The appointment of Ruth Davidson as the new leader of the Scottish Conservative party seems to me an unwise move ("'A unique opportunity for us to rebuild the party'", The Herald, November 5).
Certainly she has a vibrant rhetoric that has the potential to rally any company of ailing devotees, but ambitious rhetoric without the wisdom that comes with age and experience is just thin oxygen at a high altitude.
I am also interested in who her particular endorsers are; MSP John Lamont, Deputy Presiding Officer John Scott, MP David Mundell, MEP Struan Stevenson, Lord Forsyth and Lord Strathclyde. Her stark lack of credentials must point to these endorsers having hidden agendas in true political fashion.
Should a 32-year-old who has only been a party member for two years and an elected MSP for a mere seven months be put in charge of a party whose UK brothers are in government? It’s beggar’s belief that such a person could even be considered for such a position. At so young an age she can only ever be yet another career politician with over ambition and too much self-confidence. I believe it is too much too soon for one so young, and total folly for any political party to appoint someone so inexperienced as its leader.
J McAlpine,
Inveruglas,
Arrochar.
For better or for worse, the Scottish Tories have chosen Ruth Davidson as their new leader.
Presumably the preservation of the marriage with the UK party rather than divorce was viewed as the best option.
It remains to be seen whether Ms Davidson will take the party on a journey into the wide blue yonder or else further into the political wilderness.
Some people will still take the view that they are the same old Tories, albeit with a youthful facade.
She faces a daunting task to win over hearts and minds with the outcome uncertain. Or is it?
Bob MacDougall,
Oxhill,
Kippen.
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