Scotland

In Scotland’s grittier pubs, a simple rule has long applied: no football colours and no talking about politics. With enough drink, talking about either can lead to violence — and pint glasses are expensive to replace. With an ordinary general election, the prohibition is easy to obey. The wrong buggers might well win, but they can easily be removed at the next election. A referendum, however, is different. It’s not just temporary — it’s for life. And like life, it’s unavoidable. Socially, as well as politically, there is no hiding place. The Prime Minister is, it seems, experiencing the referendum effect for himself. He can quite happily chat to his

Today is Independence Day, the 24 March, the day Alex Salmond nominated as his ‘independence day’ following a Yes vote. Today’s edition of The National, the newspaper dedicated to the cause of Scottish independence, imagines what might have been. But one rather important story is missing. Yesterday, the Institute for Fiscal Studies updated its forecasts on what an independent Scotland would look like. The result: it’d have the worst deficit in the developed world (see graphic, below). In his official forecasts Alex Salmond envisaged raising up to £7.5 billion of oil revenue. This was before the oil price plunge. Last weeks’ Budget revealed the actual amount: zero. (The graph, below, shows the

Politics, as we know, makes the strangest of bedfellows. Step forward Tam Dalyell, Laird of The Binns and erstwhile Father of the House, and the editor of this estimable organ. In the space of this last week I have heard/read both sources refer to Scotland having a one-party state in the shape of the Scottish National Party; the former at Glasgow’s Aye Write! Book Festival and the latter in an editorial on Donald Trump. I would have expected better from both! At the last count there were certainly a handful of countries to whom that description could properly be applied. North Korea and the People’s Republic of China spring to

With the exception of Gordon Brown – and he was always so dour it was impossible to tell what he was thinking – there hasn’t been a Prime Minister in living memory who has actually enjoyed coming to Scotland. Margaret Thatcher became spiky and aggressive when she crossed the border – well, more spiky and aggressive than normal. John Major seemed to regard it as a duty he had to endure, while Tony Blair made no pretence about it: he just hated it. David Cameron, though, has always tried hard when in Scotland. Perhaps, deep down, he would consider it ill-mannered not to be as engaging and courteous as he

It wasn’t quite David Cameron and his down-to-the-wire talks with the EU leaders, but it’s as close as we get in Scotland. For the last eight months, the Scottish and UK governments have been trying to secure agreement over the financial settlement which will underpin the new tranche of powers to come to Holyrood – the so-called ‘fiscal framework’. After weeks of torpor and inaction suddenly, this afternoon, we got a breakthrough. Nicola Sturgeon announced the deal to the Scottish Parliament this afternoon, confirming that everything had come down to one crucial, central point. The Scottish Government favoured one model to work out Scotland’s funding from the Treasury for the future and the

Household incomes have finally topped the levels they were at just after the financial crash. The average household in Britain now earns £24,300 a year, above the last peak in 2009. The picture looks rosy, with rising employment and low inflation helping income growth rise. But is there more to it than meets the eye?  It certainly seems that way if you live in London. Although those in the capital have enjoyed a healthy rise of nearly three per cent in their household incomes since the downturn, when you factor in housing costs, most Londoners are actually still losing out, according to the figures put out today by the Resolution

All Westminster might be agog with the latest shenanigans vis-a-vis the got-to-happen-at-some-point EU referendum but most sentient folk in this blessed land are magnificently uninterested in the matter. Not even this morning’s Telegraph splash – ‘Attorney General may back Brexit’  – can stir them from their slumber. At best the majors will have asked, over their E&B this morning, ‘Who is the Attorney General these days?’ North of the border, matters are just as quiet even though another great question remains unsettled. As yet, you see, there is no agreement on the terms of a ‘fiscal framework’ which will underpin the relationship between the finances of the devolved parliament in Edinburgh and the

Last week Kezia Dugdale, the leader of the Scottish Labour party, ventured south to the Imperial capital to brief the shadow cabinet on her party’s prospects in the forthcoming elections to the Scottish Parliament. Lucky her. According to the New Statesman’s George Eaton, Dugdale’s presentation was greeted with great enthusiasm. It was, one member of the shadow cabinet declared, ‘brilliant’ while another said Dugdale had ‘blown away’ her South British colleagues. Ominously, Eaton reported that ‘After loudly applauding her, frontbenchers left vowing to do more to help their colleagues north of the border (at least one shadow cabinet minister will visit each week)’. To which the only sensible response is, Jeez, hasn’t Kezia suffered enough already? The very

Like an old friend you do not actually like very much, the Scottish government’s Offensive Behaviour at Football Act will not go away. It is five years since this offensive piece of legislation was passed and time has done nothing to lessen either its absurdity or its offensiveness. To recap for readers who, for doubtless honourable reasons, have not kept up with one of the more extraordinary speech-curbing measures passed by any UK legislature in recent years, the bill’s premise is that creating new kinds of thought and speech crime can eliminate thoughts and speech deemed offensive. (Some past reflections on this execrable bill can be found here, here and here.)

One of the things that worries me about a vote to leave the European Union (which I should like to cast) is that it might cause Scotland to vote to leave the United Kingdom. There’s not much point in ‘getting our country back’ if we then lose it, although I suppose English nationalists would not agree with my definition of ‘our country’. But the SNP threat needs thinking round carefully. First, a threat is not a fact. Second, it cannot be right to disaggregate the United Kingdom vote in a United Kingdom referendum. It will certainly be interesting to find out how Scots voted, but if they vote differently from

Last year, the United Kingdom came within 384,000 votes of destruction. A referendum designed to crush the Scottish nationalists instead saw them win 45 per cent of the vote — and become stronger than ever. Since then, the SNP has taken almost every Scottish seat in the Commons and is preparing for another landslide in the Holyrood election next year — giving Nicola Sturgeon the power to threaten a second referendum. We may be just a few years away from a second battle for Britain. In her short time as First Minister, Sturgeon has established herself as one of the most formidable politicians in Europe. She has raised a rebel army that

Yesterday a new Scottish opinion poll reported that 58 percent of voters intend to endorse SNP candidates when the choosing time comes for next year’s Holyrood elections. By any reasonable measure this is excessive, even extravagant. But there we have it. As it happens, I would be surprised if the SNP polled that well on election day itself but we live in a time of astonishment so even the previously impossible can no longer be reckoned entirely improbable. And, besides, what is the alternative? Nicola Sturgeon’s greatest strength is that no-one else – or at least no-one outside her own party – can be thought a plausible First Minister. Everyone