Latest from Coffee House

Blimey. Here’s a turn-up for the books: in a bid to avoid being thought Europe’s Most Useless Political Party the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party has done something sensible. They have decided that running an election campaign with the unofficial slogan Vote for Us, We’re Only Interested in Opposition is a dumb idea. Hence, as Scotland on Sunday reports, the party is preparing (albeit and as usual tentatively) to take the bold step of declaring that they will countenance the idea of serving in government at Holyrood. Of course, the Tories would still require an invitation to the dance if they’re to sit in government in Edinburgh and it may

Pete mentions Tim Montgomerie’s suggestion that a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition at Holyrood could be the most likely result at next year’s Holyrood elections. As Tim puts it: One thing I’ve worried about for sometime is the implications for the Coalition of bad results for the LibDems in next year’s Scottish elections but it is perfectly possible that Labour – like in 1999 and 2003 – will go into another Holyrood coalition with the LibDems. This double coalition deal could be an important tool for Clegg to keep his Left happy and for the new Labour leader to open the door to a future LibLab deal at Westminster. Well, anything is

Further to this post, it’s not a fair fight. Commenter Ben G asks: But isn’t Culloden more significant? The effective end of a Scottish claim to the throne. Remember, after that you became ‘North Britain’. This is a common misperception. Unlike Flodden, Culloden was not a fight between England and Scotland. As many, and perhaps more, Scots fought against the Young Pretender on Drumossie Moor as fought for him. The ’45 was as much a Highland vs Lowland conflict as a Scotland vs England affair. Which is one reason why, from a Unionist perspective, Culloden is less important than Bannockburn. The latter prevented Scotland from becoming a northern Wales and

This is a subject that one could – and may! – return to frequently. David Cameron, not unreasonably, seems to have decided that there’s no point to the Scottish Tories at all. This is not a great surprise given that the Scottish Tories have declined to make any meaningful, let alone sensible, case for themselves. According to Hamish Macdonell – a reliable reporter – Cameron has had enough of his enfeebled North Britain platoon. By her own admission, Aunt Annabel Goldie hasn’t spoken to the Prime Minister since the election. And what would they have to talk about anyway? The sorry truth is that the Scottish Conservative & Unionist party

Paul Higgins as William Paterson in Alistair Beaton’s Caledonia. To Edinburgh yesterday to see the flagship indigenous production at this year’s Festival: Alistair Beaton’s play about the Darien misadventure in the late 17th century. For a dramatist this should be much more fertile ground than were the mangrove swamps of Panama for the poor would-be colonists. It was a national adventure swallowing up, by some estimates, as much as half the national wealth which makes it all the more infuriating that Caledonia is both so glib and so very heavy-handed. Leaving the theatre my immediate sensation was one of a great opportunity badly, foolishly missed. Half-way through proceedings it occurred

No, not that kind, the vote-winning kind. Despite the fact that the party itself has honoured or at least admired warrior queens (in the members’ estimation) such as Winnie Ewing, Margo MacDonald and even Nicola Sturgeon, the fact remains that women are much less likely to support the SNP than men and, furthermore, this gender gap causes the party some problems. As Lallands Peat Worrier reminded us: On the constituency ballot, 41% of the male electorate supported the SNP, compared to only 32% of women voters.  On the list, 35% of men voted for the SNP, but only 27% of women. That’s a significant gap. Jennifer Dempsie, a former Salmond

As Pete says, Danny Finkelstein’s column (£) today is characteristically excellent. The problems facing the Liberal Democrats now and, perhaps, at the next election are problems caused by success, not failure. The Lib Dems had three options after the votes had been counted: do a deal with the Tories, try and cobble something together with Labour or remain aloof from the hurly-burly and leave the Tories to govern as a minority – perhaps on a supply or confidence basis. Given those options Nick Clegg followed his own instincts (and those of the country as a whole) and opted for the Tories. This was both the right thing to do and

Here’s the text of the letter Alex Salmond has sent to Senator John Kerry, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There’s nothing new here but it does state, clearly, the essential facts of the matter. Megrahi’s cancer is, again, to be regretted not least because it put an end to his appeal against his conviction and, thus, ended the prospects for a fresh review of what was, even if you think him guilty, a thoroughly unsatisfactory process. Dear Senator Kerry, I am writing to you about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s recent interest in the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed AI-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

Tim Montgomerie makes a prediction: Call it Montgomerie’s Law of the Coalition (launched in The Times (£)). This Coalition is heading for breakdown or it’s heading Leftwards. The Left of the Liberal Democrats will demand an end to the Coalition if Nick Clegg doesn’t get more and more concessions from David Cameron. If the Coalition fails it will be broken by Liberal Democrats in left-leaning constituencies. Think Scotland, Wales, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sheffield, Liverpool. Think Ming Campbell, Charles Kennedy, Simon Hughes. Well, maybe. And, sure, the government is not likely to tilt to the right. But that doesn’t mean it can’t maintain its current, moderate course. Yes, that means there will be

A very interesting interview with Il Tartanissimo in the Times today in which Salmond accepts, quite candidly, that independence isn’t happening any time soon: “The centre of gravity in Scottish politics currently is clearly not independence,” he admitted. “You must campaign for what is good for Scotland as well as campaigning for independence.” A cynic – not that there are any of those around here – might argue that there’s a contradiction in that second sentence but, in this instance, a cynic would be unfair on Eck. It’s really quite rare to come across a politician being quite this candid about what is, after all, supposed to be his party’s

James reports – and since it’s James doing the reporting there’s no reason to doubt him – that some of the strongest opposition to doing a deal with the Tories came from Scottish Lib Dem MPs. Apparently the poor lambs think they could be wiped out if they were tarred with the Tory brush. I assume that they are fretting about the Holyrood elections next year, not the next Westminster election (though of course, all the jockeying and manoevering must be judged in the light of its potential impact on that contest). Because let’s have a look at their Scottish seats: Gordon: LD 36, SNP 22, Labour 20 Aberdeenshire West:

John Redwood says it is “Time to speak for England” while over at ConservativeHome Paul Goodman argues that this is something which needs to be addressed. As he notes the Tory manifesto does contain a theoretical commitment to answering the West Lothian Question and creating a de facto English parliament. And in theory there’s nothing wrong with that. Quite the contrary in fact. Few people in Scotland, I think, would consider this either unfair or unreasonable. Indeed, if my memory is correct, polling suggests that a majority of Scots think this would be a fair way forward. Certainly, there are excellent arguments for revisiting the Barnett Formula – though Barnett