Tory shambles over James Gray

THERE have been numerous occasions in recent years that have been billed as "rock bottom" moments for the Scottish Conservatives. But the shambolic appointment - and now departure - of James Gray as shadow secretary of state for Scotland can fairly lay claim to mark a double bottom. In financial markets, such double lows can indicate a turning point for recovery. No such comfort should be taken by the Scottish Tories.

The circumstances of this debacle are remarkable. Mr Gray, the Glasgow-born MP for North Wiltshire, was known for his wayward views on devolution: he called in January last year for doing away with MSPs and having Scottish MPs sit at Holyrood for two days a week. This was at marked variance with official party policy, which is to support both the parliament and its MSPs.

Despite these maverick opinions, or perhaps because of them - it is hard to tell, given the party's state of flux - Mr Gray was appointed the new shadow secretary of state for Scotland. It was left to David McLetchie, leader of the Scottish Tories, to grind and grimace his way through an intense TV interview on Newsnight Scotland earlier this week, in which he sought to assure viewers that these opinions were expressed in the past and Mr Gray would now uphold party policy. Imagine, then, the consternation when Mr Gray told The Scotsman on Wednesday that he still wanted to abolish MSPs. His remarks infuriated Scottish Tories, who pressed for him to go.

With his departure announced yesterday, Mr Gray lasted just seven days in the job, surely one of the shortest Opposition appointments ever. But the questions raised will haunt the party for longer. What is it that the Conservative Party leadership at Westminster really believes? What does it stand for, and who (and who was not) consulted in key appointments affecting Scottish matters? Why did Michael Howard, the party leader, appoint Mr Gray in the first place, given his known opposition to official policy? Why was the leader of the Scottish Conservatives not consulted on the appointment? And how long, given the pending leadership change, can Eleanor Laing, Mr Gray's successor, be expected to last?

The entire affair suggests a disrespect for the party in Scotland, for those who voted for it (and financed it), and for the electorate, that is at least entitled to expect the party to hold a considered position and not two opposing views at once. The departure of Mr Gray only partly removes these doubts. Of greater concern is the sense that, despite eight years in opposition, the party nationally has still no settled view on how it would govern Scotland better than, or different to, the present administration. Until it articulates one, it will continue to lack any credibility.