Snp

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

These days “Talking Scotland down” is both the gravest sin imaginable and the standard SNP response to any suggestion there might be even the occasional or minor drawback to independence. Thus when Philip Hammond makes the obvious point that Rump Britannia might not build warships on the Clyde he’s being “anti-Scottish”. Thus too when George Osborne suggests some firms might want the constitutional questions – including EU-access – clarified to assist their long-term planning he too is guilty of “talking Scotland down”. It is true, as Joan McAlpine says, that we have been here before and the sky did not fall. True too that Osborne could not name any firm

Paul Krugman has a good paragraph on the euro: [T]his incident exemplified something that was going on all along the march to the eurodebacle. Serious discussion of the risks and possible downsides was simply not allowed. If you were an independent economist expressing even mild concerns about the project, you were labeled as an enemy and shut out of the discussion. In a way, the remarkable thing is that it took until now for disaster to strike. This should be a warning to all political leaders. They each need someone whispering to them: What if we’re wrong? Just as a Roman general celebrating a Triumph had a slave positioned behind

I’m not convinced the Scottish parliament’s 2009 bill permitting individuals with pleural plaques to sue for asbestos-related damages was a good law. Nor ca one be wholly comfortable with retrospective legislation. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court today upheld the Court of Session’s judgement that the insurance companies could not credibly claim their human rights had been breached nor that the Scottish parliament lacked the standing to legislate on such matters, even when that legislation was a case of overturning or reversing previous Westminster* decisions. The Supreme Court offered a robust defence of the Scottish parliament’s prerogatives but were I a mischievous news editor mindful of the prickly relationship between Lord Hope

The ballots for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party’s leadership election have been posted to members and few people, I think, have any real idea as to what the result will be. In general terms, as readers know, I’m sympathetic to Murdo Fraser’s analysis of the woes afflicting conservatism in Scotland and unpersuaded that Ruth Davidson’s campaign has been as good as it should have been. These concerns were scarcely assuaged by Ruth’s article in last week’s Scotland on Sunday. Choked with cliches and boilerplate it was a depressingly thin analysis of the state of the party. “We need to change ourselves, not our name” she wrote which is, well,

Regarding Mr Miliband’s hapless interview with BBC Scotland David, like James Kirkup, expresses what is the conventional view in London: But, as James Kirkup notes, the Scottish Labour Party is a serious issue. It is the only check on Alex Salmond, which makes it essential to the future of the union. And it’s important for Labour’s electoral recovery, not that you’d realise that listening to the senior party. As I revealed on Sunday, Labour shadow minister Ivan Lewis displayed extraordinary complacency about Scotland at a fringe event, implying that Labour will return to power in Holyrood as a matter of course, no effort required. Miliband’s ignorance only compounds that sense…

Like most sensible folk I have a grand opinion of Alan Cochrane and, this being the case, alert readers will know that this is by way of a throat-clearing before we move on to the business of suggesting that his latest Daily Telegraph column is a little less persuasive than the Sage of Angus would like it to be. As Alan concludes: It is hard not to sympathise with what Mr Fraser is trying to do. Something dramatic does need to happen to galvanise centre-right supporters in Scotland and the idea of a completely separate party but which is part of an electoral pact with the UK Conservatives in the