Over the next few weeks, we’ll be featuring the leadership candidates in video form. Between now and Sunday, we’ll be introducing each candidate, starting today with Jackson Carlaw MSP.
All videos will be posted on our YouTube channel as well as being featured on this website.
At the hustings last weekend in Inverness one of the questions party members kept asking me was: “Can the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party be renewed without disbanding the party?”
The answer I gave was simple. Yes.
No one is denying the party needs to go through a process of change. Recent results have not been good enough. But we have to make sure it is the right change.
That’s why I thought Lord Forsyth’s comments this week were important. He said:
“Abandoning our party now would be the greatest political error since Bonnie Prince Charlie, on the advice of fainthearts, turned back at Derby to face certain defeat. It would condemn the Scottish Tories to years of internal constitution wrangling when it is our duty to fight to preserve the United Kingdom and Scotland’s future prosperity.”
It is strong stuff, but he is absolutely right. A new party is nothing more than a distraction from the real change we need. We need to improve our campaigning. We need to draw on the expertise, experience and ideas of all of our activists when we write policy. We certainly need to get more people involved with the party – especially more young people. New members, better organisation, and the ideas that will appeal to Scotland – that’s how we will win again.
This is what I am speaking about on my tour of Scotland. This week I had the chance to visit Fife and the North East – places where we have lots of Conservatives but haven’t been able to achieve the electoral success we have managed further south.
However, it was great to meet up with someone who certainly bucked the trend. When Jimmy Buchan stood in 2010 for the Scottish Conservatives he managed an 11.4% swing in his favour. So it was great to have the chance to discuss my plans for the future with him. He is proof that good hard-working candidates can win votes while standing for the Scottish Conservatives, and it was great to meet up.
Needless to say next week I am going to be down in Manchester for Conference. It should be a great occasion, and I still enjoy going down as a member of the UK Conservative & Unionist Party to watch our Prime Minister deliver a conference address.
Mev Brown works with the homeless in Edinburgh, a guest columnist for the Edinburgh Evening News, a contributor to the Police Professional magazine and a conservative.
It would seem the old Chinese proverb “may you live in interesting times”, applies.
In May the SNP won a majority victory which was, supposedly, impossible. This was quickly followed by the resignation of the leaders of the three Unionist parties inScotland.
For 60 years the Lib Dems have sat on the fence telling voters they were better than Labour and the Tories. Their support suffered when they got into bed with Cameron.
Interestingly, this reaction never occurred inScotland when they entered a coalition with Labour. I suspect it could be a generation or more before Scots voters forgive or forget.
So, with just four possible candidates, the Lib Dems were first to select their new leader.
Labour, however, have a genuine lack of talent following their disastrous results in May.
As for us, we have seen the early stages of the campaign dominated by a single issue – the party itself. Should its name be changed, should it be disbanded, or is it fine as it is?
I originally joined the party in 2004 and was selected to stand for Edinburgh East in 2005. While I enjoyed the campaign, my doubts started in the immediate aftermath.
I sensed a lack of leadership, a lack of direction and a lack of commitment to win. Even then, there seemed to be a culture of: “one more heave”. I left the party a few weeks later.
I rejoined the party in June. In the intervening years I stood as an independent and for a number of the smaller parties.
During my time in the political wilderness, I gained some valuable insight which I feel has some relevance to the Scottish Tory leadership election and independence referendum.
Firstly, regardless of who says what, there will be a referendum on independence at a time chosen by the First Minister. He has stated it will be in the second half of the current parliament, and the year generally expected by thoughtful commentators is 2014.
And the wording of the referendum question, itself a highly contentious issue in Scottish politics, will also be of his choosing.
The SNP’s majority means these points are no longer the subject of political negotiation.
So, hopefully, Scottish voters will not witness MSPs work themselves into a tizzy over the details of the referendum – the most famous example coming from Wendy Alexander in May 2008, the [then] leader of Scottish Labour with her ill-fated “bring it on” statement.
Secondly, Conservatives must, absolutely must, learn from history. I recall reading the February 28th front page article in the Scotsman: “Detoxified Tories can make big surge inScotland” and thinking “aye, right”. We can’t, we simply can’t keep on ignoring the past.
In 1979 there were 22 Scottish Tory MPs. Since then there has been a fairly steady decline until the 1997 wipe-out. But in 2001 one Scottish Tory was returned toWestminster.
The Scottish Parliament offered a ray of hope. But again, the numbers of MSPs has been in decline. After May’s elections, the number of MSPs was cut again to 15.
