Policy Research Media Morhamburn

I’m sure somewhere in the world of marketing academia, there is a textbook somewhere that tries hard to explain and define the idea of a ‘toxic brand’. It should really just have the logo of the Scottish Conservatives.

As the musket-smoke of the general election cleared, we here in Scotland were left shocked by just how pointless it had all been – a replica of the last result in 2005.

But while this stasis could be interpreted as some sort of political malaise in Scotland, it could also be looked upon as quite a remarkable result when taken in the context of the UK results, and emphasising just how different Scotland is from the rest of the UK.

Indeed, former FM Henry McLeish called the results ‘remarkable’ in his Holyrood column this month, specifically for the way in which they highlight the growing political divergence between Scotland and England.

While David Cameron’s Conservatives swept to power across England & Wales, here in Scotland, as former Holyrood Tory leader David McLetchie MSP ruefully observed, they have to convince the electorate that they don’t eat babies.

The Conservatives remain ‘toxic’ and Labour in Scotland remain the chief beneficiaries. While some have accused them of running a pretty negative campaign, it is difficult to know if they merely reflect the prejudices of the Scottish people or are actively promoting them – probably a bit of both.

What is in no doubt however is that the Tories in Scotland have a big problem, and it is difficult to know just how to get out of it – irrational prejudice is hard to combat.

Is prejudice too strong a word?

From Dictionary.com: prej-u-dice (noun) – an unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

Without knowledge, thought, or reason; an interesting idea to ponder. Exactly what was it about Cameron’s policies that caused such revulsion among the electorate? No, I’m not sure, and I suspect that many of those whose reflex position is anti-Tory don’t know either.

Instead, the prejudice is fed on a diet of scaremongering, anti-middle-Englishness, inverse snobbery and history. Because that’s what Thatcher is to Scotland now, history.

Two decades have passed since she stopped being PM. Twenty years, the last thirteen of which have been spent with a Labour government with so strong a majority it could have reversed much of the damage of Thatcher if it had been so inclined.

That it chose not to could well turn out to be Thatcher’s biggest vindication.

In George Bernard-Shaw’s play ‘The Devil’s Disciple’, a central theme is the wafer-thin divide between hatred and love. While aware of the perils of using pop-psychology to psychoanalyse an entire nation, I do wonder about Scots and their obsession with Thatcher.

It is surely now bordering on the dangerously obsessive? People would have been casting their votes for Labour and against the Tories (Thatcher) who were not even alive when she was in office.

As Bernard-Shaw alluded to in his play, do we hate those whom we secretly need or admire?

Perhaps Scots need to have a pantomime villain so that we can retreat to our favoured position of downtrodden underdog, slighted victim, romantic losers?

Perhaps we retreat to anti-Thatcherism two decades after she ceased to be relevant because we miss her and the ready-made excuse which she represented?

As long as tales of bogey-women dominate the political discourse of Scotland, how can we have a proper debate? Is it healthy for a country to be so overwhelmingly convinced of the merits of a single political point of view? Does such consensus not equal stagnancy, not breed complacency and retard political debate?

It is often said that democracy needs strong opposition. Contrary as ever, us Scots seem to disagree; it seems we would rather just live in the past and have a good whinge.