Councillor Thomas Heald is a Scottish Conservative councillor for Dunblane and Bridge of Allan, a former Scottish Conservative and Unionist candidate for the Scottish Parliament, and a former political advisor in the Scottish Parliament.
It has been quite the week in UK politics, and none more so than here in Scotland.
For nearly twenty years, Scotland has been governed by a party that has mastered the art of escaping accountability. Well-documented declining public services, stagnant economic growth, ferries with painted-on windows, growing NHS waiting lists, and a school system sliding down the international league tables. Yet instead of a deserved hammering at the ballot box, all we saw last week was the nationalists being rewarded by the electorate with a fifth term in office.
At some point, as democrats, we have to confront an uncomfortable question: what exactly does the SNP have to do to lose?
Because under normal democratic conditions, two decades in power would bring scrutiny. Instead, the SNP benefits from a political culture where constitutional grievance too often overrides governmental competence. Failure is excused because the argument is never about delivery; it is always redirected back towards independence.
That has trapped Scottish politics in a permanent holding pattern.
Responsibility for changing the cycle does not rest with the SNP. They are content to remain in government as long as possible. Instead, it rests with the opposition, particularly the Scottish Conservatives.
As the dust settles on a, not particularly unexpected, poor result, we need to ask ourselves a more fundamental question: do we actually want to govern Scotland?
That may sound absurd.
Of course, political parties exist to govern, otherwise what is the point? It may be uncomfortable for those involved in party strategy, but too often the Scottish Conservatives have behaved like a party content to merely oppose, survive, and occasionally exceed expectations. This is, to a certain extent, a result of the circumstances following the 2014 independence referendum. Scotland needed a strong Unionist Party then, and we delivered that. But the results of last week have shown that, by and large, the electorate believes the threat of a repeat of 2014 is off the table, at least for the foreseeable future.
Unionism matters enormously to the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party; the clue is in the title, but opposition to independence is not a programme for government.
If the Scottish Conservatives want to become a serious political force again, we must start acting like a party that believes Scotland can and should be governed differently, not simply managed slightly better.
That means we must clearly express a distinctive, positive vision for Scotland’s future—one that addresses the needs and aspirations of all Scots, beyond the perpetual constitutional debate.
A Scotland with lower taxes and faster growth. A Scotland that builds homes instead of blocking them. A Scotland where aspiration is encouraged rather than viewed with suspicion. A Scotland where public services are judged on outcomes rather than slogans.
The manifesto for Holyrood 2026, entitled ‘Get Scotland Working’, was a genuine step in the right direction and one that I was proud to stand on. It was more optimistic, more serious and more policy-driven than those that have gone before. But manifestos alone do not change political fortunes. The brutal reality is that almost no one outside the political class reads them.
Politics is driven by perception, emotion and identity long before policy detail enters the conversation.
For years, the Scottish Conservatives have struggled with an image problem that no manifesto can fully address. Too often, we seem defensive, managerial, and reactive, qualities that do not attract optimism or confidence.
And voters notice.
The SNP, for all its failures, still projects belief. Labour at least attempts to project change. The Conservatives frequently project caution.
That is not enough in a political environment where voters are increasingly angry, volatile and impatient.
The rise of Reform UK should be understood in that context. Not necessarily as an ideological shift, but as a warning sign that many centre-right voters no longer believe mainstream conservatism is prepared to fight for anything meaningful.
But the answer is not to simply imitate Reform or chase every populist impulse. Ruth Davidson understood that the Scottish Conservatives only become electorally relevant when we build a broad coalition that reaches beyond the party’s traditional base and appeals to mainstream Scotland.
That means listening carefully to the frustrations driving voters towards Reform, whether that be concerns about economic insecurity, political detachment, cultural alienation or the sense that too many institutions no longer work for ordinary people. This can all be achieved without abandoning the moderate voters who ultimately decide elections in Scotland.
The Conservatives achieved their greatest modern success when we looked optimistic, competent and outward-looking: patriotic without sounding angry, serious without sounding technocratic, conservative without appearing reactionary.
Many centrist voters now feel politically homeless, too. They are frustrated by declining public services, over-government, identity politics and economic stagnation. But they are equally wary of politics that feels permanently furious or defined entirely by grievance.
The Scottish Conservatives cannot out-Reform Reform. Nor should we try.
We must articulate and champion a serious centre-right alternative rooted in aspiration, competence, and a clear vision for Scotland. One which is capable of appealing to both voters frustrated by the status quo and those weary of polarisation.
This will not be fixed by a one-hour meeting with party strategists, but at least if we can establish our end goal, we can implement a five-to-ten-year strategy.
In establishing this goal, we as Scottish Conservatives now face an existential choice. We can continue operating as a party primarily defined by resistance to independence, hoping SNP fatigue eventually delivers office by default. Or we can become a movement that genuinely seeks to reshape Scotland politically, economically and culturally.
One path leads to managed decline.
The other at least offers the possibility of relevance, at least outside the Scottish Borders and the North East.
Because devolution itself has not failed, not yet. But if Scotland continues to reward governmental failure indefinitely, faith in the institutions of devolution will eventually.