No Scottish Unionist Party merger in 1965

[Deleted]

The Scottish Unionist Party was seen as being a uniquely Scottish party which stood up for Scottish interests. After the merger with the Conservative Party in 1965 it lost this identity and continued to decline.

Had this merger took place and Unionist MPs continued to take the Conservative whip, could the Scottish decline in the second half of the 20th century have been stopped or avoided?

[greenchristian]

It depends on two things. Firstly, whether the Unionist party remaining separate managed to change at least some of the policies/events which led to Conservative/Unionist support in Scotland declining earlier and faster than it did in the rest of the country. And secondly, whether they managed to avoid being blamed for those that they didn't stop. The most obvious example of this would be if they managed to convince Thatcher to trial the Poll Tax in, say Wales, rather than in Scotland (though I think the decline did, in fact, start before that point).

I don't see any reason to assume that this would be the case. It seems to me that the ultimate effect would have been to slightly slow or delay the decline, rather than to prevent it altogether.

[Deleted]

I still see a wipeout in 1997.

Major played the Union card iirc. How different would a separate Unionist Party be?

[timrollpickering]

Jun 21, 2018 19:44:41 GMT greenchristian said:

It depends on two things. Firstly, whether the Unionist party remaining separate managed to change at least some of the policies/events which led to Conservative/Unionist support in Scotland declining earlier and faster than it did in the rest of the country. And secondly, whether they managed to avoid being blamed for those that they didn't stop. The most obvious example of this would be if they managed to convince Thatcher to trial the Poll Tax in, say Wales, rather than in Scotland (though I think the decline did, in fact, start before that point).

It wasn't actually a trial but rather a case of demanding that Scotland not wait a year for the extra preparation England (& Wales?) needed. Lawson's memoirs are rather blunt about how this situation came about.

There's a lot of commentary on Scottish Conservatism that treats the decline as being all the fault of Margaret Thatcher. The party's biggest drop actually came during Edward Heath's tenure and seems to have been linked to a secularisation of the the Protestant vote along with a post imperial mindset, with the SNP the main beneficiaries (at least until 2017). It would be useful to see any actual studies on Thatcherism in Scotland to show if they actually alienated a significant portion of Conservative voters or if they were mainly unpopular with people who already weren't voting for the party.

[East Anglian Lefty]

The merger was because they were functionally the same party anyway and there wasn't much point in pretending otherwise. Had they tried to pretend otherwise anyway, I don't think it would have made much difference - probably as much as the distinction between a Labour candidate and a Labour & Co-operative candidate.

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2018 12:25:15 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

The merger was because they were functionally the same party anyway and there wasn't much point in pretending otherwise. Had they tried to pretend otherwise anyway, I don't think it would have made much difference - probably as much as the distinction between a Labour candidate and a Labour & Co-operative candidate.

I would disagree - while they were for all intents and purposes the Conservatives; indeed I believe they were still commonly referred to as Tories; it was an independent party which was seen as very much a Scottish force.  Conservatism was perceived as very much an English force while Scotland had traditionally voted Liberal; and with the loss of this Independence the Scottish Conservatives were seen as essentially a "branch office" of Westminster.  So I agree with greenchristian's analysis that the merger was not the cause of the decline but it probably pushed the accelerator on it.

 

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2018 13:22:52 GMT Sandy said:

Jun 27, 2018 12:25:15 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

The merger was because they were functionally the same party anyway and there wasn't much point in pretending otherwise. Had they tried to pretend otherwise anyway, I don't think it would have made much difference - probably as much as the distinction between a Labour candidate and a Labour & Co-operative candidate.

I would disagree - while they were for all intents and purposes the Conservatives; indeed I believe they were still commonly referred to as Tories; it was an independent party which was seen as very much a Scottish force.  Conservatism was perceived as very much an English force while Scotland had traditionally voted Liberal; and with the loss of this Independence the Scottish Conservatives were seen as essentially a "branch office" of Westminster.  So I agree with greenchristian's analysis that the merger was not the cause of the decline but it probably pushed the accelerator on it.

 

At least Ruth has turned things around somewhat. Having a separate leader and a distinctive presence in the Scottish parliament has helped immensely, though the former has been more influential than the latter, especially in Ruth’s case.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jun 27, 2018 13:22:52 GMT Sandy said:

Jun 27, 2018 12:25:15 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

The merger was because they were functionally the same party anyway and there wasn't much point in pretending otherwise. Had they tried to pretend otherwise anyway, I don't think it would have made much difference - probably as much as the distinction between a Labour candidate and a Labour & Co-operative candidate.

I would disagree - while they were for all intents and purposes the Conservatives; indeed I believe they were still commonly referred to as Tories; it was an independent party which was seen as very much a Scottish force.  Conservatism was perceived as very much an English force while Scotland had traditionally voted Liberal; and with the loss of this Independence the Scottish Conservatives were seen as essentially a "branch office" of Westminster.  So I agree with greenchristian's analysis that the merger was not the cause of the decline but it probably pushed the accelerator on it.

 

This is not a tenable argument. Alec Douglas-Home was elected as a Unionist. You cannot argue you are a separate unit when you provide the overall party leader.

[Deleted]

Jun 28, 2018 11:34:01 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Jun 27, 2018 13:22:52 GMT Sandy said:

I would disagree - while they were for all intents and purposes the Conservatives; indeed I believe they were still commonly referred to as Tories; it was an independent party which was seen as very much a Scottish force.  Conservatism was perceived as very much an English force while Scotland had traditionally voted Liberal; and with the loss of this Independence the Scottish Conservatives were seen as essentially a "branch office" of Westminster.  So I agree with greenchristian's analysis that the merger was not the cause of the decline but it probably pushed the accelerator on it.

 

This is not a tenable argument. Alec Douglas-Home was elected as a Unionist. You cannot argue you are a separate unit when you provide the overall party leader.

The bottom line is that party control was decentralised to Scotland; which allowed the Unionist Party to present itself as a uniquely Scottish force as opposed to the London-centric Labour party.  This allowed the party to tailor a specifically Scottish message which appealed to a large cross section of the electorate; an ability which was lost following the merger.  In this regard, where the Prime Minister comes from is neither here or there.

[raedwald]

Jun 28, 2018 11:34:01 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Jun 27, 2018 13:22:52 GMT Sandy said:

I would disagree - while they were for all intents and purposes the Conservatives; indeed I believe they were still commonly referred to as Tories; it was an independent party which was seen as very much a Scottish force.  Conservatism was perceived as very much an English force while Scotland had traditionally voted Liberal; and with the loss of this Independence the Scottish Conservatives were seen as essentially a "branch office" of Westminster.  So I agree with greenchristian's analysis that the merger was not the cause of the decline but it probably pushed the accelerator on it.

 

This is not a tenable argument. Alec Douglas-Home was elected as a Unionist. You cannot argue you are a separate unit when you provide the overall party leader.

Actually, separate units in an alliance with a larger unit often do provide leaders. For example, in Germany the CSU provided the Chancellor candidate in 1980 and 2002, although they clearly remain a distinct entity, likewise in Australia the Nationals provided the Prime Minister (Arthur Fadden) in 1941, yet they remain a separate party from the Liberals.