STARTING a new career in public relations by causing a PR disaster is some achievement. Quite how Ruth Davidson and her new employer Tulchan Communications didn’t think it would become a major presentational problem calls the judgement of both into question. At issue is the former Scottish Tory leader working for an advocacy business while still being an elected Member of the Scottish Parliament.

The breach of ethics is so egregious that industry bodies have been quick to condemn the move. Firstly the Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA), the largest PR professional body in the world with more than 30,000 members, described it as “wholly unethical”.

PRCA director general Francis Ingham said: “It is simply wrong for lobbying agencies to employ legislators. The possible conflict of interest in doing so is clear, and damages the reputation of both our industry, and of the political process.”

He went on to point out: “PRCA members are prohibited from employing parliamentarians – and with good reason. Unlike the vast majority of its competitors, Tulchan is not a PRCA member. But in the public interest, we would nonetheless urge them to reconsider this appointment.”

READ MORE: Ruth Davidson in row over new employer's anti-independence client

Now the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) has issued a statement, stating: “At a time when trust in our political institutions remains low, it is the CIPR’s view that serving legislators taking on paid political consultancy work does nothing to improve public confidence in politics or lobbying.”

Criticism of the move has come from across the political spectrum, including from Iain Anderson, who was a former Conservative party adviser and is now chairman of PR firm Cicero Global.

He said: “I really respect Ruth, but on this one, she needs to create clarity. She’s either an MSP or she works for a firm that does lobbying – she can’t be both.”

The unsustainable situation that Ruth Davidson finds herself in is already being rolled into a wider debate about parliamentarians having outside paid interests, with proposals from some to ban second jobs. The issue is not as straight forward as it might seem on first viewing. What about parliamentarians whose professional qualifications and abilities rely on ongoing practical experience? For example, do we want to effectively exclude doctors, nurses or teachers from being able to serve as MPs or MSPs?

Neil Findlay MSP believes he has the answer to this conundrum in a members’ bill he is promoting in the Scottish Parliament. He is now drafting the “Restriction of Outside Remuneration etc of MSPs Bill”, taking into account consultation responses. During a four-month consultation on the proposed legislation, 95% of the 500 individuals and organisations consulted backed the principle that being an MSP should be a full-time job.

A Scottish Parliament report on the consultation outlined the main reasons respondents supported the bill, including the view that being an MSP was a full-time job and required 100% dedication and commitment; that MSPs are paid well enough to do what should be a full-time job; and that the proposal would help reduce the risk of conflicts of interest.

The Ruth Davidson situation will no doubt influence the debate about the proposed legislation, however her case points to a particularly unacceptable conflict of interest: a serving legislator working for a company that undertakes lobbying work.

What about Ruth Davidson’s constituents in all of this controversy? Her first responsibility should be towards the people she was elected to serve. Davidson has had a bad reputation in Edinburgh Central since her election for not holding open surgeries and for having poor relations with community organisations and a low profile in the constituency. Does anyone really think this is going to improve now that she is focused on her next steps in the private sector?

Clearly Davidson is focused on her post-politics career. That is absolutely fine and perfectly understandable, but should not be at the cost of her constituents and with an unsustainable conflict of interest. She has to choose now to do one or the other. Ruth Davidson cannot remain an MSP and work for a lobbying company. Having made the mistake of starting with Tulchan Communications, she must now step down from Holyrood.

Edinburgh Central deserves to have a Member of the Scottish Parliament that puts them first, that holds open surgeries, that works closely with community organisations and is visible in the constituency. They can if Ruth Davidson resigns and causes a by-election.

It’s time for her to do the right thing. Otherwise the PR disaster which has accompanied the start of her PR career will continue.