No rabbits and no coalitions with the nats.

I spoke of the danger yesterday of Scottish and Welsh Labour heading off in a narrow regionalist direction; apparently the Conservatives in Wales are also potentially diverging from the Westminster line:

The concerns were that there could be a danger that the Welsh Conservatives could stand up and promise something in the non devolved fields and run the risk of a Conservative minister in a Whitehall department turning it down flat. Cue red faces all round.
There's been a hasty process of squaring going on behind the scenes I gather. Sources in London stress that there's no question of a "veto" from them on anything in the manifesto, devolved or non-devolved. Advice is the word that's being used, but in the context of this post from the turn of the year, it's further evidence that relations between Cardiff and London remain strained.

But the good news is...

...the sensitivities revealed by the current behind the scenes negotiations between the Conservatives at both ends of the M4 surely makes it less likely that Nick Bourne will be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat on something major to attract Plaid Cymru if and when he sits down to talk rainbows after May 5th.

Non-conformist Conservatives strike back

At least some Welsh Conservatives remain brave enough to publicly express an opinion counter to the Devocracy's lackeys within their own party:

A ROW broke out yesterday over the use of a Conservative Party logo in a newspaper advertisement advocating a ‘Yes’ vote in Thursday’s referendum.

The advert, on the front page of yesterday’s South Wales Argus, read: “On 3rd March 2011, the people of Wales will have the opportunity to vote on the future of our National Assembly”.

Then, under a caption saying “Vote Yes on March 3rd”, were reproduced the logos of Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party. To the right appeared a larger version of the Yes for Wales campaign’s logo.

Conservatives who back a ‘No’ vote were furious, pointing out that their party had decided to remain officially neutral during the referendum campaign while allowing individual members to take part on either side

England deregionalised

From the BBC:

The government has announced plans "in principle" to abolish Government offices in the English regions.

The eight offices coordinate activity between local authorities and also between local and central government, employing about 1,500 people.

The closure of the London office has been announced. It employs 200 people.

Reducing at a stroke an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, but Pickles employs an additional, somewhat provocative, justification:

Cabinet minister Eric Pickles said they were not voices for regions in Whitehall but "agents of Whitehall to intervene and interfere in localities".

That "agents of Whitehall" infiltrating the far corners of the state is reminiscent of the USSR circa 1984 and although I'm sure it's not quite that bad, a strong enough argument hasn't been made by either Labour or the Unions for their retention.

Welsh Conservatives showing the way.

The Conservatives in Wales look to be heading for a very good election...:

Following the trends seen at the 2007 Assembly election and, even more pronounced at the European Election, Labour in Wales is under serious threat.

Recent polls in Wales have shown a 3% advantage to Labour over the Conservatives. Such a narrow margin has not been seen in living memory.

Even in the best year for the Tories – the 1983 Thatcher post-Falklands landslide, where the Conservatives captured 14 Parliamentary seats in Wales – Labour’s lead in the popular vote remained substantial. Labour soon re-asserted itself and three elections later in 1997, the Tories failed to get any Welsh MPs at all.

...making it all the more important that their colleagues in N.Ireland and Scotland perform as credibly- bit of work still to do in that regard perhaps.

IPPR survey: "The English Question- The View from Westminster"

The Institute for Public Policy Research is a "leftish-progressive" UK think-tank with strong ties to the Labour Party. Over the Christmas holidays, they produced a report detailing MPs’ attitudes to how the various devolution "settlements" have affected England; do MPs believe England is losing out as a result of these changes as many people have claimed?

Something like 1 in 6 MPs took part in the survey with a pretty representative mix of parties, so the results may well prove to be very relevant during the period of the next parliament:

40% of MPs agreed that England had lost out because of devolution to the other nations of the United Kingdom, compared to 38% who disagreed. 50% of those who
agreed with this view were Conservative MPs and 28% were Labour MPs

Not much of a difference there, the more important contrast being obviously between the views of the Conservatives and Labour. Curiously enough, the IPPR has not broken down the MPs sampled into regions and countries but I think it’s a fairly safe bet that the vast majority of Conservative MPs asked will be representing English constituencies with Labour being spread out more widely between the three parts of the UK which return their MPs. That could be one reason for Labour MPs' reluctance to admit that England has lost out; another could be as the party which created the assymetrical devolved shambles, they are reluctant to own up to theor own responsibility for the present state of affairs.

