Mandy Rhodes interviews Annabel Goldie, leader of the Scottish Conservatives at Holyrood about making a difference
Politicians/me/kissing: I am having a few technical problems in that department. I should wear a warning sign.
No sooner have we Scots gone all luvvie and European-like and started smooching all over the shop than I encounter some difficulties with the social niceties of it all; who to kiss, when to kiss, how to kiss?
First there was the incident between the FM and I when he went one way, I went the other and we ended engaged in an embarrassing and well-off-target, full-frontal smacker on the lips. To make matters worse, he was absent the next day from FMQs with a tummy bug.
Contagion aside, I am keen not to repeat the experience with Annabel Goldie so go in for a simple air kiss but bloody hell, does she not belt me round the chops with a stray hand that is enthusiastically wafting her newly sprayed au de toilette around the room?
“What’s that, Mandy?” she squeals in an uncharacteristically girly fashion.
“A bruised cheek,” say I, sulking.
“No, not that, what perfume…?”
“I don’t know.” My face is beginning to ache. I’ve had enough of this kissing malarkey. It’s dangerous.
“It’s L’Air du Temps by Nina Ricci, very old fashioned, very traditional and yet still very relevant.”
God, is she still wittering on about perfume or just her own personal popularity profile? Does she not realise I bruise easily?
L’Air du Temps was created in France by Francis Fabron in 1948, two years before Ms Goldie was born in Glasgow and is one of those enduring and ubiquitous fragrances that someone’s mother will always be associated with. It smells loosely of carnations and, in the words of one poetic reviewer, ‘captures a moment before autumn falls into the winter and winter into the spring, a sense of something new and unsettling in the air.’
But most of all, in that evocative way that only particular scents can do, it is a reassuring smell; of mums, home, baking and stability… (What can I say, my father was a pharmacist, we had testers scattered throughout the house with Chanel No 5 used as an air freshener in the loo, perfume had a central role in the Rhodes household. I could go on…)
Without being too indulgent, Annabel Goldie could well be described as the L’Air du Temps of Scottish politics. Not only does she fit her own and the perfumier’s description of the pungent essence to a tee but she has also done much to sweeten the air in a parliament that could so easily be seeped in the stench of bitter defeat.
Goldie was the first politician at Holyrood to mention the prospect of minority government – indeed in this very magazine two years ago, a whole year before the outcome of the May election. At the time, with a Lab-Lib Dem coalition riding high on its record of rule during the whole of the Scottish Parliament’s life, she was derided. Afterall, why should things ever change?
Of course, things did change, dramatically, in May 2007 and with the former political partnership swept away and the Lib Dems refusing to play, the SNP was left to form a minority administration. It is perhaps not surprising then that Ms Goldie has seized her opportunity. She has used the arrangement to raise the profile of her own party, has secured real points for the Tory agenda in getting more policemen on the beat, has been integral in creating a drug strategy based on recovery and made significant budget wins for small businesses, and most importantly, is acknowledged as the leader of perhaps what can only be described as the only real party of opposition in the Scottish Parliament at present.
Not bad for a party of just 16 (17 if you count current Presiding Officer, Alex Fergusson). Goldie has taken on board the principles of minority administration and run with them; not, as she would say, by getting into bed with the SNP, but by realising that she could use it to her own party’s advantage. It is not without some relish that she describes the Labour Party’s approach to the SNP Government as unhealthy.
“It was me that first talked about minority government and it was not well received by the media, who clearly thought I should go and lie down with some cold towels,” she says in her typically self-deprecating way. “But I strongly believed that that coalition that had endured for eight years had become stale and had stunted discussion and debate. I thought the whole thing was tired and jaded and what I acknowledged was that if we had a minority government, it would be possible for a party like the Conservatives, who had a smaller presence in the Parliament, to have a voice and that what we said would matter. People might not have got that at the time but they do now.
 “This is not about us being in bed with the SNP. You are simply looking at everything from an issue by issue basis and what I apply as a rule is what is in the best interests of Scotland.
“What is wrong with asking for a government to work for its votes and to really argue its position to secure the agreement of one or two of the minority parties? I just felt it would introduce a new dynamic to this Parliament.
“Some people would say how could the Scottish Conservatives, as a unionist party, have any truck with the SNP and that is what has been the underlying ideological block that has been the problem for Labour.
“The Labour Party’s attitude to this change in government is extremely unhealthy. Labour had this ingrained antipathy to the SNP and it is like a wee playground battle and they can’t see past that and its implacable confrontation. It is interesting to note how they have approached their role of opposition that every time a government minister flexes a muscle, they rise up and shout ya, boo, shucks, but my attitude is not who is doing it; it is what they are doing.
“Alex Salmond may be the First Minister of an SNP Government but if Alex Salmond agrees, for example, that we can not go on with drugs abuse the way it is and we need a new strategy, am I going to spurn that? Of course I am not. Equally, am I going to deny us more police on the streets if I can be the vehicle for that? Of course not. The best interests of Scotland demand that I do my part in that decision-making process and that is what I will jolly well do.
“I sense that there is a real uplift in morale here and that the Conservatives in particular feel that they matter, that their views matter and that they have more of a voice. The potential for delivery is a marked change for us because when you are in opposition to a coalition, because of a partnership agreement signed in a room behind closed doors, there is little opportunity to feel you are making a difference.
“The Scottish Conservatives had a good story to tell and we had to just soldier on through the pain barrier until we got an opportunity to tell it. What we have shown is that if you work constructively; you can deliver, you can influence and you can alter outcomes in this new Parliament and that has given my colleagues a sense of enthusiasm, optimism and pure job satisfaction.
“In the days of the coalition, external organisations would come to talk to us simply to observe the political niceties. If I’m being honest, they did not think we were of any real importance but now you can tell they come and speak to us because they know we can help deliver something for them.
“Put simply, the nature of the job that I am doing has changed and we are now very much part of the political delivery and this has become much more of a strategic role for me and that is exciting, demanding and fulfilling. We are making a difference inside the Parliament and what we now need to do is get that message out and see it reflected in electoral support.”
So with that whiff of potential success lingering, we move on to the topic of the day – the Wenderendum. It is just three days since Wendy Alexander’s appearance on the BBC’s Politics Show when she announced that the referendum on independence should be brought on and with those ill-judged words, she isolated her political partners on the Calman Commission, left commentators and colleagues alike shaking their heads in disbelief, saw her engaged in a fine display of political gymnastics as her view bounced from pillar to post and back again and brought her whole credibility as leader into question.
As a leader of her own party, does Goldie understand why Alexander did it?
She shakes her head. There is no disguising Goldie’s outrage at Alexander’s actions and what Goldie sees as her opening the door to threaten the Union. Has she discussed this with her?
“I have not spoken to Wendy Alexander in the last 48 hours,” she clips.
“I think what’s quite extraordinary is that it is the leader of the Labour Party, of all parties, that seems hell bent on dancing to Alex Salmond’s jig and to wanting to call up some deal with him on a referendum and that’s bad enough and frankly, is politically singularly ill-conceived and irresponsible but when we then heard the Prime Minister’s response, it is getting beyond belief, because he has very obviously refused to support her position and was at pains to emphasise, in my opinion quite rightly, the importance of the Calman Commission and that it needs to get on with its important work and he clearly anticipates to look at the outcome of the commission and then consider as a party how to respond to that in a calm and collected fashion. Within the time frame that she is proposing, what Gordon Brown wants can not be accommodated within that timescale and his refusal to endorse her publicly is, frankly, extraordinary.
“I accept that politics always throws up the unexpected, that’s just the nature of the world of politics. Clearly I don’t expect any political leader to be always bound by protocols for other political leaders so I am less concerned about my position but I am more concerned about Sir Kenneth Calman of the commission because I think the obvious implication of what she said at the weekend and then the clear consequence of subsequent...I was going to say clarification but in fact, that’s the whole point, it can’t be described as clarification…but the subsequent comments clearly have consequences for the commission. Now I have said, and I think Nicol Stephen has done the same, that our parties stand very much behind the commission and I am absolutely certain that Wendy Alexander and the Scottish Labour Party and the Prime Minister feel the same but it was extraordinary that she launched into this unprepared journey because I do think it was unplanned, I don’t think it was thought through and it meant that she lurched into a void of the unknown and I think it very unfortunate that she did that without saying at the outset that she stood by the Calman Commission. As far as I am concerned, the commission is absolutely intact, its position is acknowledged, its role is universally regarded as important with the exception of the SNP and it will be left to get on with its work.”
