Scotland

As the cousins celebrate the most genial holiday of them all, there are many things one for which one should be thankful. Not having a vote in the leadership contest currently gripping the Scottish Labour party comes pretty near the top of the list. Nevertheless and unlike Ed Miliband I can at least name each of the three candidates for this miserable prize. And like Kate Higgins, were I burdened with a vote in this contest, I should vote for Tom Harris. Granted, he will have to find himself a seat at Holyrood at some point but that’s a technical detail which need not concern the rest of us. Granted

Aha, the Spectator’s cover story is gathering pace. If you were tuned into The BBC’s Daily Politics just now, then you will have enjoyed a preview of the terrific scrap this time-shifting proposal could provoke. They had on both Rebecca Harris MP, who is pushing for us to move to Central European Time (CET), and Peter Hitchens, who revealed in his article for us that the government is minded to back the idea (as well as describing Harris as “one of those homogenised, UHT female Tory MPs”). The pair were, of course, mediated by Andrew Neil. We shall try to secure video of the discussion, if possible. But, in the

Michael Kinsley begins his latest Bloomberg column with an observation so old it’s even been made in these parts: If Mitt Romey ever becomes President, it will be because his supporters are convinced that he’s a liar. True enough. Kinsley continues: Romney’s campaign is hoping he gets through the primaries without losing his appeal to independents and moderate Democrats in the general election. Meantime, his attempts to enlist the right are like serving haggis (sheep’s stomach stuffed with oatmeal — yum!) to your distant cousins from Scotland when they visit. You can’t stand the stuff, but they’re supposed to like it. If you can ignore that ignorantly sarcastic “yum!” you’ll

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,

If Murdo Fraser can boast that a bare majority of his colleagues are backing his leadership campaign, Ruth Davidson enjoys the support of many of the party grandees. Indeed with the likes of Michael Ancram and Lords Forsyth and Sanderson in her corner it’s tempting to suggest her campaign amounts to Yesterday’s Men for Tomorrow’s Woman. The best thing Ruth – whom I’ve known for many years – has done in this campaign is pledge to support cutting income tax. Not because there’s any prospect the Tories will be able to deliver this any time soon but because it sends an overdue signal about what the party believes in. It

The unexpectedly interesting struggle to lead the Scottish Tories (no-one is interested in the plight of the Scottish Liberal Democrats) rumbles on. In Manchester this week, Murdo Fraser’s supporters have done their best to look chipper but the fact is that his brave decision to suggest scrapping the party and starting again is beginning to look like a blunder. It is not that Fraser’s analysis is wrong, far from it, merely that asking the Tories to endorse a withering critique of their past and probable future failures is asking more of them than it is reasonable to expect. If Murdo had run an orthodox campaign, his supporters say, he’d have