The proposition that ‘England should be governed as it is now’ elicited a
strikingly small amount of support from the current cohort of MPs (10%).
Slightly more MPs (11%) support the very radical idea of an English
Parliament than indicate support for the status quo.

Now that is interesting- leading you to think that there is going to be movement in England's (and hence the UK's) constitutional status one way or another during the term of the next parliament; movement perhaps, but the IPPR have pushed the concrete question much more into the long-term:

MPs were also asked to consider the likelihood of each of these proposals being implemented within the next twenty years:

• A parliament for England: only 4% of respondents saw this as likely to come
about.
• English Votes for English Laws: 44% of MPs (among whom 52% are Conservative and 20% Labour) believe that this will be implemented.
• Devolved regional government in England: despite the fact that most MPs favoured this option, only 21% of MPs actually think that it will be implemented. The overwhelming majority (67%) are Labour MPs.
• More powers for local government in England: 43% of MPs believe that there will be reform in this area. Among this group 59% are Labour and only 22% Conservative.

As the report says, "MPs’ expectations in terms of reforms to the governance of England are conditioned by the policy position advocated by their own party" but despite that caveat, Unionists outside England continuing to believe that the present status quo should/will remain are employing dangerous head in the sand tactics.

Finally...

MPs were asked whether they thought that the different levels of funding received by the nations of the United Kingdom was fair. A clear majority of MPs (62%) said that the current distribution of funding was unfair. Among those who thought it was unfair 74% were Conservatives and 50% were Labour MPs. Only 29% of MPs felt the distribution of funding was fair, of these just 6% were conservatives.

Again, the breakdown between the parties is the key here and that 62% overall figure is only going to increase post this year's election. Barnett's days, if we hadn't already guessed it by now, are numbered.

Update

Rather embarrassingly, not "finally" actually!

I've got carried away above and omitted the main reason why I wanted to post about this survey in the first place...

Less than 22% of MPs believe that Scotland will separate from the rest of the United Kingdom within the next 50 years.

Rumours, supposition, spin and even the odd fact down in S Belfast

A couple of caveats apply here:

1. The amount of spin surrounding this seat is reminiscent of Shane Warne on a turning pitch in his prime (witness even Mick Fealty being stung last week).
2. The only three confirmed details in this report are a) Stoker isn't standing b) Peter McCann has been chosen by the Conservatives as their candidate c)The selection process will not be finished until at least mid January.

Nevertheless...

The way has been paved for a historic electoral contest in South Belfast that will pit a Catholic unionist against a sitting Catholic nationalist MP.

The former lord mayor of Belfast and veteran Ulster Unionist Bobby Stoker yesterday ruled himself out as a candidate, while the Observer has learned that health minister Michael McGimpsey will not fight the Westminster seat.

The absence of the UUP's major figures at the general election clears a path for the Conservative and Unionist candidate Peter McCann. A former BBC senior executive in Northern Ireland, McCann is a Catholic from the west of the city.

The absence of an experienced unionist with strong links to the area is a boost for sitting SDLP MP Alasdair McDonnell. If the Tories' candidate is the only one to run on the UUP-Conservative ticket, it is understood that the Democratic Unionist party will stand a rival, in all likelihood the former police officer and councillor Jimmy Spratt.

Councillor Stoker, who has a large support base in the Donegall Road, Village and Sandy Row areas, said: "As a matter of principle, I will not be standing. I was not mindful to stand under a joint Conservative-Ulster Unionist ticket, but I will canvass for the party."

...this is interesting for two reasons. Despite his obvious problems with the Conservative link-up, Stoker is still pledging to canvass for the party. Secondly, if the DUP attitude on this is being reported correctly, why would McCann's candidature be the end of their enthusiasm for a pro-Union pact?

Glasgow NE- all bets (nearly) off?

