Alex Massie

A mischievous question, I know, but one prompted by Janan Ganesh's latest Financial Times column. It is eight years since David Cameron became leader of the Conservative party and three and a half since he became Prime Minister. He may only have 18 months left in either post. We know - or think we know - a lot about Cameron. He is what he seems to be. Decent fellow, capable in a crisis, unruffled. A better-than-average product of his class and background. Thought he should be Prime Minister because he reckoned he'd "be good at it". And yet the thought nags: what is he for? What is Cameron's ministry about? As Ganesh says, the Prime Minister lacks a project. The economy is George Osborne's infant, education belongs to Michael Gove.

If I were to say that I admire Charles Moore tremendously you would know there must be a 'but' looming towards the end of the paragraph. Nevertheless I do admire Charles Moore an awful lot. His column is a weekly treat much enjoyed by all sensible folk. If you don't do so already you should subscribe to ensure you never miss his weekly epistles from High Toryville. But... I am not persuaded by his suggestion that people in the Republic of Ireland are worried by the prospect of Scotland voting to become an independent state. He says "most people" do not want Scotland to vote for independence. I daresay this is the case, at least amongst those folk favoured with Charles's company but it still strikes me as an odd conclusion.

Danny Finkelstein's column in the Times today is characteristically elegant and incisive. In politics as in life he writes, "whatever apparent power and temptation lies with the adoption of the identity of victimhood it is ultimately destructive". Since Finkelstein is pondering lessons that may be drawn from the life of Nelson Mandela it may not be immediately obvious that the conclusion he reaches has some relevance to the campaign for Scottish independence. I better elaborate, then. Much has been said about how and why Unionists need a better "narrative" when making the case for Scotland as part of the United Kingdom. This is true. There is a need for a positive, optimistic, case for the Union. This is also true.

I know this is not exactly breaking news but Gerry Adams is a vile man. Since no-one devotes much attention to Northern Ireland these days it is easy to forget this. Easy to file Adams and his Sinn Fein comrades into a musty drawer marked Ancient History. But the past is not another country. In Dublin this week the Smithwick Tribunal's report into alleged Garda collusion with the IRA in the murders of RUC officers Harry Breen and Robert Buchanan in 1989 was finally published. The report confirmed long-held suspicions that the IRA had a mole or, less dramatically, a simple informant inside the Garda station in Dundalk, County Louth.

Hats-off to James Kirkup for noticing that Goldman Sachs have suggested they would "drastically" cut their UK workforce (and operations) should Britain decide to leave the European Union. That is the view of Michael Sherwood, the fellow responsible for running Goldman's european operations. I am sure eurosceptics will dismiss this as the usual scaremongering just as Scottish nationalists dismiss warnings that some businesses (RBS?) might shift their operations south in the event Scotland votes for independence next year. This is but one of the many ways in which the european and Scottish questions overlap or dovetail with one another. Perhaps it is only scaremongering! But what if it isn't?

It's bad enough being lectured by politicians from Edinburgh or even London. That, I suppose, is to be expected however. Irritating but normal. It's rather different when foreigners - real foreigners - decide to interfere in our own constitutional rammy. It smacks of impertinence. When that intervention comes from the leader - to put it in Sun-speak - of a nation of donkey-slaying, rock-coveting bankrupts it's even less respectable. So the suggestion made yesterday by Mariano Rajoy, Prime Minister of what we still call Spain, that an independent Scotland would, by creating a new country, need to reapply for EU membership is hackle-raising stuff. You're tempted to reply jog on, pal. Of course Rajoy's remarks are not about Scotland at all. They are about Catalonia.

The argument about Scottish independence which, it should be said, is not a new one is best understood in terms of the Overton Window. James Overton, an American political scientist, suggested that the general public is only prepared to contemplate a relatively narrow range of political opinions and policies. Those that fall outwith this window of plausibility are discounted; the task for politicians and other advocates is to shift the window so that ideas once considered heretical now appear orthodox common-sense. Overton suggested there were six phases to this process. A idea would move from being unthinkable to radical to acceptable to sensible to popular before, finally, becoming policy. Scottish independence is currently somewhere between acceptable and sensible.

This is not as obviously a Question to Which the Answer is No as it may initially seem. The Mayor of London is, in fact, well-placed to play a significant part in the campaign to persuade Scots their interests still lie within the United Kingdom. In the first place, as the titular leader of europe's greatest city he has no obvious or immediate dog in the fight. Neither Boris's reputation nor his future will be dented by a Scottish vote for independence. His Prime Ministerial plans - for we all still assume he has such plans - will not suffer if Alex Salmond wins next year's referendum. They might even benefit from such a result, not least because David Cameron's reputation - and legacy - will be crippled by a Yes vote.

Another outbreak of the Tory Modernising Wars! What larks! Nick Boles's speech to Bright Blue, a newish think tank for metropolitan swells folk who think the Tory message needs rethinking, has, as it was designed to, caused a minor rumpus. Rod Liddle thinks Boles is off his head. Iain Martin is kinder but concludes the Cameroons are still obsessed with fighting the wrong battles. Other commentators are gentler still, conceding that Boles is asking the right question but that he's searching for answers in the wrong places. Nick Denys and, to some extent, Paul Goodman fall into this camp. On the other hand, Ian Birrell and Matt d'Ancona essentially agree with Boles while James Kirkup concludes that Boles has inadvertently conceded the failure of the Cameroon modernisation project.