Scottish Tory Leader to Scots: Drop Dead - Spectator Blogs

9 October 2012

3:42 PM

9 October 2012

3:42 PM

These days, alas, the only time the leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party makes it onto the front pages of the nation’s newspapers is if she’s made some almighty blunder. Sadly, Ruth Davidson’s speech to a fringe meeting in Birmingham this week was a calamity. That’s the subject of my latest Think Scotland piece:

Ruth Davidson’s suggestion, made during an appearance at a fringe event in Birmingham this week, that, in effect, most Scots spend their lives suckling on the government teat is not, I’m afraid, a helpful one. According to the Tory leader: “It is staggering that public-sector expenditure makes up a full 50 per cent of Scotland’s GDP and only 12 per cent of people are net contributors, where the taxes they pay outweigh the benefits they receive through public spending.”

It is not clear from press reports – and since Davidson’s remarks are not, at the time of writing, available on the party website, the common man only has press reports to go on – whether she meant only 12% contributed more to the state than they received over the course of their lifetime or whether she meant that at any given point 88% of Scots are dependent, to one degree or another, on the state. In any case, neither accusation reflects very well upon the Tory leader.

If nothing else you’d think someone – anyone! – close to the Tory leader might have paused to ask if it’s really such a good idea to suggest – fairly or not – that the public are hopelessly addicted to government and, worse still, probably a bunch of work-shy, dependency-junkies. We hate you but vote for us! is, all things considered, an unpromising political slogan. But that, alas, was the message conveyed by Davidson’s remarks.

She would doubtless complain that this is an unfair and partial representation of what she said. Perhaps it is. She might have paused, however, to wonder how her remarks might be received. The evident failure to do so amounts to a kind of political malpractice.

And that’s the charitable reading of her remarks. It is much worse if she actually believes this sort of thing: “Only 12 per cent are responsible for generating Scotland’s wealth. I wonder how many of them work on public-sector contracts. It’s not just staggering, it’s frightening.”

It is staggering and perhaps also frightening if the Tory leader really believes the public can so easily be divided into the Bad (88%) and the Good (12%) in this fashion. If nothing else Davidson – whom I suppose I should disclose is an old friend-cum-acquaintance of mine – might have remembered that her own career has hardly been a model of private-sector entrepreneurial vigour. The Tory leader has drawn pay checks from the Territorial Army, the BBC, the Conservative Party* and, now, of course, the public purse as an MSP. None of these – not even Holyrood – are wholly disreputable places in which to work but, by her stated standard, none are “responsible for generating Scotland’s wealth”.

Moreover, what does it mean anyway? Once you account for schoolchildren and pensioners, neither of whom can reasonably be expected to pay taxes to cover the cost of the services they receive, the figures begin to look rather difficult. Add the sick to the mix and you are left with the banal observation that healthy workers “subsidise” the young, the old and the infirm. I presume Davidson does not actually think there’s something wrong with that (this being the way of the world in every developed country) but she has given her opponents licence to suggest she does.

It is true that Scotland needs a healthier private sector. This is hardly a novel observation either. Nevertheless, the argument is not as simple as Private Good, Public Bad. It may be that the size of the public sector crowds out room for growth in some parts of the country; it is manifestly not true that it does so uniformly or in every part of Scotland.

[…] So we endure the sight of a Conservative leader latching on to simplistic and fashionable nonsense about Makers and Takers and contriving to send a message that, whether it was meant this way or not, suggests 88% of Scots are part of the problem, not the solution.

That’s not good politics; it’s a disaster.

Really, it’s not difficult to appreciate that We Hate You, Now Vote for Us is not a winning political message. Moreover, when Michael Forsyth – not always a man in tune with Middle Scotland – suggests you’ve blundered it is reasonable to think you may have made one hell of a mistake.


Whole thing here.

*UPDATE: Actually, I’m reminded that Ruth’s spell as an aide to Annabel Goldie may have been paid for by public funds too.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • rndtechnologies786

    Good thought.


    Leave a message…

  • Guest

    Ruth Davidson is a wee backstabbing Scunner and should leave Scotland as soon as posible.

  • Max Permissible

    “We hate you but vote for us! is, all things considered, an unpromising
    political slogan. But that, alas, was the message conveyed by Davidson’s

    I feel I should point out that Davidson is only a “List MSP” and received a derisory 6% of the vote in her area.

  • LM Shakespeare

    Either Ruth Davidson’s statistics were correct or wrong. If correct, why should they not be stated? Currently the political audience uses wildly selective notions of propriety. For example, John Prescott could hit a member of the public in the face and still retain his political status and is now in the House of Lords, whereas Mitchell was threatened immediately with the sack for using the word pleb to a police constable. Fact is, Scotland does receive subsidies from the Westminster government. If Scotland does go independent, does that mean they will manage without their usual share of our taxpayer’s contribution?

  • Passerby

    Turns out the stats in Scotland are pretty much the same as the stats in the UK as a whole. So … what was the point again? It is an interesting coincidence that 88pc is exactly the proportion of Scots who did not vote Tory on the list vote in 2011. Lol.

  • Stuart Eels

    You’ve got to give these Tories their credit, first Mitchell insulting the Police and now this fine Scottish Politician, who I had never heard of before seem to be competiing to see who can dig the biggest pit ready for call me Dave to fall in!

  • sunnydayrider

    This is not mews, the Engliash have always known it!

    • Pacificweather

      Horse sense.

  • Mark MacLachlan

    ” Actually, I’m reminded that Ruth’s spell as an aide to Annabel Goldie may have been paid for by public funds too.”

    Ohh there’s more…

  • Baron

    why is that nowadays if someone tells it as it is, he or she gets cut down to size, ha?

    • Howard Price

      Yeah but she was talking sh*te. Not really the same thing.

  • Mel Spence
  • Bruce, UK

    And let us not forget the “shocked” community in Holyrood and Westminster and all the other “correct” thinking people and their message:

    We pretend that we like you but secretly hate you, now vote for us again.

  • Name

    I can only think you are wilfully misunderstanding what she said. The words “work shy dependency junkies” are yours not hers and she didn’t say that she hated anyone. Nor did she divide the public between good and bad, you did. This article is completely childish.

  • M Walker

    It’s a right wing Dutch auction on dependency! Who contributes? 47% Lower! 12% Lower!