More bad poll news for the SNP:

The SNP has been dealt a heavy blow in the final days of the Glasgow North East by-election campaign with a sharp fall in support, according to polling evidence obtained by The Herald.

Respected Scottish polling company TNS-BMRB (formerly TNS System Three) has found a ten-point swing towards Labour in General Election ¬voting ¬intentions over the past six months.

Regarding Glasgow NE, my old chum Paddy Power, seems to think it's all over bar the shouting:

Glasgow North East:

Singles Only. Applies to the winning party.

Labour 1/4

SNP 15/8

John Smeaton 50/1

Conservatives 80/1

Liberal Democrats 80/1

Mikey Hughes 125/1

As far as I can see none of the bookmakers are offering odds on the % swing in either direction- that perhaps will be the most interesting data resulting from Thursday.

The Argument against Unionist Electoral pacts

As a belated reply to Andrew Charles’ piece at Open Unionism last week and in anticipation of possible internal debate tomorrow at the UUP conference, here are my ten arguments against UUP-DUP pacts at this present-time:

1. They are undemocratic

The electorate is entitled to expect the widest possible choice of candidates and political views to choose from. In a democracy it should be the voter, not the parties, who decides on whom is returned to parliament.

2. They are not “British”

Despite the threat of the SNP and the BNP to the integrity of the United Kingdom on the mainland, the three main parties there have continued to offer individual candidates at election time. Why should those who believe in the continuance of the Union here be seeking to show how much Northern Ireland differs from the rest of the United Kingdom?

3. They do not guarantee success

If the pro-Union parties offer a single candidate, what then is the guarantee that the nationalist parties won’t do the same or, as is more likely, their usual voters will plump for the candidate most able to beat the Unionist (i.e. SDLP in S Belfast, Sinn Fein in Fermanagh and S Tyrone.)

4. They will signal the end of the Conservative and UUP agreement

Owen Paterson confirmed on no less than three occasions over the last fortnight that there would be a Conservative-approved candidate of some description contesting each seat in Northern Ireland. If South Belfast still then gets the OK from the UUP’s leadership to go unilateral will there then be an agreed DUP/UUP and also a Conservative candidate contesting the next Westminster election? Combined with the fact that creating a joint “communal” candidate defeats the declared purpose behind the agreement reached between Reg Empey and David Cameron, the agreement will be dead before it’s been given a chance to prove itself

5. They make no recognition of the fact that the DUP and UUP are two separate parties

Unless the true purpose behind the talk of pacts is eventually for there to be a sole Unionist party in Northern Ireland, then, whatever is decided for the next election, the DUP and UUP will remain two individual and separate parties. When their policies and priorities diverge how then would a “joint” MP represent both parties’ interests at Westminster?

6. They appeal to the lowest communal denominator

Vote Unionist in order to “smash themmuns"- will that be the pre-election slogan?

7. They are short-termist

The Union to survive needs to pull in a greater total pro-Union vote than the various parties manage at the minute. Whilst a “joint” candidate may ensure 2 more seats are “captured” at this election, by its very communalist nature such a pact will attract very few new votes to the Unionist cause.

8. They are defeatist

Both seats can be won for Unionism with or without a pact. Winning either or both seats without a pact would deliver a much powerful longer-term blow to Irish nationalism

9. They provide too narrow a definition of Unionism

What should Unionism stand for? Selling the benefits of the Union to the widest possible audience or merely preventing two Irish nationalists from winning the right to sit for two United Kingdom constituencies in a United Kingdom parliament?

10. They hide the fundamental structural weaknesses of N.Irish Unionism

Again, a short-term victory could prove to be a Pyrrhic one as it will distract attention from the issues that need to be addressed by the UUP, DUP and TUV- e.g. the top-heavy party structures, the lack of critical and creative thinking and the inability to motivate potential pro-Union voters.

In times when our position within the United Kingdom really has been under threat, pro-Union folk in Northern Ireland have always, irrespective of party or community background, united to fight for our democratic rights. Our position within the United Kingdom is presently not under threat; we should be taking advantage of this truth and also the fact that Irish nationalism is, at this moment, not only incapable of moving beyond the sectarian comfort-zone, but also completely intellectually bankrupt. We should be using this window of opportunity to widen, not narrow the battleground.

