I’ve been listening to the BBC and diddly squat has been said about her being gay – ditto website. Why has such a momentous event – an ‘out’ lesbian Tory leader being elected – been so pointedly looked over?
Possibly because she generally refuses to talk about it as she doesn’t think it ‘defines’ her.
It is however, naturally enough, mentioned in a Spectator ‘Coffee House article which slightly preceded this Pink News article in fact:
It is however mentioned in the Who’s Who sidebar article just off to the right of the main article – “As a 32-year-old, newly elected, openly gay Tory MSP, Ruth Davidson has been described as the fresh-faced, new generation of the Scottish Conservative Party.”
In the opening paragraph of his analysis, Andrew Black writes “As a 32-year-old, newly elected, openly gay Tory MSP, Ruth Davidson was often described as the fresh-faced, new generation of the Scottish Conservative Party.”.
Whoops ! I should have noticed that jamestoronto’s reply had already beaten me to it because it referred to the BBC, not to Who’s Who ! PN comments needs an ‘Edit’ function…
In a way, it’s almost encouraging that her sexuality is only a footnote. If some red top had headlines screaming ‘Lez Babe Ruth Runs for Leader’ or similar nonsense, we’d rightly be complaining that her sexuality shouldn’t make any difference at all !
So if it’s now reported just as if she were left-handed, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
It should be momentous only because it’s a bit unexpected from the Tory party, but it’s starting to look like they really might be changing for good. At least they’re putting their money where their mouth is…
Absolutely, whilst in one sense it is important to acknowledge the event of a lesbian being party leader and this shows how far society has travelled (but still has so far to go) … in another the sense that Davidsons sexuality is only mentioned in passing is of much greater significance ….
This is good news that an LGBT person has been elected as Leader of a Scottish political party. Especially since it is the Tories. This has to be welcomed. Although i have to admitt, that i do not share alot of Ruth Davidson’s views on many different things.
This is indeed the Torys,but the country is Scotland. It will take more than a fresh face to convince the Scots to vote for them!
This is excellent news – Labour has never had a woman, let alone lesbian, as a Leader!
Had a woman as acting leader …
Shame she was such a bad actor…… ;-)
Wendy Alexander was leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament a few years back, albeit only for about 9 months.
And, incidentally, this is the 2nd woman leader in a row that the Tories have had in Scotland. Well done, Ruth Davidson.
Also at UK level had Margaret Beckett
Really? I knew she was Deputy Leader under John Smith, but I didn’t know she ever led the party as leader.
Acting leader for 4-5 months when John Smith died.
The Labour Party rules state that when the post of Leader is vacant the Deputy Leader *becomes* Leader, not merely acts in it. So Beckett and Harman were “Leader” according to the Labour Party rule book but this doesn’t really count as neither was elected Leader in their own right.
a) If the become leader, then they are leader, regardless of whether they were elected or not …
b) however, both Beckett and Harman were keen to publically state that whilst they were “leader”, they were there in a caretaker capacity whilst a new leader was elected (whether or not that included themselves)
c) Beckett (and to a slightly lesser extent Harman) had to make some significant decisions as “leader” when in that capacity … and can both be shown to have demonstrated leadership of the Labour party. Whilst it is a good democratic principle that leaders are elected, so are deputies .. and in the event there is a hiatus in the leader that serves due to death or resignation, the democratically elected deputy becomes leader (whether perceived as acting or not)
Correction if they ….
Wendy Alexander between 2007-8
C’mon everyone. I remember when Ted Heath was elected leader of the WHOLE Conservative party. They all knew he was gay- even Margaret Thatcher who was subsequently to use it against him in her successful leadership fight. And tell me- what did Ted ever do for gays? These politicians may be gay- but they never allow that fact to influence their political decisions. Tony Blair WASN’T gay- but his government did far more for gays than any before or since.
Surely it’s not a bad thing?
You may have a point, John. I read part of an interview with Ruth Davidson a few weeks ago, in the Sun newspaper, I think. The interviewer said that she must be in favour of same-sex marriage since she is a lesbian herself and she replied “Not necessarily” – or something like that. I don’t recall what else she said about it, if anything, and I can’t find it online to check.
So if anyone else read the same interview or can find it online, then I’d be interested to know exactly what she said.
I vaguely remember the interview that I think you mean, and I also am struggling to find it. My recollection is that she said that her response to equal marriage would not necessarily be that which you may expect from the Conservatives … she declined to go into much more detail … it confused me because did she mean that her response would not be a homophobic response (which traditionally has been associated with Conservatives) or did she mean her response would be different from the pro-gay Cameron approach?
I did not like her thoughts on increasing the number of faith schools.
That said, I do welcome an LGBT party leader … and wish her well …
Like you, I can’t remember exactly what she said in the interview but I took it to mean that she wasn’t necessarily in favour of same-sex marriage just becuase she herself is a lesbian. Maybe that’s not what she meant, though. You know what politicians are like, particularly when they are in the middle of an leadership election and want to get as many people on side as possible.
On marriage…she is incidentally a Catholic.
oops according to wiki she’s church of Scotland
Yes, not all reported “facts” are true. Ruth Davidson said publicly in an interview with the Sunday Herald, Oct 2nd, that she supports same sex marriage.
I did make it clear in my comment that I couldn’t remember exactly what she did say about same-sex marriage. The phrase “not necessarily” was definately used in the interview (which I think was in the Sun although I can’t be sure). I can’t say whether they were her words or the interviewer saying it, but as I said, I don’t remember what else she went on to say. That’s why I asked if anyone else knew. Glad to hear she is in favour of it after all.
These gay conservatives are SO keen to demonstrate their impartialness on gay issues- it can even be counter-productive- with them desperately supporting the opposite view. I bet you she will NOT be supporting gay marriage- may even say Section 28 wasn’t that bad.
In an interview in September, she stated that section 28 was the conservatives big issue similar to clause 4 for Labour
Don’t see that as being giving the thumbs up to section 28!
> may even say Section 28 wasn’t that bad.
Where did you invent that from? Parallel world?
@ John: “And tell me- what did Ted ever do for gays?”
Ted Heath voted strongly in favour of equal gay rights when it was very unusual for Tories to do so.
@ John: “Tony Blair WASN’T gay- but his government did far more for gays than any before or since.”
They Work For You shows that Tony Blair only voted moderately in favour of gay rights.
Ted Heath scored 94.1%
Tony Blair scored 78.1%
I’m not sure Ted Heath ever came out or had anything factual recorded in respect of sexuality. Speculation etc.,
It was the European Court of Human Rights,which declared some of our laws were unlawful. Who was in power, Tony Blair and right wing Labour.
I would like to let you know that you are wrong. The European Court of Human Rights did not force the Labour Government to do some of the biggest things that happened for gay rights in this UK, such as introducing Civil Partnerships, Gay adoption, allowing gays in the military (at the time) and abolishing section 28. So please do some research before you make such comments please.
The military ban WAS overturned as a result of successful claims made to the ECHR in Strasbourg (before the UK domestic Human Rights Act was passed into law) by several former UK military personnel who had been dismissed from the services for being lesbian or gay.
That is the fact – you need to do some research, too.
The age of consent adjustment (from 18 to 16) is less clear-cut, as cases had also been brought before the ECHR, but the government (Labour) did have to ram it through Parliament after repeated blocking motions in the House of Lords by (mainly) Conservative peers, by use of the Parliament Act.
Civil Partnership law is the only LGBT legislation passed by Labour without having been the subject of earlier rulings by the ECHR, so they do deserve congralutations for that, specially as one of their own Home Office ministers at the time (a Catholic and Jesuit) had tried to block or water it down, whilst another minister (also a Catholic) had strongly supported the legislation.
Actually it was privately conceded at the time that the main reason for introducing CPs was to pre-empt likely forthcoming legal challenges in the ECHR. Yes they jumped before the ECHR pushed but the push was still coming.
Further, in the case of rights to employment, the Labour government did water down amendments to employment legislation to allow religious bodies to dscriminate against LGBT people in their employment practices.
Generally, however, the last Labour government (and I am certainly no supporter of Labour in any shape or form) left a generally positive legacy on LGBT rights law.
It will be interesting to see if this changes the conservative party in Scotland in any way….it certainly cant make things worse for them as they are largely an irrelevant party in Scotland anyway.
Congrats to Ms Davidson. It’s time for party polictics to move with the times. Whether she’ll do much for LGBTQI issues only time will tell but I realise she’s not just there for that but all. However for a Conservative party this is one major step forward.
Why does she dress like a bloke? Probably wears comfortable shoes too!1
Deeply unattractive woman need a decent makeover!
Maybe you haven’t seen her predecessor.
You must lead a very small, sad, pathetic little excuse of an existence, if you need to get your trivial kicks by posting poison on here, Keith.
I mean, why do you find us so fascinating?
Why can’t you keep away?
Is it that you have you looked into yourself and seen something you are scared off?
