MICHAEL FORSYTH is becoming endearingly mischievous. His appointment
earlier this week of Sunday Times commentator Gerald Warner as special
adviser was the equivalent of administering a laxative to Labour and the
SNP.
On cue Shadow Scots Secretary George Robertson spewed forth that
hiring a right-wing ideologue ''gives the lie to the claim that Forsyth
has learned from his past failures'', while SNP leader Alex Salmond
burst forth with the condemnation that this ''extraordinary appointment
shows Forsyth's mask is slipping''.
But just when they thought it was safe to venture out, the Scottish
Secretary yesterday appointed another special adviser, Brian Meek, The
Herald columnist and -- say it quietly -- pro-devolutionist and honorary
vice-president of the left-leaning Tory Reform Group. The groans of
constipation returned.
Of course, Forsyth could well have announced the appointments the
other way round. That, he anticipated, would not have been as much fun.
Nor would it have guaranteed as many column inches in the newspapers or
soundbites on radio. This was media manipulation which would have made
Max Clifford blush.
After all, when did anyone apart from political aficionados know the
name of a Secretary of State's special adviser, a post as mysterious and
indeterminate as a character from a Michael Dobbs novel. One of the best
in recent years has been Graham Carter, the right-hand man of Malcolm
Rifkind; shrewd, astute, and wise beyond his years but totally invisible
from public view. Warner and Meek will be about as invisible as the
Scott Monument in Princes Street on a clear day.
Although they sit on opposite pews of the broad church of the Tory
party, they do share an acerbity and wit which has been gravely lacking.
They are being tipped as the new St Andrews House equivalent of Laurence
Marks and Maurice Gran, those irreverent co-authors of ITV's sitcom, The
New Statesman.
You can be certain that in future their fingerprints will be found on
all Forsyth's speeches. After all, this will be an important factor in
the Scottish Secretary's attempt to regain lost ground in Scotland. If
poor presentation, rather than policies, is at the heart of the Tories
problems then Forsyth now has two men who can sharpen and hone the
message he needs to get across.
Both will feel it was a pity they had not been appointed a few days
earlier. Otherwise they would have devastatingly mocked this week's
''exclusive'' in the Scotsman which must have startled the nation by
revealing that 20 years ago, as a student at St Andrews University,
Forsyth had actually written a pamphlet extolling the virtues of an
Assembly. Apparently this would now ''haunt'' him. Probably as much as
student communist Denis Healey was haunted when he was Minister of
Defence or at the Treasury.
Their remit, however, extends beyond lampooning the Government's
opponents. They will be expected to submit proposals and alert Forsyth
of the political implications of Government decisions. Viewing
everything from different political perspectives, it is hoped, might
anticipate possible banana skins. As one party wit put it: ''When Gerry
hangs abortionists from the lamp-posts at least Brian will be on hand to
cut them down.''
This is a reference to Warner's opposition to abortion, one of the
many strident views he holds. Although a Roman Catholic he has called
for the sacking of Cardinal Basil Hume for showing sympathy to
homosexuals. He has also attacked nursery education proposals, scorned
''neanderthal socialism'' north of the Border and attacked the Scottish
press, including The Herald, for their ''whingeing'' and opposition to
Government initiatives. Forsyth does believe he gets a bad press and
shares the contempt for socialism, but his views do not reflect
Warner's.
What the two men do share is a tenacity of purpose and the belief that
the Tories can be revitalised. Warner will play a pivotal role in the
Tory courting of the Catholic vote, although some might regard it more
as a ''rough wooing''. The previous Scots Secretary, Ian Lang, had long
been dismayed at the tendency for many Catholics to see Labour as their
natural party when on many issues, like the maintenance of fee-paying
religious schools, the Conservatives were more sympathetic. It was to
this end that preliminary talks were held with Cardinal Winning, and
Forsyth is keen to see this strategy pursued.
As an academic, Warner was the author of a history of the Scottish
Tory party, and has vigorously argued that the party's roots are deeply
embedded in Scottish soil. On a number of occasions he has traced the
genesis of the Scottish Tories to the Jacobites who opposed the 1707 Act
of Union as a sell-out by corrupt Whig landowners.
As ''Cockburn'' of the Sunday Times Scotland diary -- a kind of pukka
Tom Shields (if that is imaginable) although not as funny -- he reported
on many society figures and met many of the movers and shakers of
Scottish business life, another constituency which Forsyth has still to
win over. The Conservatives' relationship with leading businessmen has
been seriously damaged, and unless the Scots Secretary can prove that he
will be more than an 18-month wonder a number have stated privately that
they will continue to keep their distance and court Labour.
But it will be on Brian Meek that Forsyth will depend to build bridges
with the party faithful. Meek is a man of many parts, not just a
journalist but an Edinburgh Tory councillor and rugby enthusiast, who
had handled press relations for the Scottish Rugby Union and who is a
highly entertaining after-dinner speaker.
He played a seminal role in Malcolm Rifkind's early days and remained
close to him when the Pentlands MP became Secretary of State for
Scotland. His wit, ease of mixing at all levels, and his political
acumen is celebrated throughout the party, although some have viewed him
with suspicion because of his pro-devolutionary fervour and -- as Herald
readers will know -- his insistence on speaking his mind, even if it is
against party policy.
Many expected him to be a favoured candidate for Lord Provost of
Edinburgh under the new unitary council set-up but the Conservatives did
badly at the local elections, although arguably better than in other
parts of Scotland. Had he become the city's first citizen he would have
been the architect of a host of projects to raise the capital's profile
along the lines of Michael Kelly's ''Glasgow's Miles Better'' campaign.
It is this innovative thinking, along with his facility for tapping
into the genuine concerns of people, which will be invaluable for
Forsyth, providing him with an accurate barometer of public opinion.
But it is Meek's expertise in one area in particular which has
attracted the Secretary of State -- local government. Forsyth needed
someone on his team who knows his way around the councils. This is
crucial if the Scottish Secretary is to achieve his aim of devolving
more power to this level, thus further blunting the attraction -- and
even the credibility -- of Labour's proposed Assembly, while avoiding
the pitfalls. It would be ironic, indeed, if the devolutionist Meek
proved to be the Assembly's Trojan horse.
''Many people will regard Gerry and Brian as chalk and cheese,'' said
a senior Conservative last night. ''But that is what the Secretary of
State wants. He does not want yes men. He wants those with strong views
yet able to debate them intelligently and have enough nous to think
through the implications of policy.
''Too often a good idea falls flat because it is not put across
properly or there are some hidden pitfalls. There are a lot of ideas
about promoting sport, for instance, on which Brian, I should imagine,
will have a lot to say. The Secretary of State has chosen two men who,
like himself, are not averse to a bit of mischief-making. That will make
it uncomfortable for the Opposition. And if Michael Forsyth can get such
publicity for what is basically internal appointments, just think what
will happen when he announces policy.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article