Cross-posted at Open Unionism; please comment there.

The Irish Language- is there a Conservative & Unionist Policy?

From the UUP site:

Ulster Unionist member of Newry and Mourne District Council, Danny Kennedy MLA, has said that attempts to impose bi-lingualism on the new council for Newry and Mourne and Down District would "do little to benefit community relations".

"The use of the Irish language by Newry and Mourne District Council to date has been controversial and has not taken account of cross-community needs," the Ulster Unionist Party deputy leader said.

"It has been used, in my view, as a political tool and rammed down the throats of the entire population.

An unfortunate and even inaccurate starting sentence I’ve got to say; bilingualism is only the ability to speak and write two languages at the level of mother-tongue, it is a state which can’t be “imposed” on anyone as stressed-out foreign language teachers throughout the UK would no doubt confirm.

So more accurate an argument to say that the Irish language is being used as a political tool, but even then the lack of any coherent Conservative and Unionist policy towards its use and “imposition” has been proven once again by this press-release.

Does the party wish to see the promotion of the Irish language, a simple “yes” or “no”?

If “no”, why not? Is it because there are tangible disadvantages suffered by “unionists, Protestants and non-users of the language” (I would have only used the latter description to be honest, you don’t suffer disadvantage from a language due to your religion per se, it’s the fact that you can’t speak it which may be the problem) presently in Newry and Mourne DC? A genuinely open question that can only be adequately answered with independent objective research and not Danny Kennedy's unsubstantiated speculation- has housing segregation increased, for example, since the adoption of dual language street names, are non-Irish speakers put off from applying for council jobs because of dual language application forms? Those two factors can be easily measured and if there is a problem (and the will is really there to further the cause of the language amongst its advocates), then dealt with.

Danny Kennedy does also mention economic objections in passing- has any survey been done in Newry and Mourne regarding costs of translation, signage painting etc? What revenue has accrued to the council area because of the dual-language policy? The first factor is easier to measure obviously, but it shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of a council to deliver some kind of cost/benefits analysis of the present policy (eg has tourism risen or fallen since the inclusion of dual-signage and from what areas in particular?).

But if these concerns do actually exist and were dealt with adequately, would that affect the attitude towards the promotion of the Irish language?

If so, say it and then the assumption won’t be automatically taken that the present opposition is based purely on communal grounds.

If not, then what is the justification for the negative attitude towards something which could, given the will (that word again) on all sides, be a truly shared cultural treasure?
And if not, how exactly does the nature of that opposition differ from that expressed at regular intervals by the DUP and TUV?

Either way a policy needs to be drawn up expressing the party's present point of view, at the moment every pronouncement on the subject seems to be too off-the-cuff, too ad-hoc and too unthinkingly defensive.

Update 28-09-09

OK, an answer to the question posed in the post’s title:

The Ulster Unionist Party is committed to working for a stable and peaceful Northern Ireland within the Union, building a competitive and growing economy, securing a fair and just society, and ensuring the sustainability of our environment.

On the basis of these values the UUP respects cultural diversity as a key foundation for a stable, peaceful, pluralist society. Northern Ireland's unique history within the United Kingdom and the British Isles has given to our society a rich diversity of cultural traditions - British, Northern Irish, Anglo-Irish, Irish, Ulster Scots, and (in recent decades) a growing and welcome range of ethnic minority traditions. A framework that fosters respect for this diversity contributes to community cohesion and good community relations.

1998 Arrangements

The 1998 Agreement provided principles and architecture which facilitated a growing respect for our society's cultural diversity.

However the UUP are against the proposed Irish Language Act for a number of reasons:

1.Equality considerations

To claim that an Irish Language Act would have "no adverse impacts" on those who do not speak Irish is self-evidently contradicted by experience in the Republic of Ireland - the very model invoked by the St Andrews Act and the consultation paper

2. Impact on community relations

To further claim that an Irish Language Act would "have only positive impacts" on community relations sits uneasily beside the paper's earlier statement that "there is a range of political sensitivities that need to be fully considered in bringing forward proposals for Irish language legislation in Northern Ireland" - and demonstrates a willful ignorance of the views of a wide range of political and community stakeholders in Northern Ireland.