Where does that leave Wendy Alexander?
“I presume she will argue that she is so confident that Scotland is going to reject independence that the Calman Commission continues to be relevant then to any informed discussion on devolution and theoretically, that’s fine and let me say that I remain confident that devolution will prevail, but I do feel that with something that is so important to our country there, has to be measured reflection by all politicians, particularly political leaders and you have to adopt a sensible assessment of how you take things forward. This is a sensitive and complex process and it is inevitable there will be a debate, everyone knows that, but it is vital that that debate is as well informed as possible not by wild rhetoric and flowery language but by solid and forensic evidence, investigation and fact, which is exactly what the Calman Commission has been charged with addressing.
“I can only conclude that it was a panic reaction and clearly she has not had her own difficulties to seek in Scotland, the Labour Party got a drubbing on Thursday and I think this was panic and a desire to do something dramatic and on that she has succeeded.
“She may have had the intention of deflecting attention from the Labour Party’s woes and to focus on a big issue. Perhaps in normal circumstances with one aspect of domestic policy, it is arguably something a party could deploy but we are talking about the future of Scotland and the strength and stability and security of our country and we know there are many, many people that wish our relationship with the UK to continue and there are people that would like to see devolution develop further and deliver better for the people of Scotland. We know that and we have to have that informed and you don’t address this massive issue like the constitution and the future of Scotland, you don’t address that by having an apparent one-minute reflection on a political television programme.
“I am certainly puzzled, to the extent that she seemed to have created round about her a maelstrom and disappointed that it should be the Labour Party that has contributed to this when we are dealing with something so important as the future constitution and stability of our country and as a committed unionist, I am angered that what I think needs to be a sensitive and reflective debate has, frankly, been hijacked by headlines.”
Ms Goldie is angry – it is clearly a personal affront that the Union has been threatened - and in this mood, she would be a fine match for the diminutive Alexander. What would she like to say to her?
“I don’t think it’s for me to express anything to Wendy Alexander. The people she needs to account to are her own MSPS, her party and very clearly from the way this news has resonated throughout the UK, her colleagues at Westminster and I don’t envy her task, these are formidable tasks in front of her. She’s ended up, whether she realises it or not, that she has taken herself and her Scottish party into the SNP barrow.”
I suggest that for any unionist party it is difficult to make your own mark in Scotland because you are always tied to your mother’s apron strings, so to speak and for Wendy Alexander, perhaps this was her moment to break free.
She snorts with what can only be presumed to be indignation:
“Wherever issues arise which involve not just Scotland but also the UK and have implication for Westminster, I simply wouldn’t dream of coming to a position on my own without consulting with David Cameron because apart from anything else, I would want to know before I was to plunge off in a particular direction that he was happy and be able to publicly endorse my position.
“I think the Scottish Conservatives have shown themselves to be a) principled, b) consistent and c) responsible in all our deliberations on the constitutional position of Scotland. It was we, along with the Lib Dems that covered this issue in our manifesto, Labour did not. The Conservatives realised there was an issue to be looked at and it would have been irresponsible to not explore that aspect further because it seemed to me that there was a need to do that and it would been irresponsible not to concede that point for the future success of this devolved Parliament because any necessary – proven to be so – adjustments of power by a proper evidence-based enquiry should be addressed. It is galling that the Labour Party, which didn’t even mention this in its manifesto and was, frankly, humiliated by circumstances – one, by a buoyant, confident SNP Government making headway with the Scottish public which deeply disturbed the Labour Party and two, by the fact that the other two unionists parties had a perfectly sensible and sustainable position on the devolved Parliament which they could respectively advance - it is perfectly galling that they were last at the table and that they are the first to dive off the ship.
