Scotland

Scotland deserves better

I knew it was time for me to leave the Scottish Parliament press corps when I was in Deacon Brodie’s Tavern one night and pulled into a game of “name the top ten sexiest MSPs”. On my first day there, September 2000, the journalist next to me was in trouble for headbutting a politician in the pub the night before. It’s an unusual place with antics that make Westminster look like a nunnery: I remember one set of political awards where a Labour MSP drunkenly set fire to the curtains and was imprisoned. I feel sorry for the poor members of the general public who come into contact with these

Alex Massie

A Wee Bit of Culture

Never let it be said that politicians will cling to even the meanest post until the torch and pitchfork brigade come calling. Labour MSP Frank McAveety has stood down from his position as the convenor of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee. And why? Because, during a committee meeting he was heard to say: “There’s a very attractive girl in the second row, dark . . . and dusky. We’ll maybe put a wee word out for her.” Mr McAveety went on: “She’s very attractive looking, nice, very nice, very slim,” before adding: “The heat’s getting to me.” The MSP also said: “She looks kinda . . . she’s got

Made in Scotland, From Girders

Hats-off to the Wall Street Journal for featuring the Amber Nectar of the Gods (Fizzy Pop Division) on their front page yesterday to report on how Barr’s are responding to the latest piece of interference from the meddlers at the Food Standards Agency: For nearly half a century, the man behind “Scotland’s other national drink” has been Mr. Barr. Since 1961, the six-foot-six Mr. Barr has borne the responsibility of blending the Irn-Bru recipe first concocted by his great-grandfather and great-uncle 109 years ago. But these days, Mr. Barr’s drink is threatened. The U.K. Food Standards Agency is pushing British food-and-beverage makers to remove artificial coloring agents that may cause

Painting the town together

This book recounts a terrible story of self-destruction by two painters who, in their heyday, achieved considerable renown in Britain and abroad. Robert Colquhoun (1914-62) and Robert MacBryde (1913-66), both from Scottish working-class families, met in 1932 when they were students at the Glasgow School of Art. From then onwards they were personally and professionally inseparable in their headlong rise to fame and descent downhill. Although both have been the subject of anecdotes and snapshots in many a memoir of the period — all those accounts of Soho and ‘Fitzrovia’ — this is the first full-length study devoted to them, the result of over 20 years’ research. Their early life

Tactical considerations over the timing of the AV referendum

A referendum on AV was the concession that Nick Clegg felt he needed to get a coalition deal with the Tories past his party. But the referendum poses obvious dangers to the coalition, just imagine the sight of Nick Clegg and the leader of the Labour party sharing a platform to denounce the Tories’ ‘reactionary’ opposition to electoral reform.   The Guardian this morning reports that the Lib Dems are pushing for this referendum to take place in May 2011 at the same time as the Scottish and Welsh elections. There is, as the article notes, a huge benefit to the Lib Dems in getting this referendum in early before

Bannockburn Should Be Celebrated

The usually estimable David Maddox has a very strange post up at the Scotsman’s politics blog complaining that Alex Salmond wants to exploit the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn. Apparently: While Bannockburn is a battle which Scots should take historic pride in, seeing off an invading English army which had numerical superiority, it nevertheless is symbolic of anti-English feeling which are rife with the SNP and nationalist movement as a whole. So much for the “positive nationalism” which Mr Salmond claims to espouse. It is difficult to escape the feeling that this will be a year long “hate the English” festival in the run-up to a double election in 2015. This

A Liberal Red Herring

James reports – and since it’s James doing the reporting there’s no reason to doubt him – that some of the strongest opposition to doing a deal with the Tories came from Scottish Lib Dem MPs. Apparently the poor lambs think they could be wiped out if they were tarred with the Tory brush. I assume that they are fretting about the Holyrood elections next year, not the next Westminster election (though of course, all the jockeying and manoevering must be judged in the light of its potential impact on that contest). Because let’s have a look at their Scottish seats: Gordon: LD 36, SNP 22, Labour 20 Aberdeenshire West:

James Forsyth

The Scottish angle

I am told that one of the Lib Dems groups most opposed to doing a deal with the Tories was its Scottish MPs. Their view was that Scotland had voted massively against the Tories and that any party seen as their representatives in Scotland would be massacred. This has set off chatter in Tory circles. There was already irritation that the party has a majority in England and Wales but was still having to compromise on issues that have been devolved to Scotland. But to not be able to make a coalition deal because of your unpopularity north of the border is to add insult to injury.

John Wilkes Rises From His Grave

John Redwood says it is “Time to speak for England” while over at ConservativeHome Paul Goodman argues that this is something which needs to be addressed. As he notes the Tory manifesto does contain a theoretical commitment to answering the West Lothian Question and creating a de facto English parliament. And in theory there’s nothing wrong with that. Quite the contrary in fact. Few people in Scotland, I think, would consider this either unfair or unreasonable. Indeed, if my memory is correct, polling suggests that a majority of Scots think this would be a fair way forward. Certainly, there are excellent arguments for revisiting the Barnett Formula – though Barnett

Alex Massie

Scotland Will Save England From PR

That’s right. There’s a genial irony here. The very same Scottish MPs whose election helped prevent the Conservatives from winning a majority will be the men – and they are mostly men – who will prevent electoral reform. Those English voters who think it unfair that the great phalanx of Labour MPs returned from these chilly northern climes exercise an undue (in their eyes) influence upon the affairs of state might also pause to reflect that the people who will prevent electoral reform may well be those same Scottish Labour members. Not that this stops the deluded left from dreaming of some grand so-called progressive alliance. They’re all at it

Where are Labour’s manners?

For all the feverish political activity in Westiminster today – and beyond the occasional voting reform protest – there’s a strange, impermeable calm to the situation.  Everything is going on behind closed doors, and everyone is remaining relatively tight-lipped.  Signs are, we may have to wait a couple of days before any light breaks through the fog of discussion and counter-discussion.   One thing, though, is already becoming increasingly clear: 13 years of tribalism haven’t done Labour much good when it comes to cross-party negotiations.  There are, of course, the rumours that Gordon Brown had an – ahem – “unconstructive” meeting with Clegg last night.  But I more have in

Cameron Should Also Talk to Alex Salmond

Whither Scotland? Well, apart from Labour regaining the two seats it lost in by-elections not a single seat changed hands north of the border. Indeed there was a swing to Labour and I suspect that Brown and Jim Murphy won votes when they warned that a vote for anyone else was a de facto vote for the Conservatives. Such is life and it’s remarkable how these ancient ghosts still retain the ability to spook the populace. So why should Cameron speak to Salmond? Well, because he should be able to get the SNP to at least abstain on a putative Tory budget. Cameron has already said that the Scottish government’s

The Limits of Cameronism

It stops at the Tweed. Dave was in Glasgow and East Renfreshire yesterday on the Scottish leg of his 36-Hour-Dash-To-Save-the-United-Kingdom but, while symbolically useful, it won’t have done him or his party that much good north of the border. Today’s Scotsman poll puts the Tories on 17% in Scotland. More remarkably, the Scotsman finds that Brown has a +4 approval rating in Scotland while Cameron endures a -2 rating. I can’t help but feel that many of my compatriots are employing a double standard here. As Cameron put it: “Of course it is always frustrating when you are not always getting through.” “I believe in the UK and I will

Brown and the Union

Ben Brogan accepts Labour’s challenge to judge Gordon on substance not style and, unsurprisingly, finds him wanting. But in his critique he also includes this: On the substance of the constitution, he gerrymandered new bodies that turned on Labour and undermined the union. What on earth is he talking about? What are these bodies, how have they been gerrymandered and how have they undermined the Union? I really have no idea. I assume Brogan is talking about the Scotttish parliament but, as an ex-Glasgow Herald man, he must know a) that Brown did not drive devolution, b) that “gerrymandered” is a very strange word to use about an electoral system

The Scottish Question

The other day a wise friend, lamenting the “madness” of the people carried away with Cleggmania, fretted that it all amounts to the beginning of the end. For the Union, I mean. These days, you see, it’s Unionists who are forever whistling an old song and always wondering if it’s for the last time. I didn’t, I admit, quite follow his argument but it had something to do with the Liberals in power, the advent of proportional representation leading eventually and inexorably to an English parliament and thus loosening the ties that bind to the point that they may be severed with a single blow of a Damoclean sword. Or

The Land That Time Forgot

That would be Scotland, of course. Dear old Scotia, meek and mild and quiet as a well-nursed child. There was another YouGov poll released at the weekend and this Scotland on Sunday survey had its own startling findings. To wit: Labour – 40% SNP – 20% Lib Dems – 19% Tories – 16% Others – 5% You read that correctly. After 13 years and the worst fiscal apocalypse in 70 years 40% of my compatriots will still, like so many zombies, endorse the Labour party just as their faither did before them and, god knows, perhaps his faither before him too. True, this poll may slightly under-estimate currrent levels of

Children of Maggie

I was going to say that Labour have gone negative but, actually, their campaign has, for any number of understandable reasons, been negative all along. Still, that reached a new low (or height) this evening with this advert, broadcast in Scotland only: It’s impressively dishonest on many levels, not least because any decisions taken on Scottish NHS or education funding will be made in Edinburgh, not by any Conservative government in London. True, the block grant could be squeezed but this is true regardless of who is in power in London or who’s running Holyrood. Indeed, one could make an argument that for any number of political and symbolic and

Triumph of the will

Alistair Urquhart describes himself as ‘a lucky man as well as an angry man’. Alistair Urquhart describes himself as ‘a lucky man as well as an angry man’. No one who reads his remarkable autobiography will doubt either the phenomenal extent of his good fortune or the extraordinary justification for his anger. Yet his story will be remembered for qualities that are universal rather than personal. At the age of 20, with a job as a warehouseman in Aberdeen, he was called up in 1939 for service in the Gordon Highlanders, and sent to Singapore. When the city suddenly and shockingly fell to the Japanese in December 1941, he was

Stirring Up Exasperation

It’s a strange business this campaigning lark, isn’t it? William Hague was in these parts this morning. I learnt this from his Twitter* feed. He can’t have spent much time in Hawick**, mind you, since he was soon in Edinburgh as part of a day-long tour of nine Scottish constituencies. Tour, of course, vastly overstates matters. Hague is dropping in on constituencies for a few handshakes, a pep talk to local party workers and, if the candidate is lucky, a few photographs for the local papers. A lot of frenetic activity, then, but it’s hard to see how any of it can reasonably be expected to influence voters. William Hague’s

Is Edinburgh University Scotland’s latest disgrace?

Imagine if Durham University were to decide that for courses heavily over-subscribed with qualified applicants it would reserve a small percentage of places for would-be students hailing from within 50 miles* of the university. Would anyone raise an eyebrow? I doubt it. Yet when Edinburgh University adopts precisely this approach – for some of the humanities and, I suspect, medicine – suddenly there are hysterical cries of “racism” and “xenophobia”. Tom Harris MP** [see update]  says this is “shameful” and goes so far as to label the university “an embarrassment to Scotland”. What piffle. It’s not the university that is obsessing about politics or the border here, it’s the likes