Scotland

So. it looks as though David Cameron is following the Spectator’s advice not mine. What a nincompoop! But if the reports are correct then Cameron is playing us for fools. That is, there’s nothing wrong with suggesting a referendum on Scottish independence be held sooner rather than later; adding conditions to it is a different matter. It matters little, really, whether a referendum is binding or advisory; a Yes to Independence vote would be impossible to ignore, politically and practically speaking, even if the referendum were only advisory. So, to this extent, Cameron’s suggestion that a vote can be binding if held within 18 months but only advisory if held

There is a good deal of good sense in the magazine’s main leader this week. By which I mean of course that a good deal of it is unconvincing and some of it dangerously so. That is, if David Cameron listens to the Spectator he risks assisting the very forces – Alex Salmond and the SNP – the magazine’s editors (and the Prime Minister himself) wish to defeat. Of course Alex Salmond is beatable and of course support for UN-member independence is a minority enthusiasm. This is one reason why a referendum seems to scare Scots less than it does politicians and pundits based in London. (Most of those pundits

STOP PRESS: LONDON MANDARIN RECOGNISES SNP WON ELECTION, INTEND TO CALL REFERENDUM. FUTURE OF UNITED KINGDOM UNSURE. ASTONISHING SCENES. Lord knows what the Telegraph paid Sir Gus O’Donnell, heid neep at the civil service, for the valedictory piece published in today’s paper but if the news summary of the thing is at all accurate they’ve been had. The Telegraph’s newshounds do their best to dress it up but, really, there’s a limit to what even skilled practitioners can do with such unpromising material. They report: Britain’s most senior civil servant Sir Gus O’Donnell has publicly questioned whether the United Kingdom will still exist in a few years’ time. Writing in

A reader asks: What do you think about Johann Lamont winning the Scottish Labour leadership contest? Well, jings, far be it for me to intrude into these matters but it bears noticing that Lamont, doughty as she may be, relied upon the tame votes of Trades Union affiliates to secure her victory. Ken McIntosh – remember him, Mr Miliband? – actually won the most votes from individual party members. All Scottish Labour types now admit the party’s “arrogant” belief Scotland would always be there for Labour; all claim to have learned from the chastening experience of this May’s election. All say they must be “about” more than just Nat-bashing. All

This is a question that meets the classic definition of John Rentoul’s famous-to-them-that-ken series of Questions To Which The Answer Is No. That is, the people asking the question think the answer is Yes when in fact it is No. This question, like many of the SNP’s other witticisms, is the brainchild of Angus Robertson, the MP for Moray who might be thought Alex Salmond’s answer to Karl Rove. Like Rove, Angus sometimes gets carried away and this suggestion that Scotland is some long-lost Nordic appendage is one of those occasions. Not that he’s alone in wishing Scotland could be redefined in this fashion. Lesley Riddoch had a piece in

Meanwhile, in more examples of sloppy Labour arguments here’s a tweet Jim Murphy sent this afternoon: Oh dear. Murphy is usually better than this. I know and everyone else who pays any attention to Scottish politics (this includes Jim Murphy) knows that Alex Salmond has long admired the Republic of Ireland’s low corporation taxes; he has almost never bothered talking about personal or consumption taxes. Furthermore, few sensible people think Ireland’s boom and bust was fuelled by or made significantly worse by its low rates of corporation tax. To hint otherwise, as Murphy seems to here, is either foolish or dishonest. It is possible to think low business taxes a

In the midst of a futile* call for partisans on either side of Scotland’s great constitutional debate to avoid twisting history for their own ends, Professor Richard Finlay and Dr Alison Cathcart write: One feature of a mature democracy is the respect it accords to its past, which means accepting it in its entirety, warts and all. There are good points and bad points in all national histories and accepting both is vital to avoiding the pitfalls of narrow, triumphalist chauvinism or debilitating defeatism. Neither of which is healthy. One of the problems of using history to make the case for or against the Union is that it tends to

As the cousins celebrate the most genial holiday of them all, there are many things one for which one should be thankful. Not having a vote in the leadership contest currently gripping the Scottish Labour party comes pretty near the top of the list. Nevertheless and unlike Ed Miliband I can at least name each of the three candidates for this miserable prize. And like Kate Higgins, were I burdened with a vote in this contest, I should vote for Tom Harris. Granted, he will have to find himself a seat at Holyrood at some point but that’s a technical detail which need not concern the rest of us. Granted

Aha, the Spectator’s cover story is gathering pace. If you were tuned into The BBC’s Daily Politics just now, then you will have enjoyed a preview of the terrific scrap this time-shifting proposal could provoke. They had on both Rebecca Harris MP, who is pushing for us to move to Central European Time (CET), and Peter Hitchens, who revealed in his article for us that the government is minded to back the idea (as well as describing Harris as “one of those homogenised, UHT female Tory MPs”). The pair were, of course, mediated by Andrew Neil. We shall try to secure video of the discussion, if possible. But, in the