“I accept that we have our political differences and opinion and at times, disagreements and that is positive and constructive. But what I find extraordinary is the Scottish Labour Party, with the blessing of the Prime Minister, agreed to be part of a coalition to review devolution and there is no doubt about it that the sequence of events that led to that coalition was the culmination of a very enjoyable and genuinely constructive discussion between the three unionist parties here and at Westminster. Indeed it was a refreshing bit of political progress and a sensible and constructive coalescing of views from three parties with, whatever else divided them, an agreement about the importance of the UK and that Scotland should remain a strong and prosperous part of it. Then you suddenly find that view is apparently up in the air.
“It’s perfectly clear that the Scottish public is bewildered about what it has seen in the last few days. I know there are many people in Scotland who are not in the Conservative Party but want to stay in the UK and are now left in the situation that because of the Labour Party, we will have a referendum. The Labour Party has no credibility in arguing the case that Scotland should reject separatism and argue for a continued and healthy devolved position but I think David Cameron and I can make that case. While other parties may be willing to let down Scotland, the Tories will not
While other parties may be willing to let down Scotland, the Tories will not 
.
“But my concern is not so much about party advantage but that our future stability is protected and at the moment, I see a Labour Party not able to do that and a Conservative Party that will not flinch from that task and is prepared to roll its sleeves up and get on with that task.”
What is apparent is that Goldie feels personally offended by what has happened. She is, afterall, a woman of strong virtue, an elder of the Church of Scotland, a lawyer who has seen life in the raw and something of a rare avis; a Tory grande dame with a searing social conscience – a caring Conservative – which for many in Scotland, is something of an anathema.
But it is Goldie who has consistently questioned both the last administration and this on their approach to social justice, particularly around drug abuse and surprisingly, her attitude is not one of blaming the addicted but a more pragmatic questioning of how we get out of this mess.
When Alex Salmond came into power, it was to Goldie he turned to ask her about what was being done in Scotland to tackle drug abuse, how the money was being spent and what results we are getting. She says he was shocked to discover there was no comprehensive strategy and during the last year, Audit Scotland has announced an inquiry into the efficacy of the millions of pounds spent every year on drug services and the SNP Government itself has launched its own consultation on developing a drug strategy.
Goldie says she hopes that this will be based on recovery. She is, she says, a solution-based politician. At FMQs, in contrast to Wendy Alexander, she has raised issues that have also offered solutions; more police officers, the use of home detention curfews, drug rehabilitation, etc. That, she says, is partly down to being a woman.
“I do think women have a different approach to challenges, whether the challenges are in politics or other fields altogether. We are much more pragmatic in that we’ll sit down and say: We know what the problem is. Now can we talk intelligently about finding a solution? I don’t like sticking-plaster politics and we have seen a lot of that in recent years. When I first raised the issue of drug misuse with the last administration, I was treated with derision and the reaction was incredibly hostile but I will not be wafted away on this and other very serious issues.”
Her next challenge is to raise the issue of generational parenting skills or the lack of and why there are children being brought up without the necessary checks and balances that, she believes, make them whole and rounded people. She would like a complete review of society’s approach to childhood and says that she sees an important role for the voluntary sector in parental education.
Doesn’t she fear being criticised for being too authoritarian? The issue of family has, afterall, been one of those no-go, sacrosanct areas that has got both the Tories and Labour into trouble in the past. She says it is too important an issue to be deflected from.
Goldie’s father died when she was 17 and it is perhaps that that allowed her to realise how quickly the gift of stability can disintegrate. While she doesn’t have children of her own, she is Aunt Bella to a gaggle of nephews and clearly the enormous responsibility of raising a family is something she has dedicated time and research to. She’s a woman of great incongruity; a traditional Tory who can quickly veer into the ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’ rhetoric but who also has huge compassion and thoughtfulness.
In March 2007, the Scottish Tory annual conference was dogged by a leaked memo, written by the party’s Scottish MP David Mundell. It lamented the lack of “thinkers” at Holyrood and singled out Miss Goldie for criticism. What does she think about that now on the eve of her second Scottish Conservative conference as leader?
She laughs: “I have never doubted we have thinkers in our group but we can now also show we have doers.”
No one has commented on this article. |
Holyrood magazine 
Holyrood magazine is the fortnightly insiders guide to understanding the complexity of Scottish politics and policy developments and is widely regarded as being the leading publication for political news and information in Scotland.
