We need a less London-centric approach to save UK, says Ruth
In part two of our exclusive extracts from a major new biography, how Ruth Davidson reshaped her party to take on the SNP machine...
RUTH Davidson has issued a plea to Theresa May to make Britain less London-centric to ensure the future of the Union.
The Scottish Conservative leader will use a speech in London today to warn that the Union remains ‘under threat’ as the SNP prepares a renewed push for separation.
She has demanded that cultural institutions such as the British Museum should set up ‘second homes’ north of the Border and that new government bodies taking on powers from Brussels in areas such as fishing should be located in Scotland. In an article ahead of her speech to a conference on Unionism hosted by the Policy Exchange think-tank in London today, she said: ‘I believe in political unions. Britain is leaving one next year, but it must protect and enhance another – our own. That union, the United Kingdom, remains under threat.
‘If leaving the EU is a bad thing, as the SNP insist, why is leaving a union four times more important in terms of trade to Scotland somehow a virtue?’
RUTH Davidson was so keen to start working for the Tories that one party insider said she initially applied for a job archiving newspaper cuttings in the party’s Holyrood office.
She was told – quite rightly – that she had more to offer and was promptly given a role in then party head Annabel Goldie’s office.
Her decision to enter political life came largely from having little else to do after her Army career ended prematurely.
She herself claims that she was inspired by David Cameron’s call, post-expenses scandal, for a wider selection of people to get involved in politics. There may be some truth in this, although Ruth has always been political. Since her accident aged five, she has been inspired by public service, as was clearly reflected in her early career choices in both journalism and the Army.
Journalists at the time – with whom she had some dealings – remember her as a boisterous, if a little nervous, parliamentary aide. She tried hard to fit in with ‘the corridor’, which then – only slightly more so than now – was dominated by men.
Her work with Goldie gave her valuable political experience. She saw first-hand the characters and personalities of many of the MSPs she would soon lead.
As well as getting to know journalists – some of whom she would have already been familiar with through her work at the BBC – she also befriended party staffers. But Ruth had more to offer the party than being a behindthe-scenes figure. She was earmarked for elected office, although it is worth pointing out that, in the late noughties, there was not a plethora of talented candidates looking to run for – mostly unwinnable – seats for the Conservatives.
So, as with most politicians – and more so for Scottish Tories – her first bid for a seat, in a by-election in the Labour stronghold of Glasgow North East, was doomed to failure. But a year later, her chance came.
On April 4, 2011, with just over a month to go until polling day, Ruth was confirmed as the number one candidate on the Glasgow region list. The infighting and intrigue had seen the list for the city dwindle to just four candidates, but Ruth was nevertheless at the top and almost guaranteed victory.
For her, the selection was the crowning achievement of a quick rise in Scottish politics. In the end the vote was enough for the Tories to elect just 15 MSPs, down two from 2007. And this time, Ruth was among them.
Goldie, who had to be pushed rather than jump, decided to take a long time falling.
She announced she would stay on until a new leader was appointed – not in itself a remarkable decision, although the leadership election would not take place till the autumn.
The stage was now set for a long – and ultimately brutal – leadership battle.
Murdo Fraser was undoubtedly the front-runner. The Mid Scotland and Fife MSP had been waiting in the wings for a number of years for the top job and had already served an apprenticeship as deputy.
The other main contender – and Ruth’s initial preference – was John Lamont. A popular constituency MSP, Lamont had experience of Holyrood, having been elected in 2007, while also having the advantage of being just 35.
Lamont was viewed as a moderniser – and Ruth, newly elected, warmly backed him.
But while she was publicly supporting him – Edinburgh was rife with talk of his and her joint ticket – she was also contemplating an audacious bid for the leadership herself.
A week before she came out for Lamont she had already dropped quiet hints she was after the top job for herself.
Certainly, Ruth was keeping her cards close to her chest. In an interview in which she endorsed Lamont, using firstclass political language she said she had ‘no plans’ to run for the leadership.
She added: ‘My mum would kill me if I went for the leadership. My missus would kill me.’
Ruth, however, is never one to shy away from a fight. When Lamont’s leadership bid imploded, after he insinuated that Catholic schools were responsible for encouraging sectarianism, her name was suddenly on everyone’s lips.
Ruth’s supporters were now viewing her not as a good candidate but as an absolutely essential one. She had to run. High-profile backers included David Cameron, George Osborne and David Mundell.
When Ruth formally declared her candidacy on September 4, she was in a strong position. But as she prepared to announce her leadership bid, rival candidate Murdo Fraser – who had already declared – would make an even bigger announcement: the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, which had existed in its current form for almost 50 years, should be disbanded.
But while Fraser’s changes may have been strategically sound for the party, they were tactically terrible for his leadership bid.
In one fell swoop, Ruth – a young kick-boxing lesbian with almost no experience of parliament, let alone office – became the establishment candidate.
On November 4, 2011, almost exactly six months after the worst result in the Scottish Conservatives’ history, Ruth was declared leader.
The 32-year-old MSP, who had only just been elected, had defeated some of the most senior figures in the party. It marked a remarkable rise for Ruth – but it had left the party deeply fractured and its future in doubt. She would have to learn – and learn quickly. In the wake of her victory, Ruth tried to stamp her authority on the Tories’ MSPs.
It would be no easy task. Some had been members since 1999 and resented the thought of a young upstart who had been an MSP for six months telling them what to do.
Others, of course, still sported raw and painful wounds from the leadership race.
Yet Ruth misjudged the strength of opposition – or perhaps animosity – towards her. Her first reshuffle, for instance, turned into a disaster as MSPs refused to respect her authority.
‘Ruth came along a little gung-ho and tried to lay down the law but she soon found out they weren’t going to take it lying down,’ a senior party source said at the time.
Ruth had attempted to gather all her MSPs together to dish out roles – but several refused to turn up.
In another debacle, she wrongly claimed that only 12 per cent of Scottish households were net contributors to
The crowning achievement of a quick rise in politics
the UK economy, in a speech referring to Scotland as a ‘gangmaster state’ fostering a benefits culture. Her ‘Mitt Romney moment’, as it was branded, was seen as a lurch to the Right that led to severe criticism from opposition parties and some of her own MSPs.
More bizarrely, she suffered the ignominy of being booed off the stage at gay charity Stonewall’s annual awards night.
To a chorus of jeers, Ruth – who had just won the Politician of the Year prize – challenged the charity on its ‘Bigot of the Year’ award.
She said: ‘Where I disagree with Stonewall is the need to call people names like “bigot”. It is wrong.’
The microphone was eventually taken from the Tory leader by Stonewall’s chief executive Ben Summerskill, who added: ‘I’m sure as leader of the Scottish Conservatives Ruth is used to being in a small minority.’ She was learning on the job – and it showed.
Certainly, polling from Ruth’s initial years as leader reflects her deep-seated difficulties. Despite her having run on a platform to revitalise the party, its fortunes failed to improve under her leadership. For much of 2012 and early 2013, the Tories were left languishing with just 12 or 13 per cent of voters backing them.
More damningly for Ruth, her personal approval was also at rock bottom. Just 1 per cent of voters at the beginning of 2012 suggested they were ‘very satisfied’ with her leadership, with 19 per cent ‘very dissatisfied’ and 21 per cent ‘quite dissatisfied’.
At her most vulnerable point, she courageously chose to reverse her central campaign platform of a ‘line in the sand’ on further devolution. Whether or not her hand was forced, however, a commitment to further devolution would soon serve to re-establish Ruth’s party as one that stood up for Scottish interests.
In a speech in March 2013 in Edinburgh, she made a passionate defence of the Union – but also announced that she would explore the option of more powers for Scotland. For the first time, it was a real return to the pre-1965 Unionist Party position.
‘The debate on Scotland’s constitutional future, and the referendum to be held next year, opens a new chapter in our nation’s history,’ she said.
But when that chapter opened with the forming of Better Together, it was largely a Labour-led enterprise, with Ruth and the Liberal Democrats’ Willie Rennie taking more minor roles.
This strategy was prudent. The three main Unionist parties were, effectively, facing off against the SNP in the referendum. The pro-UK campaign needed unity if it were to succeed.
Naturally, Labour, as Scotland’s electorally dominant party, would take the lead in this.
But such a move also kept the Tories somewhat out of the limelight. Alex Salmond’s greatest wish was to make the referendum a Conservatives versus Scotland contest. He felt such a scenario would irk enough Scots to cajole them into voting Yes.
Yet Labour’s necessary dominance in the campaign did not relieve Ruth of her responsibilities. On the contrary, dyed-in-the-wool Tory voters would be the stalwarts of the campaign – and they needed to be galvanised. This would be Ruth’s key responsibility.
‘Our United Kingdom is under threat,’ she would tell activists in Stirling. ‘Separatists continually talk the UK down and blame London for supposedly holding Scotland back. We all know that is nonsense.
‘We know Scotland benefits from being part of the most successful political union of modern times.’
There was a palpable sense of relief as the results flowed in on the night of September 18, 2014.
At the close the silent majority had come out for the No campaign. The mood at the Better Together election party in Glasgow’s Marriott Hotel was increasingly jubilant.
Fuelled by excessive amounts of wine, it bore some resemblance to the last days of Rome.
Ruth, however, remained extremely calm throughout the night, according to her director of strategy, Eddie Barnes.
‘One of the things she was worried about was all the booze that was in the room and her view very much was, we should get this cleared up because it looks bad.’
She was focusing, as always, on the practicalities, he said.
‘It is clear the SNP are on course to win the Scottish election.’
It might be an odd quote to start a political campaign if you are not Nicola Sturgeon – but it is how Ruth chose to launch hers in 2016. She was not, she said, campaigning to be First Minister.
She was not asking people to vote the Conservatives into power. She was not hoping to win.
Ruth’s strategy was to be the ‘Strong Opposition’ to the SNP. And it certainly seemed prudent.
Unlike Scottish Labour, who (at least publicly) clung to the notion they might win despite trailing by 30 points or more in the polls, Ruth knew she would lose.
She knew, too, that Labour – her main rivals in the race for opposition – were struggling. There was, Ruth would argue, a ‘vacancy’ as Leader of the Opposition.
It was a high-risk strategy. The notion that the Tories could beat Labour in Scotland – a scenario that had not occurred since 1959 – was unthinkable.
A series of high-profile administration blunders, which particularly affected Tory heartland issues, reinforced the need for effective government – and an effective opposition. One such issue was the delivery of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments, a power already devolved.
Changes to the system had required a new computer service to deliver farmers their money.
Months followed months of delays as it became increasingly clear that the new IT system simply did not work.
Farmers were left without crucial payments, while the taxpayer was left with a ballooning bill amid successive attempts to get the system working. The debacle, in the end, would cost taxpayers at least £178million in IT bills.
For Ruth, however, the foul-up was a godsend. The message – that the Scottish Government was incompetent, even arrogant – was clear.
Other decisions, such as a ban on GM crops, lent weight to Ruth’s appeal to traditional Tory rural voters. Indeed, the so-called Tartan Tories would start returning to Ruth’s party for the first time in years during the 2016 election.
Another area where Ruth excelled during the campaign was over the Scottish Government’s controversial Named Person scheme, which would see every child under the age of 18 given a state-appointed guardian.
Advocates of the policy believe it will help stop neglect and abuse, but Ruth and her colleagues viewed it as an unnecessary intrusion into family life.
Coupled with this hard-nosed attitude towards the Government’s effectiveness was an attempt to appear a mature and rounded leader.
Despite her relatively young age, Ruth aimed to rise above both the SNP’s Sturgeon and Labour’s Dugdale. Amid their often fiery exchanges – and sometimes petty squabbles – at First Minister’s Questions, Ruth took on a statesmanlike – almost motherly – air, suggesting the pair should
The pro-Union campaign needed unity
‘just calm down for a minute’. Despite the lack of policies in the Scottish Conservative manifesto, the future of the Union featured prominently.
In fact, it was on practically the first page. There was also a three-point plan to preserve the Union, which included a pledge to launch a ‘positive’ drive to promote its benefits.
There was, however, little of substance to these ideas. The chief proposal was opposition to a referendum – and it did not go much further beyond that.
One person, however, was conspicuous by his absence from the campaign: David Cameron, who did not visit Scotland in the run-up to the election. Speculation mounted that Ruth thought her mentor too ‘toxic’ and could damage the Tories’ chances.
Perhaps, but the Conservative leader’s absence also helped reinforce Ruth’s position as the Tory chief north of the Border. In the end, she gained more than 15 per cent on the Tories’ showing in the same seat in 2011 – and a slim majority of just over 600.
As the result was read out, the count was overtaken with chants of ‘Ruth, Ruth, Ruth’. At 4.20am on May 6, 2016, as Ruth Davidson took the stage, she was celebrating not just a personal but also a party triumph. All eyes were on this stocky, gay ex-soldier who had confounded her critics and defied expectation.
She had earlier woken to day three of a gruelling tension headache. Though her skin was tarred by a rash – she was closing in on a 40-hour shift at the end of six weeks on the campaign trail, her third in less than two years – she was brimming with delight.
Not only had she defeated the SNP in her seat of Edinburgh Central – where her party had previously come fourth – she had also led the Tories back to the front line of Scottish politics.
Adapted from Ruth Davidson and the Resurgence of the Scottish Tories by Andrew Liddle, published by Biteback on May 24, £18.99. ©Andrew Liddle 2018. To order a copy for £9.74 (valid to May 28), visit www.mail shop. co.uk/books or call 0844 571 0640. P&P free on orders over £15.