Ruth’s robotic tendencies face a worrying legal challenge

ONE of the more intriguing political stories this week concerned the inner workings of the Scottish Conservatives. Like sausage making, the detail of how parties work is usually screened from public view for reasons of good taste.

But when the curtain is pulled back, those with strong stomachs have a chance to learn something new.

This particular tale bubbled up on the eve of the election, when it looked as if the Tories might defeat the SNP’s Pete Wishart in Perth & North Perthshire.

Their candidate was Dr Ian Duncan, Scotland’s only Tory MEP. If he won the Westminster seat, he would have to resign as an MEP, creating a vacancy in Brussels. Ordinarily, that would be filled by the next person on the Tory list put before voters at the last European Election.

This was Belinda Don, a former MEP’s assistant, who was ranked second on the list by a vote of Scottish Tory members; only it wasn’t so simple.

It turned out that Ruth Davidson and others at the top of the Scottish Tories didn’t want Ms Don. They wanted someone else – almost anyone else – to replace Dr Duncan.

The prime contender was Edinburgh businessman Iain McGill, ranked fifth on the Tory list.

Ms Don’s supporters circulated an angry letter about the looming stitch-up, warning it would be profoundly anti-democratic for the leadership to redraw the reserve list over the heads of the members.

Ms Don engaged lawyers, a clear warning that she was ready to go to court to get into the European Parliament.

In the early hours of June 9, the confrontation appeared to have been averted, as Mr Wishart held Perth by 21 votes. But on Monday the story jolted back to life.

Dr Duncan was to receive a peerage and a job as David Mundell’s deputy in the Scotland Office. Elevation to the Lords meant leaving Brussels. The row over who would fill the vacancy took on new urgency.

It then emerged that Ms Don’s lawyers had sent a draft writ to Tory HQ, warning they would go to the Court of Session to stop the party certifying anyone else as Dr Duncan’s replacement.

Ms Don also went public for the first time, saying she was deeply saddened by events.

Meanwhile, the party said Ms Don had been dropped from the reserve list for not being active enough, a claim she disputes.

With both sides entrenched, it looks as if the courts will have the final say.

The odds are against Ms Don. Who goes to Brussels seems a fuzzy area: a mix of statute and subjective party judgment.

The Tories also have deep pockets and a host of friendly lawyers to draw on. But she appears determined to confront Goliath regardless.

What is fascinating politically is how on earth it came to this. If Brexit goes to plan, the new MEP will eke out less than two years in Euro-obscurity.

Most voters would never notice the change.

Yet by blocking Ms Don, Ms Davidson and colleagues face a highprofile legal fight.

The Holyrood press pack is already licking its chops at the thought of the Scottish Tory leader in the witness box.

The SNP has also made hay with Dr Duncan’s ermine-lined “reward for failure” after being rejected by voters.

Why do it? Why make a Cairngorm out of a Belgian molehill? Some Tories claim it’s basic party management: Ms Don had faded from view and someone more active ought to replace her.

There is also an automatic resistance to legal threats. Others cite bad blood.

Ms Davidson is said to regard Ms Don as “stuck up” and worse while she opposed Ms Davidson becoming leader in 2011. Other Tories see a systemic problem.

In positioning itself as an alternative Scottish government, the party has tried to ape the SNP’s legendary iron discipline.

But in so doing its leadership has become, like the SNP’s, an autocratic clique, some say. Ms Davidson, Mr Mundell and party director Lord McInnes, “the power behind the throne”, call the shots, one source said.

Another said activists were terrified of Ms Davidson because of her ability to end careers.

The latest symptom has been Ms Davidson giving the impression that her 12 new MPs will vote en bloc at her command.

I understand the idea has not been universally well received; not everyone wants to join Ruth’s robots. Constituents and conscience matter too.

It is understandable that the Scottish Tories want to appear ready for office. But discipline of the kneejerk, no prisoners variety is problematic.

It risks a backlash. It is unattractive to voters. It looks highhanded, even spiteful. Any deviation from the party line is deemed a split.

Ms Davidson may well defeat Ms Don in court yet emerge the greater loser.