Snp

One thing to be kept in mind as we consider the extent of the government’s links to News International is that it helps explain why neither the Telegraph nor Mail groups are wholly in favour of David Cameron and his ministry. It is, I think, fairly clear that the Conservative leadership was happy to accede to Rupert Murdoch’s attempts to purchase the shares in BSkyB that he did not already own. Following today’s revelations at the Leveson Inquiry, Jeremy Hunt’s jacket now rests upon a super-shoogly peg. Several bookmakers have ceased taking bets on the Culture Secretary being the next minister to leave the cabinet. Even allowing for politicians’ willingness

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

Sure, the Economist’s cover story has received heaps of attention these past few days but it’s not the most interesting or even the most important cover story published by a British political magazine last week. Though I would say this, Neil O’Brien’s “Planet London” article for the Spectator is the piece the Scottish National Party should be more interested in. O’Brien makes a compelling case that London is now, more than ever, a place apart. Its triumph is both magnificent and dangerous. Magnificent because London is, in ways scarcely conceivable forty years ago, a global behemoth; dangerous because of the distorting effect this must have on British politics. In significant

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

The question to be asked of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communication (Scotland) Act 2012 is whether it is iniquitous, merely pointless or, perhaps paradoxically, both. I vote for both. Here’s why: Two Hibernian fans caught chanting offensive songs on the train back from a cup quarter-final have become the first people convicted under controversial new anti-bigotry laws. […] The pair were travelling home after watching Hibs beat Ayr United on Saturday, to progress to the Scottish Cup semi-finals*, when the incident happened. They had boarded the 6:13pm train from Ayr to Glasgow Central when they were seen by British Transport Police officers chanting and singing songs that

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.

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