We ignore the past at our peril.
So far 4 candidates have thrown their hat into the ring for the Tory party leadership.
Murdo Fraser, the front runner, takes the view that the Tory party brand is so toxic that a new centre-right party created.
However, Ruth Davidson, the “new kid on the block”, dismisses this idea as a distraction, saying that the party has “moved on” and that she can convince voters to rejoin the party.
So, who is right?
Well, Fraser is correct in one regard. Today, say the word “Tory” and Scots still think “Thatcher”.
While Scots bought their council house’s in their droves, the lingering memory is of the Poll Tax, of closed pits, steel mills and shipyards – of hollowed out communities.
Rightly or wrongly, the party is still seen by most Scottish voters as: “the nasty party”.
So, will a re-branded Tory party do the trick?
No.
During a hustings inEast Kilbride in 2007, I questioned Andy Kerr on NHS policy and referred to him as “a Tory”. I got a round of applause from traditional Labour voters.
When listening to traditional Labour voters during the various campaigns over the years, many told me of their sense of “abandonment” by Labour.
In fact, many felt that during 13 years in office inWestminster and 8 years in Holyrood, Labour didn’t actually do much for Labour voters.
The 1990’s New Labour re-branding did the trick south of the border. But inScotland they are viewed in the same, or similar, light as the Tories and have become toxic themselves.
In May, they paid the price.
I understand senior [Labour] figures have actually recognised that the SNP has effectively muscled in on Labour’s former role asScotland’s social-democratic party of choice.
Again, consider the fate of the Lib Dems since their coalition with the Tories – they’re toxic.
Margaret Mitchell is correct in one regard, it is not about toxicity, it is about relationships.
Damaged relationships can be rebuilt – off course they can.
The problem for us is, since the ’97 wipe-out, we still haven’t started that process.
On a more positive note, it is never too late.
Although, I would humbly suggest, now is a good time to start. The Council elections are only 8 months away.
The Lib Dems are crumbling while the SNP is on a role.
The Tories can’t afford another false dawn.
The days of “one more heave” have gone.
As for the independence referendum, its not about independence.
It, to, is about relationships.
The SNP Government has confirmed to Jackson Carlaw MSP that the competition process for Borders Railway has been ditched and the project will now be “delivered in a new partnership with Network Rail”.
Jackson Carlaw MSP, Scottish Conservative Transport & Infrastructure Spokesperson, said:
“Yet another vital transport project has hit the buffers. Following the tram fiasco in Edinburgh, the SNP can ill-afford a further infrastructure disaster but by ending competition to build the Borders Railway, I fear we are on course for exactly that.
“Work on this project should have begun a very long time ago. We all want to see the line built but with this development my concern now is that taxpayers’ cash is not spent wisely. We must do all we can to protect public money and ensure it stretches as far as possible.”
At FMQs today Alex Salmond suggested in response to Annabel Goldie’s questioning that there would no longer be football in Scotland unless all parties backed his proposed legislation on sectarianism.
Annabel Goldie MSP, Scottish Conservative Leader, said:
“This whole episode reflects our unease. I was trying to impress upon the First Minister the need for calm appraisal, not knee jerk reaction. He does not have a monopoly over the desire for action to help clean Scotland of the stain of sectarianism, but he needs to understand that there are legitimate questions about whether new laws will make a difference or whether existing law could work just as well.
“”No one has the moral high ground on this issue, which is why the First Minister’s expansive rhetoric today was unhelpful. That type of response does the debate a disservice. We need objective assessment and good law, not merely any law just because the First Minister says so.”
From 1st October 2011, retailers in Scotland cannot offer discounts on multiple bottles of alcohol, yet as we move towards this date some suppliers are using loopholes to get around the new laws, by processing online sales in warehouses based south of the border.
Other retailers are looking at removing the quantity discounts and advertising, but will instead just sell the same bottles of alcohol for whatever the combined discount price was to begin with.
Murdo Fraser MSP, Scottish Conservative Health Spokesperson, said:
“We all support measures that get to grips with Scotland’s drink problem but we need to be aware of loopholes in legislation. This move by the supermarkets demonstrates precisely the difficulties with the SNP’s plans for blanket minimum pricing of alcohol, plans which will easily be got around by internet sales.
“We need real effective action, such as a ban on the sales of alcohol below cost price applied across the UK, rather than ill-thought out measures which may do more harm than good.”
