Dangerous idea?

Tories planning cross-Border split for party

* London Conservatives in secret plans to split from Scottish arm
* Move would allow Cameron to play anti-Scottish card against Brown
* Scottish Conservatives would be free to re-brand themselves

SENIOR Tories are considering secret plans for a "velvet divorce" between the party north and south of the Border after the Scottish polls in the event of electoral disaster.

Conservatives in London believe that hiving off the Scottish party would allow them to exploit Gordon Brown's Scottishness in the run up to the next UK election.

news.scotsman.com...

A good idea, but as I said in the title...it could be a dangerous one. Yes, there is no doubt that Tories has the large share of the English vote and Labour dominate the Scottish vote. Here is the problem.

This could back fire and result in the Union break up, because if Cameron gets into power on an English mandate, the Scots ain't gonna be happy.

If this gives the voters for the Scottish Assembly, another serious party to vote for, that can only be a good thing.

The tory party in Scotland has had a rough time over the last 20 years, and again if this gives those in Scotland of a conservtive leaning, a real voice in Scotland, that can only add to the creditability of the Scottish assembly.

The thinking behind this release is more interesting. And shows that the Tories are serious about a return to Government (and yes we can argue about that for ever) and are considering all options.

And if the strategy to attack Brown on the scottish card works, and who is to say it will not, then the prize for the Tories is worth a split from the Scottish tories.

I can not see why an independant right leaning party in Scotland will led to a break up of the union. They will still have ties to the Tories in the England just like right and left parties in the European parliament have groupings.

The Scottish Conservatives are the only real option for a centre-right party in Scotland. A 'velvet divorce' from the Tories would not mean a complete split. The Scottish Conservatives would still strategically vote in parliament with the Tories.

The thinking is probably two-fold. Play the dangerous anti-Scottish card against Brown whilst removing the ill-feeling of the Thatcher years in the Scottish electorate. Particularly the poll tax issue.

I can't get my head round whether i'm for or against it, because I admire the progress David Cameron is making as a Tory Leader.

It could easily backfire, though. It makes me wonder if the Conservatives are attempting to engineer a split in the union to meet their own political ends. In fact, the way they are tip-toeing around the union issue just now is off-putting.

At least Labour can come out and say that they want to keep the union.

I think that the tory party are all over the place on this one.

If they think a convenient 'divorce' - likely to be seen by many if not most as a self-serving tactical sham anyways - from their Scottish branch is going to be helpful as the English branch go on this disgraceful anti-Scot and shameful attempt to imply that being Scottish makes Gordon Brown unfit to be British PM they are barking.

......or, more to the point, should I say they remain barking.

It'll simply be a very clear indication to everybody of just how substance-free Cameron's redesigning and attempts to remould the tory party generally are.

The tory party will be seen to confirm every stereotype going & remain the bunch of nasty, small-minded, 'little Englander' and xenophobic nationalists many already believe them to be.

Whoever advised this (along with that whole anti-Scot/Brown 'strategy') needs sacking asap.

......although as someone who prefers a Labour Gov I hope they don't and I look forward to their next work of offensive genius as they alienate large chunks of the population.

This is quite alarming, really. Did they forget that they're called the Conservative and Unionist Party or something? I know Cameron is trying to change the Tories, but jeez...

Or has that been conveniently forgotten in some desperate attempt to swipe at Gordon Brown because he is Scottish?

Does anyone really care all that much that Brown is from Scotland? If so, why? He has just as much right to be Prime Minister as Blair, Thatcher or Churchill.

[edit on 6/4/07 by Ste2652]

I would prefer a strong Tory party to match a strong Labour party and if Cameron believes that a divorce of some kind for Scottish tories helps both of them, so be it.

Just remember the huge changes that Blair brought to the Labour party to make it electable. I remember a time when Labour was just not electable.

But that's just it Freedom ERP, being expressedly anti-Scot in this manner is simply not any actual or genuine sign of 'strength' or indeed any sort of profound or meaningful change, at all.

This is in no way comparable to the major changes to actual fundamental and long-held 'traditional policies' (plural) Tony Blair (and Gordon Brown let's not forget) carried through in the Labour party in the mid 1990's .

This is Cameron capitulating to the worst instncts of the English tory peanut gallery.

Pandering to the worst instincts of this same narrow 'little englander xenophobic and nationalist clique' has brought nothing but disaster to the tory party since they became the majority within that party and began directing them down this path.

I personally have close and direct family connections to the English, Scot and Irish peoples (as well as some continental European links) so this barely disguised belligerent nationalistic garbage is nothing less than grossly offensive to me.
I do not enjoy seeing my relatives being slurred like this - especially in such an obvious and breath-takingly idiotic attempt at a politically expedient 'gambit' ........and I suspect I am very very far from alone in that view in the UK.