3. Cost

However, the fact that the consultation paper cannot "estimate with any degree of precision the costs of introducing" the legislation is disturbing. For any Government Department to propose that legislators pass legislation with no indication of the cost to the taxpayer is a neglect of government's duty to promote fiscal responsibility and accountability.

Doubts/concerns are also held about:

1.Comparisons with the Welsh Language Act 1993
2.The proposal that there should be "a duty on public authorities to prepare a language scheme" (statutory duty for facilitating the use of Irish in legal proceedings, or providing statutory forms in Irish),
3.The suggested oversight body – “an Irish Language Commissioner” – encapsulates the manner in which these proposals undermine and destabilise the linguistic and cultural arrangements of the 1998 Agreement.

Creeping back to the "community"?

The two parties' hierarchies' attitude to this should be a very good test for the alleged ideals behind the new UUP-Conservative partnership:

BOTH loyalist parties in Londonderry have given broad support for calls to constitute a unified unionist forum to combat the dilution of Protestant culture and British identity in the city.

Representatives of both the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) last week expressed heavy concerns that Protestants in Londonderry are at the thin end of the wedge with respect to recognition of, and respect for their heritage and history.

Whilst Terry Wright, Chairman of the Foyle Unionist Association called for the establishment of unified unionist forum, DUP MLA William Hay went on record to state he was "prepared to take risks" in order to secure a truly inclusive city.

Now, the Progressive Unionist Party (PUP) and the Ulster Political Research Group (UPRG) have given their backing to the idea.

A "unified Unionist Peoples' forum"? Is that an example of new politics promised, it seems a very long time ago, by Cameron and Empey or a move back (or consolidation) behind the old communal ramparts?

And that’s before you even take the PUP's and UPRG’s proposed involvement into account...

Will the real Michal Kamenski soon stand up?

Yet more ( first blogged here) on Kaminski, in apparently his own words today:

Next Mr McMillan-Scott makes the disgusting allegation that I tried to cover up an anti-Jewish atrocity. The facts are these: in 2001 a book came out that raised new questions about the involvement of local Poles in a horrific massacre of Jewish villagers in a place called Jedwabne in 1941, when the Nazis occupied my country. In 2001 I was the MP for the area. I have always said that we could not just blame the pogrom on the Nazis: shamefully, there were local Poles involved. I backed the Government’s establishment of an historians’ inquiry so that everything about this terrible episode in our history could be found out.

Like the Polish Prime Minister of the time, though, I did not think it right that our then President should apologise for the whole Polish nation. I argued that responsibility lay with those Poles who had committed that cruel crime. I thought his apology on Poland’s behalf might diminish the Nazis’ ultimate responsibility for the Holocaust. People may or may not agree, but I think it a legitimate argument to make.

The Guardian yesterday alleges that legitimate argument isn't the whole truth; again, apparently, in Kaminski's own words:

Mr President should not take the guilt on the Polish nation, the whole nation that he should represent for what happened in Jedwabne and apologise in its name. I am ready to say the word: I am sorry but under two conditions. First of all I need to know what I am apologising for. I apologise for a handful of outcasts. Secondly I can do that if will know that someone from the Jewish side will apologise for what the Jews did during the Soviet occupation between 1939 and 1941. For the mass collaboration of the Jewish people with the Soviet occupier, for fighting Polish partisans in this area. And eventually for murdering Poles.

Either Mr Kaminski's got selective memory or The Guardian is lying, I hope the Conservative Party's lawyers are presently at work trying to discover which.

And this must be surely one of the most bizarre stances imaginable for the leader of an anti-federalist grouping in the European Parliament:

...Kaminski has also called for his party to unite with others in support of the common agricultural policy (Cap), which the Tories regard as the epitome of EU waste.

Kaminski's views are expressed on his party's website. In an interview in May this year he stated: "President Kaczynski [the Polish president] has managed to negotiate such a shape of the Lisbon Treaty which guarantees Poland's sovereignty." He adds: "We must be allied with those EU countries that defend the Cap."

A new Unionist Economic Strategy: 1. Gird the loins 2. Engage the brain

The Centre of Economics and Business Research have issued a stark (although not that surprising) warning (pdf) this morning:

CEBR economist Jörg Radeke said: "A high level of public spending as a share of GDP will mitigate some of the worst effects of the economic downturn in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and parts of Northern England in 2009. However, this advantage will prove to be short-lived as the inevitable fiscal consolidation following the recovery will undermine growth in the high public spending regions for years to come."

What it means (if there is no immediate corrective action) is that the bottom four regions in terms of growth in the UK in the period 2010-2012 are very likely to be:

9. Scotland
10. Wales
11. Yorkshire and Humberside
12. Northern Ireland

So (deep breath) what that further means is that it is not the traditional "Throw us yer (taxpayers’) money or the paper-clip pushers get it" approach which is needed but:

"… a concerted effort to promote entrepreneurship and support private sector growth”.

That doesn’t necessarily require additional finance but it will require much more thought and, yes, sorry, political courage on the part especially of the "governments" in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.

Will we see that courage on the part of Plaid Cymru, the SNP or Sinn Fein? Of course not; the next few years promise a great opportunity for their separatist visions- a Conservative and Unionist Westminster government holding the purse-strings and single-handedly pushing N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales further into economic recession will be the narrative.

That being the case, what will be the Unionist alternative narrative in specifically those three regions, "Don’t blame us, it’s that Mr Cameron and those nasty English Tories yet again"?
Not good enough I’m afraid- that is if you have the true interests of a United Kingdom at heart. Time to straighten the backbone get those thinking caps on lads and lasses.

Conservatives and Unionists organic growth!

Internal dissent, defections*- the new Conservative alliance is looking distinctly wobbly...

Meanwhile back in Northern Ireland (well which Conservative alliance did you think I was talking about?!) the Conservatives and Unionists are apparently moving from strength to strength; Cameron in last night's Tele:

At the European elections three weeks ago more than 132,000 people in Northern Ireland chose to reject the politics of the past and, by supporting the Conservatives and Unionists, voted for change.

They did so in Northern |Ireland just as voters did across Great Britain including, spectacularly, in Wales where Conservatives topped the poll.

Conservatives are now the only party with representation in every region of the United Kingdom. That is the first time in over a generation that any national political party can make that claim.

See? Jim Nicholson’s original 82893 first preferences have grown by over 50% to 132,000 in the space of only three weeks. By the end of summer, at that rate, the whole NI electorate will have voted for Jim, the Conservatives/Unionists and change!



*Thanks to FD for the alert.

Just not the done thing.

Not the kind of statement we're accustomed to seeing from regional politicians:

"The Conservative Party will scrap free prescriptions for all in Wales if it gains power in the assembly. The party says those who can afford it should pay a modest charge in view of the huge financial pressures on the Welsh NHS. Free prescriptions began two years ago and the policy is being copied in Scotland and Northern Ireland."

The point being made is that there is, of course, no such thing as a "free" prescription- somewhere down the line someone pays, whether it be the taxpayer or a patient deprived of correct treatment.

Nothwithstanding the Welsh Conservatives' marvellous performance in the European Elections, I would say that their chances of ever being in a position to carry out this policy are minimal...but that being the case, this makes the pledge even more noteworthy and courageous. Hopefully other politicians of a more populist (and dishonest) bent in not only Cardiff, but also Belfast and Edinburgh will pay heed

Cooperation and Change

As I seem to have corralled a fair slice of the Slugger readership here today, I’m going to treat you to the third Conservatives and Unionists PEB so far denied to you on your favourite site!

