Scotland

It is often said that the case for the United Kingdom needs to be made in a positive fashion. This is reasonable. Less remarked upon is the SNP’s cheerful use of negative arguments for independence. Today, for example, there is the sillyness of Joan McAlpine’s suggestion Scotland is somehow analagous to some ill-treated wife and, rather more importantly, Nicola Sturgeon’s assertion that the Union is a threat to the welfare state. So here’s another Scotch Irony: the advocates of change are the fiercest defenders of the status quo. Speaking last night, the Deputy First Minister promised there would be none of that reforming-the-NHS nonsense in Scotland and, no, there’ll be

Considering the audience to which it was aimed, I suppose one could say that Johann Lamont’s first leaders’ speech to the Scottish Labour party conference was a success. Expectations for Ms Lamont were not quite at Obama-levels. I suspect Labour types will have been pleased by it. Which means, naturally, it should terrify everyone else. It was, naturally, a Unionist speech largely because it reminded one that Scottish Labour would be a powerful force in an independent Scotland and, by god, that’s enough to make one wary of the entire enterprise. England and Wales and Northern Ireland offer some protection, minimising the amount of damage Labour can do in Scotland.

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

As you’d expect, Brother Hoskin offers a fair summary of George Osborne’s difficulties with fuel duty. Osborne, backed it should be said by Danny Alexander, decided to pay for his fuel policies by levying additional taxes on North Sea oil production. How’s that worked out? Entirely predictably: North Sea Oil production fell by 18% last year* – the biggest fall ever. By some estimates, this cost the Treasury more than £2bn in lost oil revenues and thus, probably, rather more cash than Osborne planned to raise from his increased taxes on oil and gas. Moreover, there was just half as much new exploration in 2011 as there was in 2010

Since the NHS is a subject even more boring than American healthcare, I was more interested by the Prime Minister’s response to a question from Angus MacNeill that, though I might have worded it differently, was a perfectly reasonable query that deserved better than the non-answer given by the Prime Minister. This was their exchange: Angus MacNeil: Last week in Edinburgh the Prime Minister said there were more powers on the table for Scotland but couldn’t name any. A few months ago he mocked the idea of Scotland controlling its own oil wealth. In the Scotland Bill, even the Crown Estate was too big. Can the Prime Minister now name

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