IF the leader of the Scottish Tories, Ruth Davidson, is such a consummate politician how come only two days after appearing on the BBC's network EU referendum debate to make the case for Remain did that Remain side lose?
Polls were moving in Remain's favour in that final week. Surely if she was so "brilliant", as some pundits have said, then shouldn't the Remain side have won? That Remain didn't win may suggest Ms Davidson's hectoring, pointing and shouting actually put many off voting Remain. What entertains the pundits may actually repulse the ordinary voter.
After all she was leader of the Scottish Tories in 2012 when they recorded their second worst council election result in 40 years, and also leader in 2015 when the Tory share of the vote was the worst since 1865!.
As for 2016, the Tory share of the vote was still below that of the lowest Margaret Thatcher ever got in 1987; and with Tories spending £978,921 - three times more than the £273,462 they spent in 2011 or a 258 per cent increase – while Labour only spent £337,814 - less than half the £816,889 it spent in 2011 - it appears "success" in overtaking Labour was more down to pounds sterling than sterling ability. Tory spending increased four times more than its vote to get a result worse than Mrs Thatcher.
Now we have Ms Davidson appearing to think she can get away with promoting a Brexit she said was based on "lies" whilst showing no shame in abandoning her post-referendum support to keep the UK in the single market (“Davidson: SNP is using Brexit as a weapon”, The Herald, February 14). We also hear her using irresponsible language in Scottish political debate – talking of "slaying nationalists" and accusing others of "fratricide" and "weaponising". To whom does she think she is sending a message with such language?
Maybe now is the time to challenge the talk of Ms Davidson being a principled and responsible politician; because the record is showing someone who changes her position at behest of Theresa May and who uses irresponsible language.
William Paterson,
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