcher/Major period. In addition, when he was appointed Scottish Secretary in the Major government he brought a certain vigour, a flair for public relations and a fighting attitude that might have served the Scottish Tory Party much better had they had such a man in the Scottish Office since 1979.

Forsyth would be a good candidate to help rebuild between 1992 and 1997. Not senior enough to be considered for the leadership, but if returning independence to the Scottish Unionists happens, he could be a key player. If his higher profile helps him retain Stirling, that adds one more to the seats I listed above.

It's doable, I reckon:

- Major carries out his desire to resign following the ERM exit (well documented in OTL - he even wrote the resignation letter)

- Rifkind gets the leadership as a compromise candidate between the Darling of the Right (Portillo - rising like a meteor, but still way too callow) and Heseltine (still tarnished by the assasination of Thatcher). Ken Clarke gets the Treasury as per OTL and isn't seen by Major as a good potential successor as he's regarded as too obviously pro-European at a time when Euro tensions are building.

- The press story is focussed on Major departing and taking responsibility.

- Rifkind separates the Scottish Unionist Party as it used to be, in order to provide it with a much needed Scottish identity. He confirms Ian Lang as Scottish Secretary and appoints Michael Forsyth as Deputy Leader of the Scottish Unionist Party and charges them to investigate potential routes to devolution which would "release the pressure without risking the Union"

- Rifkind avoids the "Back to Basics" campaign, concentrating instead on a "One Nation" stance to alleviate the inequalities in the UK (as per his leadership contention speech in 2005) and the media is less focussed on Tory sleaze, as its need to spank the responsible party for Black Wednesday is assuaged by Major voluntarily getting thrown to the wolves.

- Rifkind and Clarke get credit for the economic recovery - more so than Major and Clarke did in OTL as both were far less tarnished with causing it.

There's plenty to work on with that lot. Tories still lose badly in 1997, but stay north of 200 seats and hold seven seats in Scotland. With a Scottish Unionist Party with its own (Scottish) identity, 7 seats on which to build recovery and a potential devolution settlement that could be designed as less friendly to Labour ...

Sounds good! I think Rifkind would have been a good PM and with Major and Lamont gone most of the blame for the Black Wednesday fiasco would have gone with them. The promise of some form of devolution and the cachet of a Scottish PM could well have saved the Scottish Tories from obliteration andd seen them become the second party in the subsequent Scottish Parliament. They wouldn't have been able to use the title "Scottish Unionist Party" as that has been taken by a fringe group set up in protest at the Anglo-Irish Agreement, perhaps "Scottish Progressives" or Scottish Democrats" that have been suggested elsewhere?

One Scottish WI I suggested on a previous thread was Thatcher doing what she should have done after Teddy Taylor failed to get elected in 1979. She should have made her peace with Alick Buchanan-Smith who had quit as Shadow Scottish Secretary over her abandoning Heath's Perth Declaration and agreeing to a re-run of the March '79 referendum with the 40% threshold removed and some change to put a price on devolution for Labour such as limiting the ability of Scottish MP's to vote on or change non-Scottish legislation. I had suggested a complete block but Fletcher of Saltoun pointed out the flaws in that and I agree with him now! But there could have been some mechanism included that would have made it harder for Labour to have a majority at Westminster except in the rare event of a 1945 or 1997 type result. This could have tipped a lot of Scottish Labour voters who had voted Yes into the No camp and resulted in a clear No vote that kills the issue for a generation. As I see it, it should have been a win/win for the Tories, either devolution goes through and Labour at Westminster is hamstrung or it is voted down and a potentially thorny issue is off the agenda.