BORIS Johnson has nominated Ruth Davidson for a peerage, months after she resigned as leader of the Scottish Conservatives over differences with Boris Johnson.
The Edinburgh Central MSP stepped down in August after eight years in the role, just weeks after Johnson’s appointment as Prime Minister.
It was initially reported that Davidson was standing down due to personal reasons but it later emerged that this was only part of the reason and that her differences with Johnson over Brexit also played a part.
Davidson said she was furious with Johnson’s plans to prorogue Parliament. Now the former Scottish Tory leader is set to take her place in the House of Lords.
Davidson is due to step down as an MSP next year as Scotland goes to the polls in the Holyrood election.
READ MORE: Former Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson to become peer
The 41-year-old’s appointment to the Lords means she would be eligible for a position on Johnson’s Cabinet, although that seems unlikely.
Shortly after resigning as leader of the Scottish Tories, Davidson drew criticism by taking on a £50,000-a-year public relations job at international agency Tulchan and setting up her own firm, Kirkholm Broadlands, with partner Jen Wilson on top of her political day job. She later changed her mind about the Tulchan role.
Former chancellors Ken Clarke and Philip Hammond have also reportedly been nominated for peerages by Johnson – months after he kicked them out of the parliamentary Conservative Party.
The former Cabinet ministers stood down in last year’s General Election after they had the whip removed by the Prime Minister when they backed measures designed to block a no-deal Brexit. But the BBC reported that the pair could return to Parliament after being nominated by Johnson for seats in the House of Lords.
Clarke, who served as an MP for 49 years before stepping down at the end of last year, and Hammond declined to comment.
READ MORE: WATCH: Jackson Carlaw receives CBE for political and public service
Further reports stated that two former Labour MPs, Ian Austin and John Woodcock, have been nominated to sit as non-affiliated peers. Critics of Jeremy Corbyn, Austin and Woodcock quit Labour before stepping down as MPs at the election, urging voters to back the Tories instead in the December poll to stop Labour coming to power.
Johnson is understood to have nominated Tory donor and Brexit-backer Peter Cruddas for a peerage, too, after the City tycoon donated millions to the causes.
The former Tory Party treasurer has given more than £3.5 million to the Conservatives and donated more than £1.5m to the Vote Leave campaign, which he co-founded.
The spread betting tycoon said in 2018 he “was very disappointed with the Lords” for having “exceeded their authority” over trying to amend the Brexit Bill. Downing Street and the House of Lords Appointments Commission refused to comment on the report.
Former Commons speaker John Bercow has been put forward for a peerage by outgoing Labour leader Corbyn, but his nomination could be blocked amid allegations that he bullied staff. David Leakey, who served as Black Rod until 2018, said granting Bercow a peerage would be a “scandal that Parliament would struggle to live down”.
READ MORE: John Bercow under fire for naming staff without permission in memoir
The former speaker denies the allegations. Yesterday, he was rebuked by the House of Commons authorities for naming members of staff without their permission in his newly published autobiography.
A spokesman for the House said it was “unacceptable” for Bercow to identify current and former members of staff for “the purpose of financial gain or commercial success”.
A spokesman for Bercow defended his decision to name the staff members, stating: “He was advised by Speaker’s Counsel not to do so in detail while he was in office. He is therefore doing so now. If the book had not addressed these issues, he would rightly have been accused of serious omission.”
They added: “Critics are entitled to air their views. What they are not entitled to do is to make unfounded allegations and expect Bercow to say nothing in return.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel