Scotland

Because I spent the weekend moving house and being depressed by events in Cardiff I did not attend the Scottish Conservative’s spring conference in Edinburgh. A dereliction of journalistic duty, perhaps, but also, well, life takes over sometimes. In truth, I didn’t worry about missing the conference. Attending these things can be dangerous. Like journalism, politics attracts a grim number of copper-bottomed, ocean-going shits but also, like journalism again, a greater number of decent, public-spirited, optimistic folk than you might imagine. Most politicians, most of the time, are in the game for most of the right reasons. Speaking to these people has its uses but, also, its dangers. Before you

Scotland will get more powers – including control over taxes – if Scots vote No in September. That was the message David Cameron took to the Scottish Conservative Party at its annual conference in Edinburgh today. The Prime Minister has come under fire from the Scottish Nationalists who have claimed that the only way Scots can guarantee more powers is to vote Yes. In a clear attempt to undermine this argument, the Prime Minister went further than he has ever done before by promising to devolve more power from Westminster to Holyrood if Scots vote No. He said: ‘The Nationalists want people to believe that this is the end of the line

Well, yes, Hamish Macdonell is correct. A coherent devo-max option could win the referendum for Unionists. Some of us, ahem, have been arguing that for years. There were, of course, good reasons for insisting that the referendum vote be a simple Yes/No affair. A single question cuts to the heart of the issue and, notionally, should produce a clear outcome. Nevertheless it also greatly increased the risk – or prospect, if you prefer – of a Yes vote. A multi-option referendum would have killed a Yes vote. But if Hamish is correct I am not, alas, so sure the same can be said of Comrades Forsyth and Nelson. James writes

The longer the Scottish referendum campaign goes on, the more I fear for the long-term future of the Union. I suspect that the pro-Union campaign will win this September, but the way in which they will do this is storing up problems for the future. The pro-Union campaign has, so far, concentrated on two messages: the dangers of independence and the fact that there’ll be more devolution if the Scots vote no to independence. These tactics will help with this September’s referendum—indeed Hamish Macdonell argues persuasively that a ‘devo plus’ offer would deliver victory. But strategically they are storing up problems for the future. Gordon Brown is today proposing a

Another day, another hole blown in Alex Salmond’s case for breaking up Britain. The IFS has today published its estimates (based on the OBR’s) for Scottish oil and gas revenues, and they’re less than half those of the SNP administration in Edinburgh. Salmond forecast oil and gas revenues of between £6.8 billion and £7.9 billion in 2016-17. The IFS puts it at £3.3 billion. Salmond’s best-case scenario for 2017-18 has Scotland with a deficit of 1.0 per cent of GDP; the IFS’s figures suggest that’ll be closer to 3.6 per cent of GDP. A country like Britain can ride out such fluctuations, but Salmond may find he’s swapping rule from

‘The cyber-nat activity is disgraceful. They will trash anyone who disagrees with them. Their intention is to make people keep their heads down. Salmond could stop it, but he doesn’t choose to,’ said Alistair Darling, leader of the Better Together campaign, last month. Supporters of Scottish nationalism have dominated the web for the last five years, slinging abuse and hatred at anyone who dares to speak in favour of the Union. They began in the Scottish newspapers’ online comment sections, honed their craft via email and found full voice with the advent of social media. Twitter is the cesspool of choice for the ‘cyber-nat’ community. Last year Ceilidh Watson, a

Today’s Cabinet meeting in Aberdeen, now underway, has given ministers plenty of opportunity to stare earnestly at Scottish things while trying to make the case for the Union. Here are some of Mr Steerpike’s favourites.   All captions gratefully received in the comments…

Ask any election strategist and they’ll tell you that momentum is everything. For the past 18 months, the No campaign has had all the momentum in the referendum debate. The Yes camp were becalmed, the No side had everything going for it and (let’s be honest) there was more than a hint of complacency on the unionist side. Well that there was should have been blown out of the water by what has happened over the last couple of weeks. Subtly, almost imperceptibly, the ground has shifted in the independence debate. The Yes camp has not bounced into a lead or anything like that, but it has started to make progress. A

I took part in a documentary about Scottishness a few weeks ago, and it wasn’t bad at all. I mused, mainly, on my own border-hopping, fretful-about-independence Scottish-Britishness, and a decent number of people got in touch afterwards to say I’d been speaking for them, too. Others were more cross, but interestingly so. One thing about the whole experience bugs me, though. That was the way they had me sit in a swanky Scottish restaurant in Belgravia and made out like I belonged there. It’s not that you don’t get Scots in Belgravia. Most will probably own castles back in Scotland, too, though. When they move to Belgravia, they do so

Stewart Hosie, the SNP’s finance spokesman at Westminster, said something unwittingly revealing last night. Taking part in the latest of BBC Scotland’s referendum debates (you can catch it here), he observed that: There is a plan from the Scottish government and the Yes side… What we don’t have is a plan a from the No people about what happens in the event of a No vote. So I want them to explain to you today when are they going to cut £4bn from Scotland’s budget? […] There is precisely nothing from the No camp to explain what they’re going to do to Scotland in the event of a no vote.

A recording of a conversation between Alex Salmond and George Osborne has been leaked* to The Spectator. An edited extract follows: Alex Salmond: Scotland and England are different countries. So different, in fact, that we should no longer live together. Our interests have diverged and so must our futures. George Osborne: I do not think that is the case. Nor, by the way, do I hope it is. Alex Salmond: But it is! George Osborne: [wearily] Perhaps you are right. Very well; if our interests and futures diverge then perhaps, as you suggest, present arrangements will no longer prove as satisfactory as once we thought they were. Alex Salmond: I knew

Personally, I’m now waiting for the Queen to get involved. After all, there’s not much left of Alex Salmond’s independence-but-not-independence blueprint that is left intact. First it was his ‘we’re going to share the pound in a Sterling zone’ claim. That was ruled out by George Osborne (and Ed Balls and Danny Alexander) last week. Then it was his ‘independence in Europe’ claim, and that was dismantled by Jose Manuel Barroso today. The only pillar of Salmond’s grand ‘everything’s-going-to-remain-the-same-only-different’ scheme which remains in place is a shared monarchy. So it can’t be long before Her Majesty also intervenes and says: ‘Do you know what? I don’t much like the idea of being