Fortnight Publications Ltd.

Trust the ToriesAuthor(s): Margaret ElliottSource: Fortnight, No. 305 (Apr., 1992), p. 15Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25553379 .

Accessed: 24/06/2014 23:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:56:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A question

of tactics

L' ^ ^^B^Hat^^aaBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBair '4& % mi

b^b^bhb^BbIbbW --^^Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa^BaaagiiiJiiB!!!,..! z? RaB^BBBEBHlBBKl >''!^^BBBBBBBBBBaBBEnBBBH^^^^^ ? ^ ^ jHBBflBaFI

- -^^BBBaaaHBaBjBaBBjBJB^^^^^^^^ <"

Joyce McMillan

PERSONALLY SPEAKING

THE SUN HAD been shining in Edinburgh, as I wrote this, and Scotland's douce, respectable revolt into nationhood had entered a relatively

tranquil phase: a Glasgow Herald columnist,

testing the electoral waters in the well-heeled

Edinburgh village of Colinton, found nothing but cherry blossom, "an SNP sticker on the

public lavatory the sole sign of the raging electoral struggle without".

All the same, something's up in Scotland.

It's as if that clever Alex Salmond, with his

smart suits, command of economics and calm

demeanour?and his satisfying habit of wip

ing the floor with interviewers from the south

who know nothing about Scotland, without

losing his temper?had laid the ghost of Scot

land's inferiority complex once and for all. We

may not vote en masse for his party, which is

still haunted by kilt-wagging fundamentalists

and ex-Labourist manic depressives, ricochet

ing between aggression and defensiveness,

their lives dominated by British institutions

they profess to hate. But Mr Salmond himself

breaks that mould in the most decisive way. His walkover victory, three months ago, in

the Great Debate on Scotland's future at the

Usher Hall in Edinburgh?when the secretary of state, Ian Lang, was treated as a comic turn,

and Labour's Donald Dewar gave the worst

performance of his life?seems to have tapped a powerful vein of national self-confidence,

and of sheer exasperation with a Union which

has always been incompetent in recognising the multinational nature of the British state.

Now, even the establishment is sprinting for cover, brushing up its Scottish credentials.

A bizarre straw in the wind appeared last

month in the shape of Maj Michael Parker, the

new boss of the Edinburgh Tattoo. That great

symbol of Scotland's complicity with the Brit

ish state would, he said enigmatically, be "much

more Scottish in future". And you can almost

hear the collective wince of the Scottish Con

servatives when ministers blunder north and

wax pompous about the glorious history ofthe

Union and how it has "served us well". It's not

because of the historical analysis?which is

debatable?but because the very emphasis on

history is so out of tune with the national mood.

At least 75 per cent of Scots, if the polls over

five years are to be believed, have had enough of living in what Tom Nairn calls 'Greater

England', of being lectured about nationhood

by ministers who don't even know they're in a

different country. If this Union is to continue,

it will have to be on the basis of mature, mutual

recognition among its nations, or not at all.

The difficulty faced by Scottish voters this month, however, is that there is no single party

that really captures this mood. The SNP, as

we've seen, still contains too many Winnie

Ewings and Jim Sillars, and not enough Alex

Salmonds. The Liberal Democrats, whose con

stitutional policies probably come closest to

the mark, suffer from an Ashdownesque Eng lishness of image, and a total lack of clout in

the urban heartlands. Labour is dogged by its

fatally ambivalent attitude to the British state?

comically epitomised in the strange, semi

posh vowels acquired by upwardly mobile

Scots like Robin Cook and Gordon Brown after a few years at Westminster?and, more

respectably, by doubts about nationalism it

self, as a force for socialists to toy with.

So the great debate which rages among the

Scottish political classes is simply this. Will the people often described by Scottish pun

dits?on no particular evidence?as 'the most

sophisticated electorate in the world' have the

nous to vote tactically, constituency by con

stituency, in order to maximise the chances of

change by wiping out the Tories in Scotland (an entirely plausible project, given the slender

majorities of most of their nine remaining

MPs)? Or will they allow the Conservatives'

desperate divide-and-rule strategy to work?

talking up the SNP, as opposed to the Labour

Liberal Democrat option, to create a deep split in the vote for constitutional change?

Of course, it's impossible to say with any

certainty. Tactical voting is a dicey business,

and depends on excellent information as well

as strong motivation and steady nerves. But it

may be significant that one ofthe most attrac

tive features of this campaign in Scotland, as

opposed to the rest ofthe country, has been that

its voters seem less 'frit', in Mrs Thatcher's

famous phrase. They have not been shaken and

traumatised, like voters in south-east England,

by an immense boom-bust cycle. Their mort

gages are smaller?fewer have them in any case?and their public services are generally better. They do not jump like a startled deer?

as the English electorate seem to be doing?at the thought of a moderate hike in income tax or

a change in the hand on the tiller.

But, whereas a willingness to contemplate

change in England would tend to mean a shift

towards Labour, in Scotland?where Labour

often represents the establishment?it tends to

mean a shift towards the SNP. Opinion polls are now showing strong support for home rule

short of complete independence, coupled with

scepticism about Labour's ability to deliver.

Canvassers on the stump in Edinburgh's big

peripheral housing schemes report a strong

disposition to vote for radical change?that is,

for the SNP?masked by an even greater wish

not to 'let the Tories in'.

In other words, Labour had better be warned.

In the land where they used to say you could

elect a lamppost if it was labelled 'Labour

candidate', the People's Party will be judged not by its rosette, but by its results. And those

results are going to have to include constitu

tional changes that will alter the idea of Brit

ain, and the nature ofthe British state, for good.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Talks fell

victim

Sydney Elliott

T1 I HE TIMING of this election, like that in February 1974, showed scant re

,_|gard for Northern Ireland. From last

autumn it cast a shadow on the talks process and in the end there was time for only one inter

party meeting and a commitment to resume?

just enough, perhaps, to allow the participants

Trust the Tories H MSet THE voice of democracy is to be heard once again, and with it we hear a chorus of pledges, claims

and counter-claims from the political hopefuls. I confess to having some sympathy with Woody Allen

when he was asked "Have you overtaken a serious political stand on anything?" and he replied "Yes, for 24 hours I refused to eat grapes."

In Britain, what choice is there? The government has been in power for a longer period than any other enjoyed this century, the economy is still in recession and doubts exist over the effective

availability of public services, in particular health and education.

Labour has been fighting an ideological struggle within its ranks since Hugh Gartskell's death in

1963, its present leader has changed his views on several fundamental issues and Militant Tendency, one suspects, is still lurking around its fringes. The Liberal Democrats are a sensible, well-meaning group with a charismatic leader?and no realistic chance of forming a majority government.

So who, given the chance, would I vote for? And why? I would exercise my option in favour of the

Conservative party, basically because it would be more reliable with the economy and the planning of

its recovery. Secondly, of the three prospective candidates to lead the government for another term, John Major wins my confidence. Thirdly, I believe the radical political doctrine of the Thatcher years

will, if given the opportunity, devolve into policies which will promote a fair and equal balance of

state paternalism and the individual right to determine one's own destiny.

FORTNIGHT APRIL 15

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:56:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions