Scotland

Commenting on this post, “Robert the Bruce 2.0” complains: Scotland has its own Government, Parliament, Courts, Legal System, Royal Household, Great Offices of State, Flag, Banner, Badge, Anthem, Language, Lingo, Sense of Identity, Country and Football Team. It is a Nation that is more than capable of standing on its own feet. Yet now, under Devolution and ‘ Devolution 2.0’ it is treated as a semi-autonomous and semi-detached region of the UK. In a constitutional settlement that is patronising and insulting. If independence is good enough for the Irish, the Israelis and the Icelandic it should be good enough for Scotland too. Unless, of course, the people of Scotland consider

There are precious few heroes in Ireland today and no gods either. But not all the losers are Irish either. Some are Scottish. Chief among them, Alex Salmond and the Scottish National Party. Not because an independent Scotland would necessarily have been destroyed by the financial tsunami that swept the globe (though, to put it mildly, it would have been “difficult” to cope and might well have required a humiliating begging-trip to London) but because an independent Scotland would have made some of the same mistakes and unfortunate assumptions that have helped cripple poor Hibernia. Europe, you see, was an important part of the SNP’s slow rise to power. At

I gather this banner was seen at Celtic Park yesterday. Notice how these clowns can’t even spell. I wonder, too, what the club’s chairman, Dr John Reid, thinks of this sort of caper. For the rest of us, it kind of leaves one thinking that if there isn’t a refereeing conspiracy out to get Celtic (the buggers won 9-0 yesterday) then perhaps there should be? Then again: why give them the satisfaction? Also worth noting: this sort of dreary “protest” is so familiar that, like the 90-minute (at best) bigotry at Ibrox, it barely warrants much of a mention in the press.

The main sufferers of this admittedly rare condition are London-based Scots. Fraser, I’m afraid, seems to have come down with a case of SDS if this post is anything to go by. The murder of Linda Norgrove is a ghastly, horrid business that might, one would think, be considered sufficiently awful to be above or beyond politics. Apparently not. I see nothing wrong far less anything political in the First Minister issuing a statement about the murder of one of his compatriots in Afghanistan. Criticising Salmond for making cheap political capital out of such an awful business is itself a cheap journalistic shot.  Consider this: if Linda Norgrove had been

David, while one should never discount incompetence as the guiding force behind anything the Scottish Conservative & Unionist party proposes in this instance I fancy indifference – rather than self-interest or incompetence – is behind Aunt Annabel’s apparent admission that the party won’t take a view on the Alternative Vote. At present elections in Scotland are run using four different electoral systems: FPTP (Westminster), Additional Member System (Holyrood), Single Transferable Vote (council elections), Party List (European Elections). In other words, there’s precisely nothing sacrosanct about FPTP and, indeed, the case against it has been conceded at both the Holyrood and council level. This being so, what’s the point of pretending

Blimey. Here’s a turn-up for the books: in a bid to avoid being thought Europe’s Most Useless Political Party the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party has done something sensible. They have decided that running an election campaign with the unofficial slogan Vote for Us, We’re Only Interested in Opposition is a dumb idea. Hence, as Scotland on Sunday reports, the party is preparing (albeit and as usual tentatively) to take the bold step of declaring that they will countenance the idea of serving in government at Holyrood. Of course, the Tories would still require an invitation to the dance if they’re to sit in government in Edinburgh and it may

Pete mentions Tim Montgomerie’s suggestion that a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition at Holyrood could be the most likely result at next year’s Holyrood elections. As Tim puts it: One thing I’ve worried about for sometime is the implications for the Coalition of bad results for the LibDems in next year’s Scottish elections but it is perfectly possible that Labour – like in 1999 and 2003 – will go into another Holyrood coalition with the LibDems. This double coalition deal could be an important tool for Clegg to keep his Left happy and for the new Labour leader to open the door to a future LibLab deal at Westminster. Well, anything is