IT did not look good.

At the Scottish Conservative party conference in Stirling yesterday, party members who wanted to debate more powers for the Scottish party had to leave the main conference venue and go to a local hotel to attend one of two fringe meetings on the issue.

Irritation about the lack of a formal debate on the subject spilled on to the airwaves when the vice-chairman of Stirling Conservatives went on BBC radio to make the case for a debate and to declare that he was "unhappy" with the way Ruth Davidson had been performing as party leader generally. It was one of the most open signs of dissatisfaction in party ranks with Ms Davidson's leadership to date, but it was not the first. Rumblings of discontent have been heard since the Tory leader performed a U-turn on her "line in the sand", her leadership election declaration that there should be no further devolution of power to the Scottish parliament. The announcement in March of a Conservative commission to examine more powers for Holyrood made clear she had changed position on that.

There is no denying it is an uncomfortable time for the Tory leader. There are signs of unhappiness not only over this major policy volte face, but also about her performances at First Minister's Questions, where she has repeatedly come off worse in combat with Alex Salmond.

That is not drastic. A politician's performance in the bear pit of FMQs, as it is known to Holyrood-watchers, is thankfully not the only measure of a leader. What matters more is Ms Davidson's ability to connect with, and gain the trust of, her party members.

Unfortunately for her, the decision not to have a debate in the main hall about more powers for the Parliament will not have helped build their confidence. Hindsight is a painfully poignant perspective in politics, but it seems clear that Ms Davidson would have been better advised to agree to some form of debate in order to gather views to feed into the commission.

Where she is certainly not wrong is in her analysis that continued opposition to greater devolution of power to Holyrood, while pleasing some (and only some) within her own party, would certainly have alienated the majority of Scottish voters. It also makes tactical sense in the run-up to the independence referendum for all three pro-Union parties to favour greater devolution.

Ms Davidson may have been the candidate of the Scottish Conservative "old guard", but she clearly understands the need to broaden the party's electoral appeal. This puts her in a difficult position. Lord Forsyth, who supported her in the leadership election, has called her setting up of a devolution commission a "suicide mission". Coming from the man who helped condemn the Scottish Tories to the electoral wilderness in 1997 by opposing devolution, she might privately consider his indignation a good sign.

This may prove to be a mere patch of turbulence for a young leader, but Ruth Davidson will need to show her party she is listening if the rumbles are not to become a chorus.