I WAS delighted to see the success of the film I, Daniel Blake at the Baftas and listen to Ken Loach’s comments about the Tory Government. The movie was set in Newcastle but it could have been any town in Scotland. Indeed, much of the research was carried out in this country. The Tory benefit changes have been heartless and cruel, resulting in a proliferation of food banks run by charities and churches to offset the hunger caused.

Ruth Davidson had previously distanced herself from proposed changes on disability benefits made by her UK colleagues. Moreover, it wasn’t only on social security that she sought to distance both herself and her Scottish Tories from London and show a more compassionate face. On immigration and refugees, she was supportive both of EU nationals and the plight of migrants. That was to her great credit. There was a distinct and different Tory voice for Scotland.

As Scottish leader, she has done remarkably well in giving the party a vastly different profile and some verve to make it the main political opposition. Not only was she leading here, she was also but contributing to the UK party in London, through her close relationship with David Cameron. She even had a sparkling performance in a debate on Brexit, filleting Boris Johnson. Her questioning of the UK administration and input to it gave her distance and influencet.

However, her relationship with Prime Minister Theresa May seems much more distant; the Boris Johnson she skewered is now Foreign Secretary. She remains a Tory star turn but does she have any influence and does she have any views on UK issues? She was spirited in her arguments for Remain during the Brexit debate and her position in accepting defeat is logical for her.

However, she also argued for access to the single market and other soft Brexit demands. Moreover, suggestions of powers being repatriated from the EU to Holyrood, especially in fishing and agriculture, were championed.

Yet it seems none of these is happening and a hard Brexit looms. Rather than argue against that option or even distance herself from it, she has simply soaked it up and spouted forth. She rightly condemned the disability benefit changes but has said nothing about the shameful ending of the Dubs amendment and the sanctuary it afforded to refugee children. This was vastly different from her comments before on the harsh aspects of UK Tory policy.

Many years ago, I remember chiding a Tory MSP about his trips to meet colleagues in London for pan-UK discussions. He confessed that they listened little and acted as they saw fit. Scotland was ignored.

This was later confirmed by former Tory researchers I met. The Scottish Tories were to simply know their place and accept their lot. That seems to be the deal for David Mundell, Secretary of State for Scotland, who shouts the London party line as the price of being allowed in the Cabinet room; an image of a naughty child sitting in the corner springs to mind.

Part of Ms Davidson’s appeal wasn’t just that she looked different from the traditional blue-rinse Tory brigade. It was that she spoke out and acted differently from them on many issues; not just economic but social ones. It was a compassionate, not cruel, conservatism and it resonated with many.

Moreover, criticism of the Scottish Government on health and education is perfectly legitimate. But what are the Scottish Tory alternatives? The NHS south of the Border is in crisis and education faces many problems, not just huge student debt.

Ms Davidson got the Scottish Tories out of the box they had been put in, with an image that wasn’t that of the nasty party. As she keeps saying, there’s more than just the constitution to tackle. If she wants to keep them there and avoid that image returning, she had better speak out.