Ruth Davidson’s constantly shifting position on a new independence referendum is easily explained. She is a product of the British political system. As such, she believes that the democratic process should serve particular interests – her party and its clients as well as her own personal career – rather than the people.
‘Believe’ is not quite the right term. It is deeper than belief. It is almost in her DNA. The notion that politics should be the servant of the people is quite alien. She can no more think on this basis than she can breathe under water.
This conception of the nature and purpose of democracy as a tool in the hands of the ruling elite is a function of the principle of the sovereignty of parliament. The principle that is the bedrock of the British political system. The principle that legitimate political authority derives, not from the people, but from the ‘Crown in Parliament’.
If places such as Hong Kong have what is called ‘managed democracy’, the British system may be better characterised as loosely managed absolute monarchy.
The true democrat’s attitude to something as crucial to democracy as the right of self-determination is constant and consistent because it is informed by the unshakeable conviction that, ultimately, only the people decide. As a product of the British political system, Ruth Davidson cannot do other than operate on the basis that the will of the people is subordinate to the preferences of a ‘higher power’. Those preferences being determined and represented by whatever political clique currently has nominal control of the apparatus of the British state.
In British democracy (demockracy?), the people decide only to the extent that their choices don’t significantly conflict with the current interests of the structures of power, privilege and patronage which define the British state.
British demockracy is equivocal and conditional. British politicians must be able and willing to bend before the winds of expediency. What marks Ruth Davidson out from the herd is nothing more than the fact that she doesn’t so much bend as fall over. And the fact that she is less capable than most of falling over with grace and delicacy.
But then, she has never been required to develop the knack of political subtlety. Ruth Davidson did not achieve prominence by virtue of her political adroitness. She was elevated, and continues to be supported, by a British establishment which desperately needed a disposable figurehead for British Nationalism in Scotland.
Ruth Davidson has been all but totally immune from media scrutiny. Her status has never been questioned. Her abilities and attributes have never been properly examined. A little probing and what we find is, not the serious and effective political leader of media myth, but a vacuous and vacillating nonentity. The spoilt-brat product of British political patronage.
If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.
4 thoughts on “Ruth Davidson: a product of patronage”
She wants to be first minister of a country she doesn’t recognise as a country.
Are the British state going to make sure this actually happens. We can laugh about that prospect as ridiculous. However I rule out nothing with this corrupt British State.
Actually, in this respect, Ruth is caught in exactly the same trap as her late-unlamented Labour oppo Kezia (and all successors) in that they are prisoners of party policy that permits of no sensible leeway. The Lab-Con fossil factory renders them all impotent of initiative. Career suicide that Ruth has so far been able to avoid only thanks to an opportune timeout and a despicably uncritical media circus desperate for an opposition leader of standing who can never actually emerge. But the fairy dust won’t last forever. The trail of U-turns and self-contradictions are visible to everyone. No-one, not even Ruth the Pretender, can avoid the laws of gravity. What goes up must come down.
And thus it will always be while there is nothing better on offer than a blank “no”.
That is a spot on article (again), especially the comment “She was elevated, and continues to be supported, by a British establishment which desperately needed a disposable figurehead for British Nationalism in Scotland”.
Before Ruth the Jolly yet Straight-Talking Colonel the pin-up (for 5 mins) was Kezia the Girl Next Door and prior to that Jim the Saviour. We know what happened to the last 2. Davidson will go the same way once her usefulness is exhausted. (Next European and Scottish Elections should do for her).
I’ve been in the company of this woman when she was guest speaker at a dinner. She demonstrated only too well that she was not very bright and somewhat detached from reality. But this was glossed over because she was the titular head of a ruling party – and most of the attendees at that function were natural Tory voters.
I suspect this is a bit like the deference (still) shown to Theresa May. She’s the PM for god’s sake (!), so she deserves respect; but she’s an out of touch vicars daughter with a degree in geography who has been waaaay over-promoted. Ruth is no different.
I’m sure Ruth’s a lovely person and may even be good company. But FM material she most certainly ain’t. Not unless we’re talking about a dodgy west-African nation (with apologies to all west-African nations). Non-entity is a bit rude. But she’s more of a non-entity than I am.
LikeLiked by 1 person