'Detest' is a strong word, even for Sturgeon and Truss

No love is lost between the UK and Scottish leaders, we know. But hatred for the 'Tories and all they stand for'?

Nicola Sturgeon angry

People are asking if it's OK to detest the Tories. This is because Nicola Sturgeon told Laura Kuenssberg in an interview on Sunday morning, "I detest the Tories and everything they stand for."

I'm not going to do that irritating thing of saying that the Oxford English Dictionary defines detest as blah blah blah.You know what detest means and I know what it means. But is it remotely rational or possible to detest a political party? To try and answer that, I decided to have a think about what I detest.

I detest the smell of Oxo beef gravy mixed with the smell of Uhu glue. I smelt this combination once as a child. It was quite the most revolting concoction I'd ever come across. It looks harmless when you see it written down -- those two little unassuming palindromic three-letter brand names, but together they create a weapons-grade miasma, a truly WMD stench. If there's one smell I detest, that's it.

What else do I detest? I'm not especially keen on the greengrocer's apostrophe, and the appearance of "it's" in place of "its". And "your" instead of "you're". That feeling is exacerbated by my recognition that I can't claim never to have been guilty of such a solecism myself.

I'm not especially keen on the way people sign off emails with the first letter of their first name, rather than their name. I find it baffling and weird, but I think detest is probably a bit strong.

What else? Oh, yes. Just reading about the latest antics of that soggy, smirking troll that's doing its best to destroy America is liable to trigger teeth-itching, finger-twitching rage. Actually seeing Donald Trump's ridiculous hair on screen and hearing his idiotic voice -- yes, I think when one takes into account what he has done and is doing to America, I don't think detest is too strong a word, and that also goes for the snivelling wretches who pretend to believe his farcical claims of a stolen election.

As for the QAnon people, detest is probably too strong. I think pity is more apt.

But what about the Tories?

David Willetts's book Modern Conservatism, regarded by many Tories as the best guide to the thinking of today's party, begins: "Conservatives are wary of grand statements of principles and beliefs. Many attribute the political success of British conservatism to its pragmatism -- its concern with political practice, not political theory. Anything that goes further than this is dismissed as ideology -- and that is for socialists and libertarians."

It concludes, "The party's achievement is to show how apparently contrasting political principles can in practice be reconciled. Individualism and tradition can be reconciled because we have a tradition of individualism. Standing by traditional Conservative principles is reconciled with the need to offer the prospect of prosperity to a modern democratic electorate because freedom is the way to prosperity. The tension between market and communities is resolved because they help to sustain each other. In addressing these issues Conservatives place themselves at the heart of the British political tradition."

It's a bit windy and it sounds rather like it could mean all things to all people -- archetypal cakes -- which is perhaps why the party is so prone to factionalism. But it would be hard to argue that "community" is not part of the Tory mindset -- it's not all about self-enrichment. So is it really detestable?

I grew up in a household with no antipathy towards Thatcher but I was aware she provoked strong feelings. Clearly for hundreds of thousands of people whose livelihoods -- even their way of life -- were destroyed, "detest" does not seem too strong.

Then there's the Cameron-Osborne double act, who through bumbling incompetence and indigence more than evil intent did quite a bit of lasting damage. I confess I have a gigantic bone to pick with Osborne over his lazy and negligent decision to save some child benefit money in an utterly unjust way. Watching him glide from sinecure to sinecure in his post-political life has never failed to trigger a little frisson of fury, but I don't think I could say I detest him.

How about Johnson and the conditions he created for the takeover by the pound-shorters' sock puppets Truss and Kwarteng? I try to bring myself to hate them all for the calamitous harm they are doing to Britain's standing. But it's like trying to hate a wilful child. I think they don't realise that the reason people invest in Britain, bringing the possibility of growth, is our institutions, the centuries of common sense that prop us up. So when Truss snipes at the Bank of England and sidelines the Office for Budget Responsibility -- and then tries to blame it on Kwarteng -- she is driving investors away.

Sturgeon is well aware of that, accusing Truss of doing “real and lasting damage to the fabric of British society”, but she must be calculating that Truss's demolition job is only helping her independence project. She is a masterful operator and scored a palpable hit on Truss with her revelation that Truss had asked her for tips on getting into Vogue and "looked as if she'd swallowed a wasp" on learning Sturgeon had been in the magazine twice.

It's likely, then, that Truss's failure to contact her since becoming PM has a personal dimension to it. And I get the sense Sturgeon has been stung by it. But the past three years of Tory antics have been a gift to Sturgeon. She had a great pandemic in comparison with Johnson, even though England and Scotland fared similarly against Covid. It's true that the Truss-Kwarteng self-immolation is helping Labour towards a resurgence in Scotland, which is the last thing Sturgeon needs. Her relationship with the Tories, then, can bets be described as complicated. "Detest" just won't do at all.