Scottish independence

Political stocks can go down as well as up. Shares in Alex Salmond are hardly slumping right now but they’re off their peak and flat-lining. The market is becalmed. Perhaps the launch of the independence referendum campaign will reinvigorate the First Minister but it also carries the risk – unavoidable for sure, but still a risk – that concentrating attention on independence will remind voters that the SNP is, at heart, a single-issue party. And single-issue parties tend to run into trouble.  There is a theory that the SNP have over-extended themselves. Even though they still hold more council seats than Labour (and so could claim their local election “failure”

This week the SNP will launch their campaign for Scottish independence. Or, rather, it’s the official beginning of what they term the ‘Yes’ campaign. Prefacing this, Joan McAlpine uses her column in the Daily Record to list ten reasons why Scots should endorse independence. It is an interesting list, not least because McAlpine, who is close to Alex Salmond, is one of the higher-profile SNP MSPs and someone to whom it is always worth paying attention. This is her list: 1. An independent Scotland would be the sixth wealthiest country on earth. According to the OECD, apparently. It’s the Black Gold, silly. This is a very dubious statistic. It relies

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

On the Daily Politics today Andrew Neil asked David Mundell Why are the Scottish Tories so useless? It will not surprise veteran Mundell-watchers that the member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale did not have a great answer to this blunt question. Nevertheless, Mr Neil’s question was, in effect, the theme or premise of the Prime Minister’s speech to the Scottish Tory Conference this morning. Much of Mr Cameron’s speech was the usual conference boilerplate. All very well and good but not especially meaningful. There was one important passage, however: I say it’s time we stood up even more strongly for what we believe in. Because when you make a strong

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

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