John Major is rarely seen as a visionary, but in the case of Scottish and Welsh devolution he was ahead of his time. During the last, desperate days of the 1997 election campaign he made an impassioned plea for voters to vote Conservative to save the Union. It was a call which fell on deaf ears. Few understood the consequences of Labour’s plans for devolution for Wales and Scotland for the Union and few were even interested. They are now.
Devolution has always been a tricky issue for the Conservative & Unionist Party. In 1976 a young Malcolm Rifkind and Shadow Scotland Spokesman Alick Buchanan-Smith resigned their frontbench positions over their support for it. Between then and the end of 2005 the Party remained implacably opposed to any form of devolution for Scotland or Wales. The ‘D’ word was seen as a precursor to an inevitable break-up of the United Kingdom. David Cameron’s election changed that.
He made it clear from the start that he believed there was no turning back and devolution had to be made to work. This came as something of a shock to the three anti-devolution Welsh Conservative MPs. Cameron had little alternative but to appoint an English MP, Cheryl Gillan, as Shadow Welsh Secretary. It was a canny move. Gillan has charmed the Welsh politariat and worked hand in glove with the leader of the Welsh Assembly Conservatives Nick Bourne, as well as the party’s young Welsh Director Matthew Lane, who has quietly rebuilt the Party’s campaigning structure from a very low base.
Their mark of success will be to become the largest opposition party in the Assembly and it looks as if they will achieve it. If only the same could be said of Scottish Conservatives.
David Cameron is far more popular in Scotland than the Party he leads. The Tory brand in Scotland is so contaminated that many feel it is beyond rescue. We hear a lot about shy Tories who won’t admit they vote Conservative in opinion polls, yet in Scotland the shy Tories have become virtually invisible – or they’ve decided to vote SNP to give Labour a bloody nose. For a party that only 50 years ago achieved 50% of the popular vote in Scotland to be floundering on 12% is not a temporary blip, it’s a terminal illness unless something radical is done.
The radical option would be for David Cameron to give the Scottish Conservatives full independence. The Spectator recently suggested this was firmly on the agenda and being actively discussed by Cameron and his advisers. If it wasn’t then, it is now.
Cameron’s inner circle believes that the Scottish Party is virtually independent anyhow. They have their own structure, their own list of approved candidates and they write their own manifesto. The problem is that no one in Scotland believes it. They believe that Edinburgh still takes its orders from London.
There is only one way to change that and allow the Scottish Conservatives to do what they need to – transform themselves into a new centre-right entity which has a close relationship with the English Conservatives but not a dependent one. They need to become the Bavarian CSU of British politics.
The problem, as David Mundell so memorably – and correctly – pointed out, is that to carry through change, you’ve got to have people capable of doing it.
But it’s not just Scotland which is giving David Cameron a headache. One of the great mysteries of modern times is the failure of politicians of all parties to grapple with the thorny subject of English devolution. It’s a bit like the Fawlty Towers sketch where one can imagine a conspiratorial Basil whispering “Don’t mention England. I did, but I think I got away with it.”
The Conservative response has been to adopt a policy of English Votes for English Measures. On the face of it it’s fair and easy to explain, but only now are some Tories waking up to fact that it’s a short term band aid solution and nothing more. English nationalism is stirring.
In several recent polls more than 60% of the English believe that there should be some form of English Parliament. Several members of the Shadow Cabinet agree. So far, David Cameron does not. In his article in this newspaper on Wednesday he said that the answer was “not a separate English parliament with more politicians spending taxpayers’ money”. He’s ignoring the evidence. This is an issue which is rising up the political agenda and needs to be addressed properly. It’s also an issue where, if he handles it correctly, he can regain support on the right.
An English parliament need not result in more politicians, bureaucracy or public spending. John Redwood has argued recently for English MPs to sit in the Westminster Parliament for 3 days a week and in an English parliament – still in the House of Commons – for the other day. Sir Malcolm Rifkind wants an English Grand Committee – a proposal also supported by UKIP and former Liberal leader Lord Steel. Both are proposals worthy of discussion and debate.
It’s up to Ken Clarke’s Democracy Task Force to come up with recommendations, but one thing is for sure. English Votes for English Measures can form only an interim part of a long term solution.
