Alex Massie

The first thing to be said about the Institute for Fiscal Studies' latest assessment of an independent Scotland's long-term fiscal well-being is that the IFS's assessments of the UK's long-term vitality are also pretty gloomy. Neither is terribly pretty. Much the same, of course, could be said of France and, in fact, most other western countries. An Age of Plenty is being replaced by an Era of Making Do. Reality stings. So the difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK is one of degree not kind. Moreover, it would be wise to remember that these are projections, not predictions, and that they are largely based on present trends and assumptions. These have a habit of changing. So, for that matter, does policy.

Somehow I managed to miss Iain Martin's praise for the manner in which David Cameron has "handled" the referendum on Scottish independence. Happily, John Rentoul has prompted me to take a keek at Iain's article which, somewhat uncharacteristically, concludes that the Prime Minister has "played a blinder". This, as Mr Rentoul cautions, is premature praise. We are asked to believe that Cameron has pursued a policy of masterly inactivity. It is also suggested that securing a single-question referendum was a masterstroke rather than, well, the obvious outcome of a negotiating process between Edinburgh and London that was much less dramatic, and much less important, than everyone agreed at the time to pretend it was.

You should never, these days, under-estimate peoples' ability to be outraged - outraged, I tells you - by the most innocuous event. Never. There are, after all, a depressing number of chippy morons in this country. Even so, I confess to being surprised by the hostility with which plans to commemorate the First World War have been met. At least in some quarters. I had thought, naively it is now clear, this commemoration would be uncontroversial, what with the First World War being, by any reckoning, an episode of some seriousness and consequence. That's hardly to say that the war's arguments have been settled. Far from it. Interpreting or understanding the First World War remains a complicated, delicate, business.

Oh for the love of God, he's back. Russell Brand, Britain's sophomoric revolutionary-in-chief, has written another call-to-something. At least this one is shorter than his previous manifesto. Alas it makes no more sense. What is interesting about Brand is not novel and what is novel is not interesting. Tom Chivers is right to note that: But those of you who are bothered, the Russell Brands and Occupy Wherevers of the world, don't pretend that the political system doesn't offer anything for you. It does. It offers lots and lots of things. The trouble is, most people don't want it.

It is, of course, beyond dismal that the Boston Red Sox won the World Series last night. The only upside to this is that it ensured the St Louis Cardinals, the National League's most pompous franchise, lost. It is a very meagre upside. The Boston Red Sox: insufferable in defeat, even worse in victory. It comes as no surprise, frankly, that Ed Miliband is a devoted member of what is teeth-grindingly referred to as the Red Sox Nation. Dan Hodges and James Kirkup each salute Ed's willingness to embrace a cause as unfashionable as baseball. Why, it's charmingly authentic! Better a proper baseball nerd than a fake soccer fan. There is, I concede, something to this.

It is a good thing that government ministers come to Scotland sometimes. It is a bad thing that they insist on opening their mouths when they do. Earlier this year we endured the spectacle of Philip Hammond making an arse of himself; today it has been Theresa May's turn to make one wish cabinet ministers would, just occasionally, contemplate the virtue of silence. The Home Secretary was in Edinburgh to warn that an independent Scotland would be a dangerous place. It would, in fact, be left out in the cold. It would not, you see, be part of the English-speaking-world's Five Eyes intelligence-poolling network. The UK, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand will continue to share information. Little Caledonia will be left on the outside, all forlorn, friendless and at risk.

So, I recommend a trip to Sri Lanka. Wonderful place. Go now before everyone else does. Being (almost entirely) offline for a couple of weeks is a blessing too. But even good things come to an end. Which brings me to Russell Brand. Fair play to the New Statesman. Their decision to ask Brand to "edit" an issue has brought them all the publicity they could have hoped for. It would be churlish to begrudge the Staggers that. Celebrity sells. Or, at least, wins attention. Which is fine. Plenty of people seem quite enthused by Brand. Even if they disagree with his diagnosis of contemporary ills they enjoy the sight of a "professional commentariat" that is supposedly discombobulated by Brand's invasion of their turf.

Say this for the government, they are at least consistent. Their contemptible lobbying bill is now followed by their equally contemptible immigration bill. Sometimes you think that if it weren't for Michael Gove and for the fact that David Cameron isn't Ed Miliband there'd be few reasons to support this government at all. And this immigration bill really is contemptible. Politics is often a question of signalling and what this bill signals, alas, is that the government prefers the presumption of guilt to the presumption of innocence. It is a bill that turns ordinary Britons into snitches for central government. A bill that will make life more inconvenient for millions of residents while, almost certainly, achieving few, if any of its aims.

There is something contemptible about Nick Clegg's latest piece of handwringing. the Deputy Prime Minister - a position that, at least notionally, carries some clout - complains that he'd very much like to do something about Britain's antiquated drug laws but, well, he can't because it's hard and, besides, the Tories are such rotters. Clegg could have made this a cause. He could have done something about this before now. He could, at the very least, have talked about the War on Drugs rather more than he has. He could even have noted, frequently, that David Cameron has changed his own tune on these matters, abandoning the sensible attitude he once had. He has, instead, chosen not to. That's fine and his prerogative.

If you ever want a laugh, read the websites of Britain's collection of far-right political groupings. It is worth doing so if only to remind yourself that the "threat" from right-wing extremists is often rather exaggerated. These people's relationship with reality is neither firm enough to threaten public order nor coherent enough to win them more than a (relative) handful of deluded followers. Keep an eye on them, by all means, but let's not make them out to be more than they are. After all, whenever the far-right does enjoy some success that success quickly evaporates. The public, when it has a chance to see these people for what they really are, tends to disapprove of the cut of their respective jibs. And rightly so.

First things first: a reshuffle in which only one cabinet minister is sacked redeployed is a reshuffle in name only. It means the action - if you can call it that - is confined to the replacement of ministers of whom most of you have never heard with other MPs of whom you are most likely equally ignorant. A day of low drama in Westminster then. Secondly, ejecting Michael Moore from the Scotland Office is not, I think, a reflection on his performance. If he was an accidental Secretary of State whose elevation to the cabinet was the result of David Laws' disgrace, Moore still carried out his duties diligently - a very Michael Moore word, by the way - and without fuss or drama. Alistair Carmichael will, we are told, bring a more combative approach to the Scotland Office.