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?
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?
Last edited: