When Ruth Davidson arrived at a gathering of Tory activists at the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh yesterday, she was introduced as “the next leader of Scotland’s official opposition”. If the Scottish Tory leader was nervous about this being treated as a foregone conclusion, she did not show it. And yet a degree of nervousness might have been understandable.
The winner of today’s Holyrood election is looking like a foregone conclusion. As a result, much more attention than usual has focused on the race for second place and the stakes are high for the two party leaders vying for this slot. Both Ms Davidson and Kezia Dugdale, the Scottish Labour leader, are all too aware of this. Our YouGov poll today puts the Tories just a percentage point ahead on the all-important regional vote but the two parties are effectively neck-and-neck, as they have been for the past few weeks. That single percentage point could mean a three-seat difference at Holyrood. This is a genuine political cliffhanger.
The received wisdom is that Ms Dugdale has most to lose if today’s votes do not fall her way. For the once-great Labour party to be reduced to third place in its Scottish heartland would indeed be a landmark moment in political history. Yet it could be argued that Ms Davidson would be most damaged by coming third. Partly this is because the expectations on the shoulders of any Scottish Labour leader at the moment are not exactly burdensome. After last year’s general election wipeout, the perception of Labour as a spent force is a strong one. Few people would be surprised if the party had further to fall before it could begin the process of resuscitation to which Ms Dugdale has pledged herself. It is, after all, not even nine months since she was elected Scottish Labour leader. Third place might well mean some ambitious and impatient comrade makes a move against her but the odds are in favour of her surviving any attempted putsch. There is no stomach in the party at large for yet another round of bloodletting.
Ms Davidson, on the other hand, has spent most of the campaign raising the expectations of Tory candidates and activists. In fact, her party’s slogan, dominating the manifesto launch and events such as yesterday’s, is emphatic: “Ruth Davidson for a strong opposition”. Her bid for second place is the basis of the entire campaign. In much of her party’s campaign literature you have to look hard to find the words “Tory” or “Conservative”. You will also look in vain for a glimpse of any other member of the Tory frontbench team. It is as if they do not exist. It is all about Ms Davidson.
Paring down a political message to the bare essentials may make sense in the world of strategic communications but it also leaves little room for excuses if the strategy is unsuccessful. If, when today’s votes are counted, the Tories are in their more familiar third-place slot rather than second, how does Ms Davidson explain this outcome to a party that put all its electoral eggs in her basket?
Advertisement
Most observers agree the political stars are aligned remarkably well for the Scottish Conservatives at this election — a young and energetic leader, a groundswell of Unionist sentiment, a wounded Labour party, a stark division between the parties on tax. Any one of these would be a boost for the Tories. All four at once feels like a once-in-a-generation opportunity. A failure of the party to break through in such circumstances would pose questions about its strategy. It might also pose questions about its leader’s judgment. There is never any shortage of sharpened knives in the Conservative party, nor a willingness to use them. If challenged on her strategy for this election, what would Ms Davidson have to say? Never mind, it was a long shot anyway? Trust me, it will work next time? The questions posed by senior Tories at the start of this campaign would still need answers: If not Ms Davidson, who? If not now, when?