Salmond

I’m not sure Ed Miliband’s people will be altogether happy that James McIntyre’s Prospect interview with the Labour leader devotes quite so much time to Miliband’s leadership credentials. This is not, I think, generally considered helpful. Mr Miliband says he is “Labour’s biggest critic” to which the obvious rejoinder is “Not while so many of us remain alive, you ain’t“. There’s plenty to chew on in the interview but, as McIntyre suggests, it’s worth paying attention to Miliband’s comments on the Scottish Question: [W]hen I ask Miliband if he will help Cameron save the Union in what should be a cross-party campaign for the UK as we know it, he

Further to that last post, Leveson released more than 100 pages of News Corp correspondence this afternoon. Alex Salmond features in four emails sent by Fred Michel, the Murdochs’ chief lobbyist and PR guy: 1. 1/11/10 – Libdem MP, former Sky employee, with major Sky customer centres in his constituency and around will contact Vince Cable to ask himm to bear in mind the economic/investment point of view rather than getting influenced by political games, especially in times of austerity and very difficult economic environment for those areas. He will also emphasise the opportunity for Cable to show the maturity of the Libdems as coalition partners, working for the long-term,

I’ve written a column for Scotland on Sunday today looking at the SNP’s transformation into a proper national party: [T]wo SNP approaches have helped the party attain its present supremacy. They can be labelled the Hampden and Murrayfield strategies. They are different but complementary, designed to appeal to different branches of the electorate. The Hampden strategy appeals to working-class and lower-to-middle-class voters. It is populist, Saltire-wrapped and keenly, proudly Scottish. The Murrayfield tranche of the electorate is older, wealthier and more likely to consider itself Scottish and British. Though outnumbered by the Hampden vote, its influence – especially in business and the media – is disproportionately powerful. The Hampden voter,

David Starkey’s declne from competent historian to reactionary nitwit has been a sad business. I’m afraid it shows no sign of abating either. The Huffington Post has this: Historian Dr David Starkey has compared Scottish first minister Alex Salmond to Nazi German leader Adolf Hitler. “If you think about it, Alex Salmond is a democratic Caledonian Hitler, although some would say Hitler was more democratically elected,” he said. “[For him] the English, like the Jews, are everywhere” he added to gasps from the audience. Starkey was speaking at a debate, hosted by the Bow Group think tank, on the teaching of British history in UK schools. Oh dear. Granted, one

So Rupert Murdoch had lunch with Alex Salmond at Bute House today. At a time when politicians are scurrying to distance themselves from the Dirty Digger he is still welcome in Edinburgh. This annoys, even angers, many of Salmond’s own supporters (see Kate Higgins for example) and, I daresay or if Gerry Hassan is a useful indicator, most of the rest of public Scotland too. Anyone but Rupert! Well, fine. The important thing here is not what Salmond thinks of Murdoch but what Rupert thinks of Alex. Their chumminess is another indicator that Salmond, whatever the SNP’s leftwing think or hope, has no intention of turning an independent Scotland into

Well, Pete, I’m not so sure that David Cameron done brilliant in Edinburgh yesterday. To put it mildly, he has complicated an already complex situation. How does the Prime Minister think Scotland should be governed? How much Home Rule does he think is enough Home Rule? What “further powers” does he mean? Neither his speech nor his answers to questions give us any real idea at all. As I said yesterday, at least we have a reasonable – if still imperfect – idea of what Alex Salmond means by independence. Cameron’s preferences? An utter mystery. Moreover, if, as he plainly concedes there is a reasonable case for “further powers” then

David Cameron’s apparent willingness to contemplate greater devolution after an independence referendum (pithily summarised by one SNP MSP as: Vote no to cake today so I might give you some cake tomorrow) really is both sensible and startling. As recently as last month the official UK government position was, if I remember it correctly, independence or nowt. Now it is some kind of souped-up Home Rule or independence. This is quite a dramatic, sudden shift. Has anyone told Ruth Davidson about this or asked her opinion? Those of us on the right of Scottish politics have reason to welcome the Prime Minister’s shift. Again, just last month Downing Street “sources”

So, the game is afoot. The Scottish government today published its consultation document on an independence referendum to be held in the autumn of 2014. You can read it all here though I should warn you that most of it is entirely unobjectionable. If Mr Salmond is the salesman he hopes he is, the next Scottish parliament – due to be elected in May 2016 – will be the first to govern an independent nation since that auld sang ended in 1707. I notice, however, that the favoured question proffered by the SNP has changed. As recently as last year it proposed asking for a mandate to open negotiations. This

The crisis in euroland continues unstaunched and, perhaps, irrevocably. Naturally, being self-obsessed sorts and this being the week it is, one is drawn to consider the impact this must have on Alex Salmond and the prospects for Scottish independence. Plainly, the currency question is a difficult one for the First Minister. While the euro seemed solid it was at least straightforward, even though one wondered if swapping monetary policy set by the Bank of England for monetary policy set by the European Central Bank would necessarily be a great bargain. But the euro is no longer solid and uncertainty reigns. So one can appreciate why George Osborne has intervened, arguing