[edit on 7-4-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

You would like to think, sminkeypinkey, that Cameron is looking to split from the Scottish Tory party as a result of some serious discussions at Central Office, and not just to be expressly anti-scot?

I think playing to some elements of middle English, that the next PM will be Scottish is seen as fair game. Do you think if the roles were reserved, that a Labour party would not be thinking about the same advantage?

And lets not forget, that the next Government will be decided by a small percentage of swing voters, not the die hards for each of the major parties, and all the major parties will want to influence these swing voters.

Moving slightly off topic but still related. How does this compare with the Labour party move away from the power/influence of the trade unions?

Laughable if this is true.

"Hi, I live in Scotland.

Mr D.C. has been making out as though Mr G.B. can't run this NAtion because he is born in Scotland. If I vote for the Conservative party in Scotland who I support this will mean he'll get in power. Why would I want a man to get into power who doesn't think a Scotish person is fit to be PM?"

Honestly, the Tory party are a laugh. I live near D.C. I've met him. The guy is an utter idiot at the best of times. In fact, let alone is he an idiot I've seen him lie and I've watched him make plans he can't keep (on purpose) to make himself seem "decent".

I'd rather burn than vote for him.

I mean do we yet have a solid Tory Policy?

Originally posted by Odium
I mean do we yet have a solid Tory Policy?

That's a good question... do we?

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
You would like to think, that Cameron is looking to split from the Scottish Tory party as a result of some serious discussions at Central Office, and not just to be expressly anti-scot?

- I think they have had discussions, of course.

But yes the outcome is an appeal to their 'core vote' (something I have been expecting for some time).
It's taken him longer to get around to it but in this Cameron is following the same path as Hague and Howard now.
This merely shows the gloss and flannel stripped away and the same old unchanged tory party still there underneath.
That has always been Cameron's problem, he might love to project his 'new' image but the party behind him remain as ancient and reactionary as ever.

Do you think if the roles were reserved, that a Labour party would not be thinking about the same advantage?

- Honestly?
No.

In the last election we had an unused and unreleased poster of the then tory leader Michael Howard canned because some people thought that it made Howard look too Jewish and complained.

lets not forget, that the next Government will be decided by a small percentage of swing voters, not the die hards for each of the major parties, and all the major parties will want to influence these swing voters.

- That's the theory, the problem for the tory party is that that is all they have had in the last 2 or 3 elections, their 'core vote'.
It's not enough.

Reverting to an appeal to that hard-core vote and turning everyone else off will be a disaster for them, again.

How does this compare with the Labour party move away from the power/influence of the trade unions?

- I don't think you can seriously compare this risible appeal to those 'old' tory instincts of a crass little englander xenophobia and nationalism
to the Labour party's gradual (now approx 20yr long) move away from the old Trade Union 'block vote' etc and the movement towards greater involvement & democracy for individual union members as affiliate Labour party members.

That is all about the Trades Unions and their members and the manner in which they continue to directly influence Labour party policies.
It could hardly be compared to this message a section of the English tory party has begun to spread - ie place of birth within the UK determines whether you are 'fit' to be UK PM.

They seem to think - and are promoting the idea as much as they can - that 'the English' won't accept a non-English person as British PM.......cos they now live under the delusion that without the Scot or Welsh or Irish England would be tory-land.
How small their horizons have become.

If enough of the English tory element really gave a damn about the union they would stop this dangerous nonsense in an instant.
Clearly their guff in years past about putting 'the interests of the nation before the party' are exposed for the empty waffle it always was......which is something to bear in mind next time Cameron steps up to publicly bleat about how important he and his party claim to believe the union to be.



[edit on 9-4-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

DC and the tories are blatantly playing on the `style over substance- policies follow` approach that served Bliar so well in `97. I have no actual objection to this, as it has some wisdom, but I do feel that DC, who, lets`s face it, couldn`t possibly be worse than Bliar, is shooting himself and the party in the foot.
He`s making the mistake of relying on Bliar`s and the present cabinets` incompetence to get elected(please name me more than two competent politicians in the cabinet...Blears, Hewitt anyone??!!), but that may end up with us seeing the same `regime` reimplemented for another four years, not benefitting us or the tories.
Ok, as for Scotland`s independence, as far as I understand it they have no actual independence until their parliament is funded by only the Scottish electorate and donors, and their budget set independently, which isn`t the case at the moment.
Yes, I would like to see a totally indy scottish parliament with good relations with the other Union governments.
Anybody know more than me about the economic ties? guess I should get busy learning more then.