Liz Smith MSP, Scottish Conservative Education Spokesperson, said:
“If there is one whole sector in Scottish education which has made the most substantial progress in recent years it is the college sector. It has delivered excellence in many aspects of its institutions, transformed the quality of college courses as well as widening access to many students – of all ages – who, in previous times, would not have been able to take advantage of further education.
“Since the Conservative Government granted them their independence in 1992, they have enjoyed much greater autonomy and much greater flexibility which has allowed them to adapt to the demands of their local regions, to build much better links with other educational institutions and to develop courses around the very different needs of individual students.
“As a parliament, we pay tribute to that work and to the enthusiastic manner in which they have set about the current challenges which face them. They have, in the vast majority of cases, an outstanding record, and that is why they are, quite rightly, both puzzled and upset that, despite these achievements, they are being asked to accept the brunt of the spending cuts in this year’s Spending Review: cuts which come hard and fast on the back of an average10% reduction in budgets last year.
“John Spencer, Convenor of Scotland’s Colleges said last week that it was inconceivable that colleges would be able to absorb more cuts without harm being done to student places, staffing, or to the quality of courses – cuts which could amount to over 20% in real terms assuming that student support is maintained at a flat cash level. In real terms, the FE sector is being asked to cope with current funding cuts of £544m to £435m 2011-15 whilst it watches the HE sector get an increase from £926m to £982m.
“So why, has the Scottish government chosen to punish the colleges so hard, particularly at a time when these very same colleges will be integral to the new Scottish Government flagship policy of offering opportunities to all 16-19 year olds; at a time when unemployment amongst young people is high; and when businesses across Scotland have heaped praise upon the college sector for its ability to train more students and apprentices in the new skills required for today’s fast-changing world? Surely, there is no logic to this at all.
“But let me suggest one reason why the Scottish Government has taken this action; it is because of its persistent refusal to bring in additional sources of private income to higher education, thereby putting additional strain on the whole education budget. And it can’t say it doesn’t approve of the principle of asking anyone to pay, because just ask any RUK student about that.
“Along with many in the university sector and also many public figures like Lord Sutherland or Sir Andrew Cubie, the Scottish Conservatives have persistently argued that free higher education is unsustainable, and we maintain that position notwithstanding the claims from the Scottish Government that it will plug the funding gap for the next 3 years. But, at what price?
“The Scottish Government cannot get away from the fact that 1,000 staff have been shed in the FE sector so far this year, that the school/College partnership work has been significantly reduced and, despite claims to the contrary, the number of learners has decreased.
“Nor can the Scottish Government any longer claim that there cannot be greater flexibility in its budget decisions about HE and FE. Until budget year 2010-11, the Scottish Government had separate budget lines for capital expenditure for the two sectors but for budget years beyond that the Scottish Funding council has one pot for both sectors so the Scottish government can no long claim that its hands are tied. There is new scope for flexibility and therefore there should be much greater scope for a more equitable share between the two sectors.
“Now, I do not take issue for a minute with the Scottish Government’s, and the Scottish Funding Council’s, desire to examine whether or not both HE and FE are delivering best value for money and I do not doubt for a minute that some rationalisation is necessary – even some mergers in the future, but let’s hope the handling of these are not condensed in to a six week period like the disgraceful situation at Abertay/Dundee, tellingly described by Lord Sutherland at the Education Committee on Tuesday this week as a “merger by fax”.
“Reform is essential, but so too is the continuing autonomy of the sector and their desire to be an equal part of any tripartite discussions which must take place between the Scottish Government, the Scottish Funding Council and the colleges themselves.
“But apart from all this, let me just concentrate for a minute on the Scottish Government’s priorities. It has made it very plain that there is to be much greater focus on the provision of opportunities for 16-24 year olds and especially those in the 16-19 age groups – a laudable ambition but why then cut the resources from colleges?
“By definition, they will be expected to play a very key role in this initiative which, we should understand, will make additional demands on the college sector. But let us not forget that there are many other student groups at college – part-time students, mature students and a minority of apprentices, who are core to the work of colleges.
“How will they fare if more demands are laid on colleges to help with the 16-19 reform at the same time as crippling budget cuts? And what will happen to the provision of HE places, 28% of the total HE provision, especially for students from disadvantaged areas? Does this really sit well with the principles which underpin the SNP’s programme for government – I don’t think so.
“Presiding Officer, I return to where I began by praising the outstanding work which has been undertaken by the college sector over recent years. They have coped admirably with the challenges put upon them and they are undoubtedly a hugely important part of the improvements in post school education. They should be congratulated rather than be punished by a government which has muddled its priorities and ended up with a total lack of coherency in FE and HE policy.”