Jim Nicholson’s message of "Cooperation with but not controlled by Europe" encapsulates perfectly my own attitude to what should be the United Kingdom’s policy towards the European Union. I also want to be voting for someone who will be forming a part of a much bigger UK-wide team in Europe, I want to be voting for the UK not the provincial version of Unionism in other words. What else? Jim Nicholson is the candidate in this election with the most experience of how to get things done within the labyrinths of the Brussels bureaucracy- for 20 years he has been working for N. Ireland and the UK in his quiet and undemonstrative way. Last but not least, it would be great for the UK collectively in its four constituent parts; England, N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales, to send a resounding message to Gordon Brown and the Labour government in Westminster.

As Chekov has also intimated, the one thing I’d wanted to have seen in this campaign (ie the attempt to sell the Union on the widest possible basis within Northern Ireland) hasn’t been evident in much of Mr Nicholson’s speeches, to be honest Alex Kane’s most recent article in The Newsletter also disappointed me in that respect. But I’m convinced we are only nearing the end of the beginning of this project to change the face of Unionism within Northern Ireland- if the will within particularly the UUP is there to embrace the changes needed, the potential for the long-term future of a truly secular, modern, all-encompassing Unionism is enormous. There have been many positive signs in that regard, none more so than the willingness of the Conservative big hitters to put the time and work in to help Jim’s campaign; also a UUP party which (with the dishonourable exception of Lady Sylvia) has remained united during the course of some of the rougher parts of the campaign was good to see; finally there has also been a noticeable improvement in the PR side of things.

So there you have it. If you believe in a truly pan-UK Unionism, if you want a Northern Irish representative fighting together with colleagues from the other three corners of the UK for our nation in Europe and most importantly of all, if you believe that change is needed in our local and national politics, there’s only one candidate for you in this election- Jim Nicholson.

SNP in government- a breath of fresh air?

The immediate reaction on reading the first sentence here from Annabel Goldie, leader of the Scottish Conservatives is...huh????!!!

However one may disagree with the agenda of Alex Salmond - and on many issues the Conservatives do - minority government over the last 2 years has blown a gust of fresh air into Scottish politics. When I first suggested that Scotland could benefit from a period of new politics, where each issue was debated and decided based upon its own merits, and where each Party had a voice and influence, I was laughed out of court. But I knew that minority government, in a parliament of minority parties, would make it possible for all parties to take advantage and speak up for their supporters.

Remarkably, only one of the three major opposition parties has taken advantage of this new dynamic. The Scottish Conservative achievements are there for all to see; 1,000 more police, more help for our elderly, a new national drugs strategy, the abolition or cut in local taxes for our smallest businesses, a town centre regeneration fund to boost our high Streets. A combined package of £234,000,000 for the benefit of Scotland. Constructive politics on devolved issues - but steadfast opposition when the SNP have tried to hijack the agenda for their separatist goals.

So, those Conservative achievements again:

1. 1,000 more police.
2. More help for the elderly.
3. A new national (and what nation may be that be?) drugs strategy.
4. Abolition/cut in small businesses' local taxes
5. A town centre regeneration fund.

Never mind the disputed figures (point 1), *forcing* the SNP to bring in these popular (or populist?) measures has benefited the former in the polls rather than the Conservatives- people see an alleged rise in the number of police or assistance for the OAPs, do they credit the government which brought it in, or the opposition party which *forced* them to do it? The opinion polls give the answer to that one.

Which the brings you back to a question I asked a while ago:
What exactly now is the point of Scottish Conservatism?

19 years on....Thatcher isn't the problem.

In the 1979 General Election, the Conservatives in Scotland took 31 per cent of the vote and won 22 of the 71 seats (the SNP went from their previous 11 to 2 seats). Margaret Thatcher became Prime-Minister for the first time.

In the 1983 general election, when Margaret Thatcher won her seocond term, the Scottish Tories won 21 seats.

In the 1987 election, the party won ten seats in Scotland.

22nd of November 1990, Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime-Minister, to be replaced by John Major.

In the 1992, election the Conservatives won 11 seats in Scotland

In the 1997 Labour landslide, it lost all its Scottish MPs.


Remember in the first post-Thatcher election they won 11 seats; they now have recovered and hold a grand total of one seat.

A full 19 years after her resignation is it not a bit disingenuous and cowardly then to still be blaming the Iron Lady for the party’s continuing pitiful performance ?