Alex salmond

The argument about Scottish independence which, it should be said, is not a new one is best understood in terms of the Overton Window. James Overton, an American political scientist, suggested that the general public is only prepared to contemplate a relatively narrow range of political opinions and policies. Those that fall outwith this window of plausibility are discounted; the task for politicians and other advocates is to shift the window so that ideas once considered heretical now appear orthodox common-sense. Overton suggested there were six phases to this process. A idea would move from being unthinkable to radical to acceptable to sensible to popular before, finally, becoming policy. Scottish

This is not as obviously a Question to Which the Answer is No as it may initially seem. The Mayor of London is, in fact, well-placed to play a significant part in the campaign to persuade Scots their interests still lie within the United Kingdom. In the first place, as the titular leader of europe’s greatest city he has no obvious or immediate dog in the fight. Neither Boris’s reputation nor his future will be dented by a Scottish vote for independence. His Prime Ministerial plans – for we all still assume he has such plans – will not suffer if Alex Salmond wins next year’s referendum. They might even benefit

Within the white paper on economic policy in an independent Scotland that was published by Alex Salmond’s government this week there is a liberal economic manifesto trying to get out. The First Minister speaks about using new ‘levers and instruments’ to revive Scotland and that, freed from Westminster control, he might lure businesses by slashing corporation tax, reducing national insurance contributions and cutting air passenger duty. Unfortunately, none of these ideas is likely to get off the page because the SNP has a much more prominent agenda which could not have been better designed to promote economic stagnation. This one promises more generous welfare, a higher minimum wage, renationalisation of

Somehow I managed to miss Iain Martin’s praise for the manner in which David Cameron has “handled” the referendum on Scottish independence. Happily, John Rentoul has prompted me to take a keek at Iain’s article which, somewhat uncharacteristically, concludes that the Prime Minister has “played a blinder”. This, as Mr Rentoul cautions, is premature praise. We are asked to believe that Cameron has pursued a policy of masterly inactivity. It is also suggested that securing a single-question referendum was a masterstroke rather than, well, the obvious outcome of a negotiating process between Edinburgh and London that was much less dramatic, and much less important, than everyone agreed at the time to

One of the odder elements of the current energy debate at present is that the political party that spends the most time talking about energy – that’s the SNP by the way – is strangely reluctant to chase the opportunities afforded by the imminent shale gas revolution. It’s a subject I consider in a column for The Scotsman today: Scotland’s oil resources are a vital national asset. Everyone, I think, knows this. If there were no remaining oil reserves waiting to be exploited in the North Sea, the economic case for independence would be severely weakened. Oil is a cushion and a comfort blanket. But the Nationalist’s determination to make

A novice poker player quickly learns – or had better quickly learn – that strength often connotes weakness and weakness is a reliable indicator of strength. But as the stakes increase and the level of play becomes more sophisticated such elementary tells can be misleading. They are false friends in the land of the double and triple bluff. So a novice poker player might conclude that David Cameron’s refusal to debate against Alex Salmond is a sign of weakness. A slightly more experienced player would think this weakness too obvious to be true and conclude that Cameron is holding better cards than he is indicating. And it is true: with

What price a Scotsman’s vote? About £500 apparently. Beneath a headline claiming ‘New poll gives Yes campaign hope’ The Scotsman reports that support for independence, as measured by ICM, rises to the giddy heights of 47 per cent if voters are told that they will be £500 a year better off in an independent Scotland. If this seems a disappointingly mercenary reason for voting Yes the same poll finds that many supporters of independence have their price. Only 18 per cent favour independence if, hypothetically, it were to leave you £500 a year worse off. The Incorruptible 18 per cent! Almost everyone else, it seems, has a price. Upon such things does the

The First Minister of Scotland is masterful at mixing anti-English rhetoric, rose-tinted recollections of Scottish history and no gloves politicking. When he does it right, it can be devastating. History is at the heart of his campaign for Scottish independence in the run up to the referendum, so I was surprised to see how quiet he is today over an important point in his nation’s heritage. How come the Scottish government are silent over today’s anniversary of the Battle of Flodden. Where is the usual fanfare? Could it be because the invasion of England cost James IV of Scotland his life in 1513, taking with him most of the Scottish

On Sunday an opinion poll was just a poll. Nothing to be too excited by. Unreliable too. The real poll – the one that counts – is still a year away. So put not your faith in numbers. Disappointment that way lies. On Monday the mood in the Scottish nationalist camp changed. Opinion polls now offered a persuasive and necessary reminder that Scotland’s on the march. A march that ends in freedom and liberty and whisky next September as an ancient country reasserts her prerogatives  and takes here rightful place in the family of nations once again. Polls are pure dead brilliant, don’t you know? From which you will gather

A paper with the title Scottish Independence: Issues and Questions; Regulation, Supervision, Lender of Last Resort and Crisis Management is not one liable to set pulses racing on the streets of Auchtermuchty. Or anywhere else, for that matter. Nevertheless it is a matter of some importance. The paper, published by the David Hume Institute, was written by Professor Brian Quinn and reported upon by Bill Jamieson in today’s Scotsman. According to Quinn, who is an expert of some standing in these matters, a currency union between Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom would – or at least has the potential to be – sub-optimal. Actually we might already suspect that’s

Here we go again. It’s time for an English parliament! Actually, it’s time for a new Act of Union! Says who? Says Michael Fabricant in today’s Telegraph. Mark Wallace at ConservativeHome agrees.  English votes for English laws!  Well, fine. It’s a respectable, even laudable, view. But, as we shall see, it is not a very conservative view at all. It may be rational but that alone should be make Tories sceptical of its merits. At best the creation of an “English parliament” within Westminster solves one small anomaly at the cost of creating another, much larger, one. In any case, Fabricant has his history wrong. For instance, he writes that: My constituents see their health and education services voted

Until now, television coverage of Scotland’s independence referendum has largely been confined to news bulletins and specialist, late night, political programmes unwatched by most of the general public. In that sense, then, the campaign has hardly actually begun. It has not yet found a mass audience. But it will and moving the campaign to prime-time will change it too. That process began last night as STV broadcast the first episode of a three part documentary titled Road to Referendum (viewers in England can watch it here). It offered a potted political and social history of Scotland from 1945 to 1974. (The next episode will focus on the Thatcher Dragon and

The Scottish government published a paper on the national economy today that, according to Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, makes the case for independence. You can read the pamphlet here or the BBC’s summary of it here. Most of it was relatively uncontroversial. As Salmond himself said “even” Unionists agree Scotland could survive and perhaps even prosper as an independent nation state. It would be depressing if this were not the case after 300 years of Union. But since we all – or most of us, anyway – agree with that one wonders why so many nationalists continue to argue as though anyone who disagrees with them (on just about