Scotland

Yesterday’s Survation poll reported that UKIP (22%) are, for the moment, just two points behind the Tories (24%) and therefore and given the margin of error in these things possibly tied or even ahead of the senior governing party. Blimey!  It is understandable, therefore, that the idea we are on the brink of a Great Realignment in British (or rather English) politics is popular today. See Iain Martin’s Telegraph column for an excellent example of this. He says it feels as though the right has split irrevocably. He may be right! British politics has been extraordinarily stable since the Labour party supplanted the Liberals. Nothing, really, has changed. At least,

I am not quite sure I understand why Nigel Farage opted to launch UKIP’s Aberdeen by-election campaign in Edinburgh. Then again, UKIP are a puzzling party. In any event, it all went rather well. Not just because forcing Nigel Farage to “flee” and take “sanctuary” in a pub is the kind of hardship up with which the UKIP leader can fondly put, but rather because the sight of Mr Farage being jostled and shouted down by left-wing “radicals” is one of the few things liable to provoke some measure of sympathy for UKIP north of the border. UKIP thrives on farce and chaos. The goons from something calling itself the

The UK faces two referendums about its future, not one.  As well as David Cameron’s promised ‘proper’ referendum on the UK’s relationship with the European Union, there is also the one on Scottish independence due on 18 September 2014.  By and large, despite similarities in the arguments involved, each of those debates has paid little regard to the other.  That makes sense if the EU referendum takes place in the next UK Parliament, around 2017 or so, once the dust has settled on the Scottish vote.  Suggestions of an earlier referendum may throw that into doubt.  The dynamics of the debate about Scottish independence would look very different if the

The Scottish Tories look like supporting more devolution. Cue predictable apoplexy from some. Devolution was a terrible mistake, slopes are slippery, beaches should be fought on and ditches died in. In its own way, this reaction makes exactly the same mistake as nationalists. To understand why needs a history lesson, and a grasp of public opinion. Let’s start with the history. The Union of 1707 was a genuine deal. After a military standoff, England knew it couldn’t conquer Scotland. But Scotland was broke, and couldn’t afford to stay independent. The deal put into practice a Scottish scheme for dealing with the problem that was England. A union that preserved in

Even if George Osborne is right about the problems of a currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK he possesses the uncanny knack of being right in such a disagreeable fashion that one’s loath to give him any credit at all. Still, as an attack dog he has his uses and he has picked an interesting day – St George’s – to come to Scotland to noise up the Jocks. I don’t know if the SNP will mind this too much. The nationalist view, I think, is that people will concentrate more on Osborne’s manner than on the substance of what he is saying. This

Mike Denness, who died yesterday, could credibly claim to be the finest Scots-reared cricketer of the past 50 years. That is not, at least not quite, as small a claim as you may think. Cricket in Scotland is a game of perseverance played on the edge of possibility. Even the most devoted flanneled-fool sometimes wonders if all the shivering and frustration is really worth it. In a nation scarcely over-freighted with sunshine of either the figurative or literal variety, cricketers cannot avoid being optimists. The climate and, it must be said, the culture is against them. Few things vex the Scottish cricketer more than the accusation that there is something

Like Iain Martin, I was not sure a full ceremonial funeral was quite appropriate for Margaret Thatcher. That is not to dismiss her achievements or her significance, merely to wonder if such pomp was wholly suitable for a figure who has proved as divisive in death as she was in life. And yet, the majesty of the service at St Paul’s worked its magic. Combining grandeur with simplicity it said simply this: Margaret Hilda Thatcher mattered.  It is hard to think of other non-Royal Britons who will be afforded, far less merit, this kind of send-off. I thought the Bishop of London’s address splendid. It deftly punctured some of the

Alex Massie asks why I didn’t mention the Union in my piece in this week’s magazine on what David Cameron’s legacy will be. It is a good question. Indeed, one former Cameron aide told me that he thought that the likely preservation of the Union would be Cameron’s greatest achievement. But the reason I didn’t mention it was because Cameron’s strategy on Scotland has been to keep a relatively low profile. He has, deliberately, not made it his fight. He realised that Alex Salmond wanted to present himself as the opposition to an English Tory Prime Minister who was, in Nationalist-speak, imposing his will on Scotland—and has simply refused to

David Cameron – who, in case you’d forgotten, leads the Conservative and Unionist Party – made a rare visit to Scotland yesterday. He spoke about defence. His message was clear: an independent Scotland could not expect to win defence contracts from what remains of the United Kingdom. Jobs and expertise, therefore, would be lost. Vote no. This is, as Iain Martin notes, smart politics. The Nationalists are weakest on those briefs which are the central functions of a nation state: defence, foreign policy and welfare. Cameron, as the British Prime Minister, should make more of this natural advantage. (Incidentally, Alex Massie has an excellent account of the referendum battle. It’s

Politics is at least partially a matter of perspective. The same object can look very different depending upon the angle from which it is viewed. Which brings me to Brother Forsyth’s latest column. I bow to no-one in my admiration for James’s reporting and astute analysis. Nor do I dispute much of what he says in his analysis of David Cameron’s legacy. No, what’s interesting is what isn’t there. The Union. I know. Scots go on and on and on about this stuff. It is true that the Caledonian gene is strong on self-absorption. Nevertheless, I think it can reasonably be considered revealing that this type of column, written by

So, an independent Scotland. Neoliberal nirvana or Scandinavian paradise? True, these are not the only choices available but as a useful shorthand for the size of the state and its optimal take of national revenues it will do for the time being. That is, should taxes rise, fall or remain much as they are at present? What external pressures will hamper Edinburgh’s ability to set its own course, free as the wind? And, for that matter, whose dreams are most likely to be confounded and whose worst fears most liable to be misplaced? That was the subject of an article I wrote for the Scotsman at the weekend. The gist

So we have our date with destiny. Scotland will march to the polls nine days after the 501st anniversary of the Battle of Flodden. September, 18th 2014. There are fewer than 600 days to go. And already the spin is starting. Stephen Noon, that smart nationalist strategist, is first out the blocks with a post asking who would stand to benefit from a No vote? His answer should not surprise you. Noon thinks David Cameron’s own re-election campaign will be boosted if Scotland says no to independence: Labour and Tories may share a platform and campaign together before the vote, but as soon as the votes are counted there would