IT is difficult to discern whether Ruth Davidson’s latest rush of blood to the head is due to bombast or inexperience (“May told to lead or lose as Davidson plays Scots power card”, The Herald, July 24).
Lecturing Prime Minister and UK Conservative Party leader Theresa May (who has been likened to Margaret Thatcher) in the way she has, with what amounts to a dissertation on O-Level Conservative philosophy that must be familiar to the most junior of Tory activists, will surely return to haunt her.
Claiming that Mrs May and the whole UK Conservative Government owes its existence to the relatively derisory 13 Scottish seats out of 59 is a reminder that, when the Tories were in power at Westminster in the 1990s, with similar sparse support in Scotland, we “had to put up with having a government we had not voted for”, and that was what drove the Conservatives’ new-found Unionist allies, the Labour Party, towards devolution. The irony is that it is the English that are now lumbered with a Conservative Government that they would not have had but for the Scottish 2017 election results. Beware of the revenge factor!
The following paragraph from your report bears repetition: “The source said the group of Scottish Conservative MPs, larger than the 10-strong Democratic (Ulster) Unionists, would not seek to bring the Government down and would loyally take the Tory whip, because they wanted to see Mrs May continue as PM ‘at least until the Brexit deal is done’” . Well, there’s a vote of confidence if ever I saw one. Mrs May is bound to be impressed.
English Conservative MP Anna Soubry describes Ruth Davidson as a “remarkable woman”. In terms of her going in to the 2017 election with no Scottish-oriented policies, except for opposition to everything SNP, and managing to win only 13 seats on a major swing from Union-favouring Labour supporters, but with no perceptible increase in traditional Tory support, then that is truly remarkable.
Regarding student debt, Ms Davidson must be referring to the English, because Scottish students here do not pay tuition fees. If she means student loans, which apply here too, if she has proposals to abolish these, then she would have to declare an alternative policy, but if public funds are involved, she would have to identify what services would have to be cut. Or what taxes would have to be increased to provide.
Finally, has Ms Davidson had an assurance from Mrs May that the subsidy the English consider they pay towards our public services will continue indefinitely?
But, where Mrs May has most cause to be riled, is to have thrown in her face a repeat catalogue of her own “social justice” programme she announced when first elected as Conservative leader, and hence UK Prime Minister, in 2015. If I were Ms Davidson, I’d be watching my back.
Douglas R Mayer,
76 Thomson Crescent, Currie.
MICHAEL Settle's ode to Ruth Davidson is countered by the lacklustre Westminster performance of the newly elected Tory MPs whom one might think would be full of questions and speaking out on important issues. But since the General Election SNP MPs remain the most active group of MPs at Westminster.
Since the General Election SNP MPs have asked a total of 379 Written Parliamentary Questions with an average of 11 per MP. This compared to just 47 from Scottish Tory MPs (fewer than four per MP), 18 from Scottish Labour MPs (fewer than three per MP), and just three from Scottish Liberal Democrat MPs (less than 1 per MP).
SNP MPs are also making more contributions to parliamentary debates, speaking in a total of 186 debates at an average of five per MP. This compared to just 24 for Scottish Tory MPs (two per MP), 17 for Scottish Labour MPs (two per MP), and 14 for Scottish Lib Dem MPs (three per MP). In addition, SNP MPs Angus McNeil and Stewart McDonald lodged Private Members' Bills on reuniting refugee families and banning unpaid trial work periods.
Meanwhile it transpires that Ms Davidson has only held one constituency surgery in the 13 months since she was elected as MSP for Edinburgh Central. Is it not time the Tories started to get on with their day jobs?
Mary Thomas,
Watson Crescent. Edinburgh.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel