SOME polls now show the Scottish Tories on 33 per cent, which is dangerously close to cementing them as Scotland’s second party. There’s no remaining room for doubt: Scotland definitely has a red, white and blue party that will form the main opposition to independence.

Many people are appalled, and perhaps rightly so. I certainly get a feeling of dread and horror whenever I see jumped-up public school boys nearing government, and it’s doubly bad when it’s my own country. However, I also wonder: why are we shocked by this? Every society in the world has a reactionary bloc who regularly compete for the reins of power. Why should Scotland be any different?

Of course, Scotland has been dissimilar for some time. Since the 1970s, we have got used to the idea of a weakling Scottish Conservatism with few native roots. Thatcher’s cruel and obscene misuse of North Sea oil money, her deliberate destruction of industry and her infliction of mass unemployment as a form of punishment meant their name was mud in working-class communities throughout the country.

The self-defined centre-left have dominated the Scottish vote for a long time, and they have dominated Scottish government since devolution.

But in gaining government, Labour and the SNP essentially conceded to most of Thatcher’s economic programme, making the distinction between left and right somewhat moot. Both Labour and the SNP took the same line, contrasting the economics of Thatcher (which were good) and the English cultural politics of Thatcher (which were bad).

“The SNP has a strong social conscience, which is very Scottish in itself,” argued Alex Salmond. “One of the reasons Scotland didn’t take to Lady Thatcher was because of that. We didn’t mind the economic side so much. But we didn’t like the social side at all.”

Gordon Brown and Douglas Alexander took a near identical line. What Scotland “found unacceptable about Thatcherite Britain was not its commitment to enterprise”, they argued, “but its lack of commitment to social justice”.

So Scotland’s devolved parliament would appeal to the “aspirations” and “enterprising spirit” of the upper middle class but they would avoid Thatcher’s loony-right ranting against youth culture, single mothers and immigrants.

This consensus helped create the idea of social democratic Scotland. Most commentators agree that this is a myth. However, the devil here is in the detail: precisely why is the idea a myth, and what kind of myth is it?

In fact, Scotland’s voters were considerably more social democratic than political elites. That’s not a myth. People tend to like public services in public hands; they want the railways back in public ownership; and many would like to see government action to redistribute wealth from rich to poor. These things are all true of Scottish voters, but no mainstream “centrist” party has offered them.

The trouble is, these things are true of English voters and politicians too. They are also true in America, and in just about every other Western society.

The truth, then, is the opposite of what Salmond, Brown, and Alexander claimed. Scottish people – like English people – disliked much of Thatcher’s neoliberal economic programme. Surveys throughout the 1980s and since clearly confirm this. However, Scottish and English voters continued to share socially conservative attitudes to many issues, from gay rights and “mugging” to rave culture and immigration. The major difference between the countries is the strength of feeling about immigration. Scotland is perhaps nearly as measurably anti-immigrant as England. But it emerges in different ways. It rarely takes organised forms, and it rarely becomes a political priority. Conveniently, also, the Scottish Parliament has no powers over immigration, which has allowed political elites here to sidestep any awkward issues.

Since the centre-right has been disorganised, devolved Scotland has passed lots of socially liberal legislation. Almost exclusively this has been a good thing. The homophobic Section 28 campaign is well within living memory, but Scotland is now one of the most gay-friendly countries in Europe.

Another result is that Scotland’s centre-right plays the game of social liberalism. They don’t boast that they’ll “send ’em all back”. They don’t make off-colour rants about locking up the neds. Their leader is a young gay woman.

Nonetheless, they are gaining an authoritarian base. The major reason for this is independence. Typical Tory voters are those who want to punish the progressive part of the country for flirting with the idea of a new nation state. They want a return to normality. They want Scotland to give up “utopian” dreams. They want order at any price. Clamping down on independence becomes a surrogate for revenge against all the social movements connected to it. That’s the dark appeal of Ruth Davidson.

The liberalism of the Scottish Tories won’t last, and here lies the real danger. Right now, the Tories are essentially offering a programme that’s not radically distinct from the rest of neoliberal Scottish politics.

However, the truth we’re uncomfortable to admit is that Scottish voters are often just as authoritarian and racist as their counterparts in England. If the centre-right becomes more confident and organised, they will become the natural pole for these underdeveloped sentiments and grievances that currently find no expression in Scotland.

Ruth Davidson, I don’t doubt, genuinely believes she’s leading a cleaned-up, modern, progressive free-market party. But Scotland already has parties who play that game. The real space for the Scottish Tories lies in becoming the organised expression of unchallenged backward attitudes in our society. If the Tories embed themselves, their message will gradually turn in that direction. If Davidson objects to a “toxic” turn, she will be shown the door.

The case for independence looks gloomier now that our main opposition is Tory. But it’s also clear that Tories could rule Westminster forever unless electoral reform is imposed.

And there’s one small glimmer of hope in the rising power of the Scottish Tories. The myth of liberal, social democratic politics has had good effects but also many bad ones. It’s left the economic consensus for free-market globalisation unchallenged.

Until we challenge that sacred cow, all Western societies are going to be vulnerable to right-wing populism. Only a fool or a very rich person would celebrate a good result for the Tories this June.

And we’re no different.