Ruth Davidson is David Cameron's kind of Tory.
She won a standing ovation for her fringe speech at the party's Birmingham conference. She was granted a seat next to the leader's wife while he addressed the faithful. The seal of approval was bestowed on an MSP who came fourth, just, on the Glasgow regional list in 2011.
For Mr Cameron, that detail is hardly the point. When you want to claim to have saved the Union, actors and a script are required. If no credit can be allowed to Labour, least of all when you are stitching up that gullible party over solemn vows and devolution promises, you must look to your own local heroine. Ms Davidson is not about to argue.
In fact, she'll go one better. In her recollection of events, more than the Union was preserved on 18 September. With a No vote, the tomb was cracked open and Scottish Conservatism walked among us once more.
Or as Ms Davidson said in Birmingham: "The last two years have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that, far from being 'toxic', it was the Scottish Conservatives who spoke up and stood up for Scotland's silent majority".
That is - also beyond reasonable doubt - a bit of a stretch. Ms Davidson seemed to be confusing two million No voters with those who voted Tory at the last Scottish elections. If toxicity is the issue, 276,652 constituency votes and 245,967 regional ballots in 2011 leave a fair bit of territory awaiting decontamination. Besides, Scottish Conservatives have been announcing a return from the afterlife for a very long time. We're still waiting.
They are tantalised, for all that, by the old Nixonian notion of the silent majority, that polity slow to anger and slower to act. Conservative Scotland slumbers, so the party likes - or needs - to believe, but awaits its moment. Those "canny" Scots, as Ms Davidson styles them, are eager for the clarion call of tax cuts and spending cuts. They've just been too polite to mention it.
It's an old puzzle. Why so reticent? What ails the stout "natural" Scottish Tory when he or she cannot speak up? Amusingly, some around the party will give you lots of theories about Scotland's left-liberal - no, really - urban consensus, the Thatcher years, and the loss of historic memory. It doesn't explain why the imagined majority refuse to make their marks in the silence of the polling booth.
Garlanded with praise in Birmingham, Ms Davidson hopes for better. She has no real choice, after all. Taking credit for a No vote is her best shot until the row over the species of pig in the promised devolution poke becomes properly fierce. Then, of course, she and her colleagues, from Mr Cameron down, will blame Labour.
But why that could form the makings of a Scottish Tory revival is a question as mysterious as the nature of the elusive muttering majority.
Let's say the Prime Minister does contrive some version of "English votes for English laws". How does that help Ms Davidson find a friend, as she has promised, for David Mundell, our sole Tory MP in the happy lands of Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale? You could put it in simple language: does the Scottish Tory leader reckon second-class representation at Westminster is a fair price for the blessings of Union? Will her party say as much at the next UK General Election?
How about human rights? Set aside the guddle in which Ms Davidson's new friends from Birmingham find themselves as they try to conflate the EU, the European Convention and the Human Rights Act 1998. Did the Scottish Tory leader not tell Mr Cameron a few rhetorical flourishes involving "British courts" and "British judges" ignore the Scotland Act - the one from which she derives her job - entirely? If not, why not?
It isn't trivial. The constitutional lawyers are already queuing to tell Mr Cameron's ministers that the devolution settlements for Scotland and Northern Ireland cannot be unpicked because London ministers like the look of headlines bashing "Europe". The European Human Rights Convention is embedded. Ms Davidson's views on those rights would be appreciated. Her views on what it all means for devolution - a line in the sand, perhaps - are essential.
This, though, is the business she has chosen. Every attempt to "detoxify the brand", to wipe away the old stains, is a gesture made within the universe of British Conservative politics.
The Scottish leader would have us forget the past, but she must also, somehow, persuade us to ignore the present, the one in which Mr Cameron is struggling to fend off Ukip or contain Boris Johnson, the one in which George Osborne is determined to inflict more misery on Scotland's poor, the one in which the claim of human rights is treated as a foreign impertinence.
"It was us who made the confident, patriotic case for the UK," Ms Davidson boasted to her admirers in Birmingham. "A Scotland that wants a truly United Kingdom - one which meets the ambitions of the people of Scotland. The Scotland that wants to see sensible centre-ground policies working for all Scots."
All Scots? This week, Ms Davidson's team made a lot of noise over historic poll-tax debts. They made not a sound over a transparent attempt to drive the newly-enfranchised from the voters' rolls. They seemed to have no awareness, either, of the history of the community charge, or why it brought their party into lasting and profound disrepute.
A quarter of a century ago, given the choice between "all Scots" and sectional self-interest, the Tories didn't hesitate. Under Ms Davidson's leadership, with Labour for chorus, they are at it again. That, if she is serious about draining the poison from the reputation of Scottish Conservatism, is the challenge for her brave new world.
Mr Osborne's next assault on the vulnerable and poor might not aid the revivalist cause much, even among the mythical majority. It will be brutal by design and it will hit Scots hard. Ms Davidson would have us believe a referendum choice has somehow vindicated her hopes for her party, but the sentiment favouring No was fragile enough without the Chancellor's efforts to show what life in the UK truly means.
Speaking in Birmingham, Ms Davidson used the word "toxic" to make an odd claim. Scottish Conservatism, she tried to assert, is respectable once again. There need be no inhibition - honest - for those who might fancy a punt on a Tory prospectus. You can see why the young leader of a minority party would try such a gambit.
But the problem, of history and the understanding of history, remains. Why did Scotland's Conservatives sink so low? The party has been telling itself consoling tales for decades. The electoral record says only that it was rejected, time and again, when it tried to defend policies designed for another country and another electorate.
Scottish Labour is in the same quicksand. But demented rhetoric over Europe, human rights and austerity economics will not return Ms Davidson's mute majority to the Conservative fold any time soon. The old, comical errors are being repeated.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article