Can’t deal with those strange little emotions that might be telling you something you don’t want to hear?
So instead of having the courage to deal with it, you hang around sites like this enjoying a vicarious little thrill, whilst trying to convince yourself that your vicious sniping and trolling provides a rational reason for being here, because you are, after all, merely “having your say” about people you feel are deeply immoral.
Never mind. I am sure it will all work out fine for you… :-)
No where remotely as unattractive as you Keith. No makeover would fix what’s rotting and vile inside you.
Don’ worry about me. I don’t have AIDs (or any other disease spread by homosexuals and fornicators) and I never will.
You are probably right, in order to catch a sexually transmitted disease you would have to actually have sex with someone other than yourself and that’s highly unlikely in your case.
Maybe you think that but in fact your complete hate and ignorance is much worse and will probably kill you… (with any luck!)
So what Keith? You’re a vile travesty of a human, if you had a disease, it would be undoubtedly the best part of you.
Neither will many of us, Keith – we do it safely and/or only have one partner. But I’m sure you will continue to spout distorted rubbish so you can pretend to deplore gay sex while tossing yourself off about it. Nasty little loser.
Fear not, I am not in the slightest worried about or by you …
Yes, because most female politicians wear mini-skirts and halter-tops… Oh wait, no they don’t, they all wear suits. And if you think Ms Davidson is unattractive then you should call specsavers. She isn’t the ‘traditional’ image of an attractive woman, but you can see – even in that one image – that she has a lot of personal confidence, and that is a major part in whether people regard someone as attractive.
So you only judge people on the sex they have and appearances? how shallow are you?!!
I am HIV free now and always.Thanks for your concern. My comment was rather shallow I admit but it still stands.
So? Not getting what your saying really because it’s totally irrlevent esp to this story subject, plus it isn’t just your comment that is totally shallow, It’s you in your sad little life. I mean serious who goes out of their way to be on a GAY site then claims not to be?
So I have HIV, so what? You might get cancer. A month ago I lost my partner suddenly and unexpectly when he collapsed and just died, yet he was perfectly healthy. Do you ever think about the people left behind? the loved ones that support or do you just divide and mock those who are ill for some kind of sport. Fact we all died but thankfully only a few of you are too shallow about it all.
@Jock S Trap
Really sorry to hear about your partner. I presumed (wrongly) that it was the health issues you had earlier alluded to that had been the problem.
I hope your son, and others have been giving you the support you need.
Good to see you back. Shame we all have to put up with the irrelevant and shallow crap that Keith and others post on here.
Wishing you all the best over the coming days, weeks and months ….
“If I get cancer”
LOL! You got it wrong again, silly old fool. No, you ARE a cancer…..
Bill Scotland,Many Thanks,for your informative postings.
Some Labour supporters have a habit of re-writing history and have blinkered vision.
I thank the E.C.H.R. for championing gay rights and pushing the ex Labour government .
Ruth Davidson won a couple of hundred more votes than the candidate who wanted to abolish the Scottish Tories. In the 2010 election she came 4th with almost 6% of the vote (yes, 6%). She doesn’t want change to the Tories “toxic brand”. For lgbt people in Scotland her election to leader of the Tories coudl not be better as it ensures they will remain marginalised with or without the help of the LibDem friends!
Oops – I see there must be some closet LibDems on the site! Vote LibDem, get a Tory government! Lorks a mercy!
Tories… alive and kicking! Gotta laugh!
I meant in Scotchland, but one man clapping it would seem…
Reason for my flippancy: only 1 Tory MSP in Scotchland returned in last election – David Mundell, if memory serves me correctly (can’t be bothered looking it up!). Hardly a great indication of their strength north of the border, or in England – being as they are, in coalition. As Iain said above “It will take more than a fresh face to convince the Scots to vote for them [tories]!”
Murdo Fraser had an interesting idea but same old, same old… Flippancy ended. Rest.
I’m no supporter of the Conservatives but thought you were wildly out – just checked on the Scottish Parliament website and there were 13 Conservative MSPs at the last election – not 1.
David Mundell is an MP (UK Parliament) not an MSP (Scottish Parliament).
Just to be pedantic, the results of the last Scottish Parliament election in number of seats per party was:
SNP – 69
Labour – 37
Conservatives – 15
Lib Dem – 5
Green – 2
Independent – 1
Lol – Thanks, BennieM
I shall check my facts more carefully next time (but I did think the Scottish Parliament website might be authoritative ….)
I tried lol
I wasn’t having a go at you Stu, by the way, just in case you think that! I was backing your point up even further!
