Michael Matheson and David Cameron both claim to serve

Now I've flagged it, you'll be plagued.

David Cameron, in November, on being appointed foreign secretary: "It will be an honour to serve our country." Every time I listened to the radio that day, or at least it felt like it, there would be a friend of his opining about how important the notion of service is to David.

READ MORE: Of course The Promise is delayed - it made pledges it can't keep

James Cleverly, on his first day as Home Secretary and interviewed by the BBC: "It's a fantastic job and it's a real privilege to serve". His tone spoke of the notion of service as prosaically as though he was ordering a cup of coffee.

Keir Starmer, in his vibes-heavy, policy-light New Year speech, promised the public that even if they don't vote for Labour, his party "will serve you".

Michael Matheson referenced service in his resignation letter. Elena Whitham, who resigned as drug and alcohol policy minister two days before Matheson stood down, notably made no mention of service in hers.

Matheson made a point of mentioning he had served in government for almost 13 years and had served in five posts. Whitham, instead, mentioned "opportunity" and "undertaking" in lieu of service.

In response, their First Minister thanked Whitham for her service and Matheson for his "tremendous service".

There is something noble about the idea of an act of service. Politics is not a job of work: it is a calling, a vocation. It is not self-interested but is a form of self-abasement. It has almost religious connotations.

This is why the notion of service is so big with the royal family. Service is the excuse for their existence. The late Queen Elizabeth was big on the notion of service. Her life's narrative was framed by the concept.

Who was she in service to? God, primarily, and then her subjects. While easy to be sceptical of a service which comes with such rich rewards, the last Queen took her duties seriously.

Prince William, according to an extract from a new biography of King Charles, likes attending church services but isn't really that into the whole thing.

He might, suggests the biography, decline the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England when he becomes King. Radical, but highly unlikely.

READ MORE: The sneak who leaked Elena Whitham's WhatsApps is the real creep

Even 50 years ago this would have been a scandal but times have changed; the nation is increasingly secular. Perhaps Wills felt as uncomfortable as so many of us did to see his father, the unelected head of state, at the coronation being presented, as his grandmother was, as a servant of God rather than a servant of the people.

Politicians are wedded to the word service because it is, also, a cloak. No matter their behaviour - Partygate, culture war rhetoric, iPad bills, anything - they are there for the higher cause of service.

It's easy to focus on the scandal because scandal is so relentlessly prevalent, but what frustration there must be among the many politicians who are doing a decent job, decently and for decent reasons. They are not the ones who opine about service as though it elevates them next to godliness.

Mike Freer, the Tory MP for Finchley and Golders Green, is stepping down at the next election due to threats of violence and the fear he cannot keep his family, his staff or himself safe.

Freer's parliamentary office was firebombed and he and his staff wear stab-proof vests to work. A good and respected politician, he is the sort who might use the word "service" and be taken seriously.

Then you have Freer's colleagues. In December last year Nick Robinson gave Suella Braverman a deserved tough time on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "It's always all about you," he told her.

READ MORE: Starmer's two-child cap comments undermine he and Anas Sarwar

Mr Robinson then rhymed off a list of Braverman's notable moments - she criticised her prime minister as weak, she attacked migrants, attacked the homeless.

"You're a headline grabber who does it by spreading poison, even within your own party."

Braverman countered by saying she merely been honest - "honest for the British people and honest to the British people." Braverman would no doubt frame her political record as service.

Rishi Sunak is similarly fond of the phrase. I suspect, as a man of independent means, he does rather view the job as a form of service because, for him, it is low-paid work.

Can service come without accountability? It cannot. To truly serve, one has to remove oneself almost entirely from the order of priority. It is not about you, it is about the work.

And so the current fashion for refusing to apologise is galling. Michael Matheson no doubt is angry and infuriated at the grisly end to his tenure as health secretary and what could - depending on the detail of the report into his data roaming charges - also be the end of his career as an MSP.

After such a long career in politics and a long reputation as a safe pair of hands, an ignoble end must be unbearable. When doing a job for so long some complacency about one's accountability must come into play. He probably felt he deserved to be excused for this one error because of his record and this was reflected in the fact his resignation was without contrition.

That sort of position is an anathema to the idea of service. So too is Rishi Sunak's belligerence over his comments last week in the House of Commons. Whether his joke about Labour's inability to settle on a definition of the word "woman" was a dig at trans women or a dig at Keir Starmer doesn't matter.

The Conservatives have stoked culture war narratives and made victims of vulnerable groups - trans people, asylum seeking people - to suit their own ends and the tactic has backfired.

It also didn't matter that the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey's mother was in attendance or not. Someone's mother is always watching.

This crop of politicians may enjoy the idea of service but to whom? To themselves. It might help them to think more deeply on the meaning of the word and then act truly in its accord.