Speaking in the Scottish Conservative debate on Cancer Drugs and their availability, Murdo Fraser MSP, Scottish Conservative Health Spokesperson, said
We have all seen the newspaper headlines: “Scots ‘worst’ for cancer survival”, “Lung cancer survival among the lowest in Europe”, “Scotland has the lowest breast cancer survival rate”.
The inconvenient truth is that report after report tells us that Scotland lags behind a plethora of other developed countries in survival rates for cancer.
Norway, Sweden, the US, Canada and France are just a few examples of countries which boast of better five-year survival rates across a range of cancers than we do in Scotland.
And if all this wasn’t bad enough we Scots also lag behind a significant proportion of Europe for access to new cancer medicines even though successive price cuts and exchange rate movements have meant that UK prices are currently amongst the lowest in Europe.
Taking all cancers together, the five year survival rate for men has increased by 18% and almost 15% for women since 2003.
It is our job as Parliamentarians, as compassionate members of our society, to ensure that when someone is diagnosed with a terrible illness like cancer they have the best possible fighting chance of beating it or in the most extreme cases can at least extend the time they can spend with loved ones for as long as possible.
In June this year one of my constituents, Gillian Bauld, sadly died after being diagnosed with advanced metastatic breast cancer.
Her husband had contacted me prior to her death to raise concerns about the difficulty his wife was having accessing lapatinib, a drug not approved by the SMC but one which presented the best way of controlling the disease’s progression after her chemotherapy came to an end.
The Baulds made two separate exceptional prescribing requests, by two different consultants, and were rejected both times.
Because this drug was not approved by the SMC and because the exceptional prescribing route had been closed down to them, Gillian’s consultant advised that the only option left to them would be to pay for the treatment themselves.
A proposition most people would find unthinkable given the cost of a twelve week course is £10,000.
The really devastating fact for Gillian was that had she been living in England she would have met the specific criteria laid down for access to lapatinib through the Cancer Drugs Fund.
As her husband wrote in The Scotsman, “The Interim Cancer Drug Fund is intended to help people like my wife. If we lived in England, then she would fully meet the criteria for funding, whereas in Scotland she isn’t considered worthy of further help.”
Presiding Officer, there are many cases all across Scotland like my constituent Gillian Bauld and I am sure there are Members here today who have dealt with or are dealing with such cases.
According to a report published by the Rarer Cancer Foundation there are now 23 cancer treatments which are not routinely available in Scotland but which could be funded through the Cancer Drugs Fund set up by the Conservative-led Coalition in England.
Now, I know the Cabinet Secretary wants to get to her feet and dispute this number. I have read the correspondence she sent to my colleague David McLetchie yesterday and I have also seen the vigorous rebuttal from the Rarer Cancers Foundation which was sent to the Health Services Research Unit on 8 September.
I am not here today to go into the detail about the reasons why the Scottish Government have chosen to attack the experts, indeed the very fact that the Cabinet Secretary couldn’t explain away at least 12 medicines in her letter to my colleague suggests that the principle is clear even if we can’t agree on the number.
The Cancer Drugs Fund, which totals £600m over three years in addition to an initial £50m, has helped 5,000 patients in England to get access to the cancer medicines they need.
It is facts like these which convince me that the Rarer Cancers Foundation are right when they argue that around 14 treatment requests per million population are being approved in Scotland compared to almost 48 such requests in England.
Indeed Lapatinib, the cancer my constituent required for her breast cancer, has an approval rating nine times greater in England than it does in Scotland.
In fact, if Scotland were to set up its own fund and achieve the same approval rate as England across a whole host of drugs then there would be a 235% increase in the number of cancer patients in Scotland gaining access to life enhancing and extending treatment.
Now it is true that the fund is an interim measure. It will run until 2014 when it is hoped that the Department of Health will replace the current Pharmaceutical Price regulatory Scheme with a Value-based Pricing system for drugs.
A system I hope the Cabinet Secretary will support.
This change will link the price of a drug to cost-effectiveness based on clinical evidence. It is hoped that the new system will lead to more innovation and investment being focused on patient needs.
However, until that time we cannot morally accept a system whereby Scottish patients are being denied access to cancer drugs which are available to other UK citizens by virtue of where they are domiciled.
Of course the Cabinet Secretary will no doubt extol the virtues of the Individual Patient Treatment Requests arrangements, the default position of the Scottish Government whenever challenged on the availability of cancer medicines.