The Scottish Parliament website was recently changed, supposedly for the better! I prefered how it used to be – probably just because I was used to it. I did read in the news that it did have a few teething problems when it was changed.
I didn’t take it as having a dig at me …
I see the Toryphobes are strangely silent today.
Ruth’s election is another example of the Tories not being at all anti-gay as they claim.
….thing is though the Scots Tory party is Tory in Name only and is uniquely Scottish. It is only a matter of time til they dump the Conservative moniker and adopt a new name, especially if Scotland decides to leave the Union.
As for this Davidson person, her religion and belief in sky fairy’s is first and foremost in her policies and that is what will dictate her leadership style in her new position.In other words her mind is not her own but some ignorant fearful desert herdsman from 4000 years ago……
I think it’s less likely they’ll change the name now. Ruth was elected instead of a candidate proposing to wind up the party and create a new separate centre-right party, like the CSU in Bavaria. Ruth’s election makes that far less likely.
And the party is not “Tory in Name only” – “Tory” hasn’t been in the name since the early 19th century. Which makes all the talk of name changes a bit silly because the most negative term is one that can’t actually be dropped and would still be used anyway. (For an example in practice see how often “Tories” is used for parties in Canada like the Saskatchewan Party even though the provincial Progressive Conservatives still exist.)
I worked with disabled people and some people in the movement put disabled people above everyone else no matter how incompotent, idioticor bigotted they are.
Gay people seem to do the same and we end up with crap people getting props. Tories don’t stand a chance in hell in scotland so they put her in to have a laugh while scoring pink points. Labour had 3 out and unapologetic cabinet ministers when the tories do that I will change my mind
Personally, I think it should be the most suitable and appropriate person for the job. I am not a Conservative supporter but I doubt many voters will have voted for Davidson because she is a lesbian ….
Don’t be ridiculous James. She was voted for by Scottish Conservatives who want to see the party win. She was the frontrunner and it is to the credit of the Conservative Party that her sexuality was not an issue in her successful campaign.
In addition to other comments I’ve posted here, Ms Davidson wasn’t fielded as an openly gay MSP in this leadership battle (to my mind, for obvious reasons) and she has nothing to say on gay issues in anything I’ve read concerning her or that she’s scribed herself… With that in mind her refusal to be ‘defined’ by her sexuality reads more like desperate vote-grabbing to beat Murdo Fraser – at all costs.
So I don’t see the point of the rainbow flag waving here.
Also it is heartening that she only won by 200 votes (approx.). There is a whole lot more of the Conservative membership north of the border who feel that it IS time for change than they themselves let on. A troubled party indeed – and with Ms Davidson at the helm, I can’t see that changing much – we’ll see.
So you’re attacking her for refusing to let her sexuality define her. Isn’t his what we’ve been fighting for.
It’s great that she’s an out lesbian, it’s great that she’s won, but don’t have a go at her just because she wants to talk about other things.
All four Tory leadership candidates were asked by the Sunday Herald their views on same-sex marriage – their answers were published in the Oct 2nd edition. Ruth Davidson and Jackson Carlaw said they support it; the other two said they were against.
On the one hand I shouldn’t be surprised that 2 of the 4 leadership candidates are against same-sex marriage given we’re talking about the Conservative Party here, but I can’t help but feel disappointed that in 2011 some of the people who sit in Parliament and vote for our laws (or not) still feel that gay people shouldn’t have the same basic rights as everyone else.
Incidentally, I’ve contacted all 8 MSPs who represent me in the Scottish Parliament asking them if they support same-sex marriage and if they intend to vote for it. I’ve only had one positive response so far and one said he’ll wait and see what the consulation says. The rest haven’t replied yet, although it wasn’t long ago that I asked, so I have to give them time to reply. Although as Jackson Carlaw is one of my Regional MSPs, I know what he thinks about it now, so that’s 2 out of 8 definately in favour and 1 undecided so far.
Further to my previous post, I’ve now heard back from Jackson Carlaw who did say that he has no problem with gay people getting married as long as no religion is forced to do it. He said he’ll need to see the legislation before deciding if he’ll vote for it or not. I’m still waiting to hear back from the others.
When will some people learn.
Ruth is a politician,who happens to be lesbian. What hasPeter Mandleson,Steven Twigg Angela Eagle ever done to champion gay rights? Diddly Squat All,in my opinion.
