Davidson’s decisions have imperilled the Union

It is time we saw the Conservative Unionist that Davidson claims to be, not the Liberal Unionist she resembles, writes Brian Monteith

There is no escaping it. Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson have a mutual symbiotic relationship. Both benefit politically from the success of the other, and both could also lose from the decline of the other.

Davidson, by giving so much focus to her concern for the Union, requires Sturgeon to continue to bang on about a second independence referendum if she is to have any political relevance or any electoral appeal. Davidson claims to be Conservative and Unionist but after nine years at the helm of her Scottish party she has failed to develop enough distinct policies on education, health, housing and transport. At face value Davidson appears far more of a Unionist than she does a Conservative – to the extent of looking like a one-club golfer using her driver in the bunker and on the green as well as off the tee.

This strategic error has become more noticeable to more people in her party, of late – and could be her undoing with the electorate and ultimately imperil the Union.

Sturgeon, by giving so much focus to her wish for a second independence referendum, requires Davidson to continue being a unionist Aunt Sally whom she can attack as London’s Conservative voice if she is to deflect attention away from the growing number of domestic policy failures she should be held to account for. Sturgeon claims to be putting education as her number one priority but last week’s fourth successive fall in Higher exam passes exposed that commitment as a sick joke. Sturgeon appears only interested in one thing: using anything to lay blame at Westminster so she can break up the United Kingdom, rather than demonstrate she is fit to govern a devolved administration and thus show she could

make a success of independence. This strategic error is also becoming more noticeable to more people in her party – and will, ultimately, be her undoing with her party faithful if she does not deliver a second referendum.

For Davidson, her critical relationship with Prime Minister Boris Johnson is another problem brewing and it is entirely of her own making.

By backing three different opponents of Johnson in the Conservative leadership contest, she gave the appearance of wanting anyone but him, stoking up problems for the future. Instead she could have stayed above it all on the basis that she would have to work with the ultimate victor. It was another strategic error of judgment and it is already unnerving party members in Scotland who naturally want to see them working together successfully.

Davidson was perfectly entitled to articulate the case for remaining in the EU, and for seeking a soft Brexit while negotiations were taking place, but she has made a further strategic error in not supporting her leader in his pursuit of respecting the referendum outcome by taking the UK out of the EU on 31 October, “deal or no deal”. Johnson recognises the existential threat to his party if he fails to deliver on his word – and the crisis in confidence over our democratic processes that will follow if Brexit is delayed or a further referendum held.

Undermining the value of British democratic decisions undermines the value of the Union itself. Undermining her own party leader and Prime Minister imperils the Union more than anything Sturgeon can do at this time.

Davidson is wrong to argue that no one voted to leave without a