But the fact remains that even with this system, as my constituent Gillian Bauld found out, access to cancer drugs is still being denied – vital drugs which are being made available in England.
The Divided Nations report highlights that in the group of medicines that are declined by the SMC patients do not access them through the IPTR route and that is why patients in Scotland are three times less likely to gain access to a cancer drug not routinely available than those in England.
As one clinician has told me Bevacizumab is a very good example of such a medicine. This drug has no SMC approval and no successful IPTR appeals despite this drug being the gold standard of treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in the Western World and now in England with the introduction of the Cancer Drugs Fund.
Presiding Officer, Scottish Conservatives, cancer sufferers, clinicians and experts on this issue can all see the evidence of a £600m Cancer Drugs fund working for cancer patients in England.
Cancer Research UK welcomed the English Fund stating that “This cancer drugs fund could make a real difference for some cancer patients, allowing them to get the treatments they need.”
The RCF as estimated that the cost of achieving a comparable level of access in Scotland would cost the Scottish Government only £5m. We believe that this would be money well spent, and that the cancer sufferers of Scotland deserve to be treated as least as well as those south of the Border.
Scottish Tory Leadership
Comment on future of the Party
Warning from Lord Forsyth on Tory split plans (Herald) http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/warning-from-lord-forsyth-on-tory-split-plans-1.1126535
Tories ‘risk gravest mistake since Bonnie Prince Charlie U-Turn(Scotsman) http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Tories-39risk-gravest-mistake-since.6844464.jp
Tory grandees in conflict over Party’s future (STV) http://news.stv.tv/politics/272319-tory-grandees-in-conflict-over-partys-future/
Critique by Ian Swanson Tory leadership hopefuls get their chance at party conference (Evening News) http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Ian-Swanson-Tory-leadership-hopefuls.6844673.jp
Labour Party Conference
Voter registration – Labour conference: Harman attacks Tories over vote plan(BBC) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15105043
Unions threaten to withdraw funding (Telegraph) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8795629/Labour-Party-Conference-2011-unions-threaten-to-withdraw-funding-unless-Labour-backs-strike-action.html
John Lamont MSP on Robert Foye – Judges risk backlash over sentencing of rapist Robert Foye (Telegraph) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8796351/Judges-risk-backlash-over-sentencing-of-rapist-Robert-Foye.html
Anti-sectarianism legislation – Michael Kelly: Football fans lead the fight for freedom of speech (Scotsman) http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Michael-Kelly-Football-fans-lead.6844423.jp
Ashley lives in Motherwell, and is a Business student at the University of the West of Scotland. Ashley is an active campaigner and has a great interest in politics.
When Margaret Mitchell told me that she was looking for nominations to enter the leadership campaign, I was thrilled. I know how much it means to Margaret to be in the running to possibly becoming the next leader of the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party, and I know how much it meant to her managing to secure over 150 nominations in just 48 hours of stating her interest in running.
Before Margaret decided she was going to run for leader, I was struggling to choose one of the three candidates:
Do I choose Murdo Fraser who wants to shake-up the party, when even the current leader, Annabel Goldie, has condemned his plans?
Do I choose Jackson Carlaw who has said- should he be successful in his leadership bid- that he would conduct a “full scale overhaul of policy and the formation thereof”?
Or do I vote for Ruth Davidson, the youngest candidate in the leadership race, whom some people fear isn’t experienced enough, and isn’t as well known as the other candidates?
I am proud to be supporting Margaret Mitchell in her leadership campaign as I believe that she is liked and well respected by many people in her constituency- having been a councillor before becoming an MSP and also due to the fact that Henry, Margaret’s husband, is the councillor in their local area of Uddingston and Bothwell. Margaret has been a member of the Scottish Conservative Party since she was 17 years old, showing that she is dedicated to the party.
Margaret has made it clear that she wants to make the party more ‘approachable’. Margaret wants us to be the party that people come to for help, instead of running away from our party like most people do currently. Margaret is very passionate about her job and has a strong mind. She isn’t scared to stand out from the crowd, Margaret has shown this by being the only one in the party to condemn the party’s support of the Scotland Bill recently, which caused great controversy. However, I believe that Margaret would make a great leader of the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party, and she would help to change the party- not too radically- for the better!
We can’t go on the way we are just now, the people of Scotland need someone to change their views of the ‘tories’ and I believe Margaret Mitchell is just the person to do that, that is why I am supporting Margaret Mitchell in her bid for leader, and will be behind her every step of the way.