I agree with your general principle about politicians not being defined by their sexuality …
I am sure most of the politicians you mention have in their own private way done many things to encourage LGBT rights and normalisaton
I am aware, for example, that Stephen Twigg, sponsored the first ever official LGBT event to be held in the Palace of Westminster – the Gay Police Association Annual Dinner and Awards. I know this because I attended. I am sure this will not be the only thing he has done. There was also very little publicity that he was strongly involved in supporting the GPA.
And so? Surely it is positive to see gay people in prominent positions in public life – what ever they do or for whichever political party?
Why should be be invisible? We should celebrate those gay people who become visible.
I wish her all the luck in the world. Actually, now that I think of it, I don’t. I don’t care who the conservative party have as their head. I will never forgive them for the 18 years of persecution and hatred directed at gay people when they were last in power. I will never vote for them as long as I live.
conservatives clearly gave up on scotland
I said in a post above, surely it is positive to see gay people in prominent positions in public life – what ever they do – lawyers, journalists, judges, television stars, politicians, business leaders.
Why should we be invisible? We should celebrate those gay people who become visible.
Absolutely, we should value gay people who become prominent in the public eye. It is a part of the process of organically normalising LGBT people in society.
Some, are well known as being gay, others it is only vaguely alluded to. Most of them, though bring being LGBT as a normal aspect of life in society – which is how society should see gay people. I remember working with a colleague who stated she had never met a gay person, and she was surprised how “normal” I was. Sloppy language, but it was a great conversation, and we had some great laughs in the 18 months we worked together as a team.
So when I think of gay people in the public eye, I think of people like Ruth Davidson, Stephen Twigg, Chris Smith, Chris Bryant, Sir Adrian Fulford, John Partridge, Matthew Parris, Jane Hill, Scott Mills etc etc
All people who I think have been sterling in their honesty about their orientation without being as flamboyant (all the time) as others who are known for flamboyance.
Only if they throw it at you. Warm and wet.
“Sopme people eat excrement, get over it!”
Some people, like you, speak it. Get over it.
Countless thousands of LGBTI have contributed to the societies in which they lived, and we do right to honor them.
Ever heard of Ernst Röhm? Now let’s be clear that Davidson is no fascist but your “surely it is positive to see gay people in prominent positions in public life” whatever they do is silly – give me a progressive heterosexual person rather than a gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans Tory any day.
Bored with her now. Yawn
The Nations and countries need all the equal rights officials they can find, in order to turn this nation and other nations around to humanity out of evil hatred and bloodshed of terrorisms, lgbt rights womens and minoriteis elderly and veterans all must be fought fought for immigrants and minorites racism stigmatizes and violates and desecrates innocent individuals , children and families, and it harms all enties of it and business, one life is too many harmed by it. the foundations must be humanity and structured equality and human rights fairness, The militaries families must have full equal benefits especially separate private housing for their famiilies an childrens saftey and familiy this is a top priority, all married couple and couples engaged, deserve their private safe living quarters anywhere, families with children especially, the lgbt whole unit should have separate housing living quarters with the singles quarters separate from the families with children, that common sen
Yet another lgbt associate official , but she must take a stand for full equality and administer delegations and implemtations to help all of her poor and middle class economy and the lgbt families and womens rights and senior citizens and veterans and national security, are else she is a waste being out and in an office the lgbt children in schools across te countries and us needs more anit bully programs and serious reprimands to those faculty and administsrators who stigmatizes and disscriminates and harrasses them, they must be fired and arrested for assault as well, overhauled systems must take place for humanity peace and a safe positive atmosphere for the children and adults victimized by racism, The aclu must continue to act on the school and college children behalf as well as others against lgbt harrassment , we have yet another prinicple bother a gay student who has a equality statement on their shirt a honoble saying and quote , only bigots are angry because they are the pro
She must seek to stand against the violent outbreak of hate religions teaching others to harm others and to harrass others , these are just bad men and women somebody went to school with , nothing magical or angelical about them , just bad kids who like to form clicks and clubs to do their own mess and personal agendas which are mostly very evil and abusive , like jeff warrens and david karesh, the bad false pastors including the head US archibishops have been arrested every week to month for pedehilia and sexual assaulsts on children and women, We are sick of these evil people wearing robes and nothing more than monster in crosses with hate and darkness in their hearts, they are terroizing and harming children and mistreating others the same as they did in high school clicks serious actions and reprimands must be taken for their defamations and abuses, this is part of her job as an official standing for the victumized and abused, humanity, The abusers need removing from public jobs
I couldn’t care less what kind of genitals she’s partial to. She’s a tory and therefore a total waste of oxygen.