Alex Massie

There are times, I confess, when I wonder about politicians. They are a rum breed and it still seems possible to rise to quite elevated heights without possessing very much of an idea about anything. Consider the cabinet minister quoted in this Telegraph article: Mr Cameron won the leadership promising to modernise the party, but one Cabinet minister said it should now “move on” to more “traditional” Conservative issues such as welfare reform and immigration control. “The 'toxic’ issue has been neutralised,” the minister said. “Now we can move on to the red meat Conservative issues.

Mike Denness, who died yesterday, could credibly claim to be the finest Scots-reared cricketer of the past 50 years. That is not, at least not quite, as small a claim as you may think. Cricket in Scotland is a game of perseverance played on the edge of possibility. Even the most devoted flanneled-fool sometimes wonders if all the shivering and frustration is really worth it. In a nation scarcely over-freighted with sunshine of either the figurative or literal variety, cricketers cannot avoid being optimists. The climate and, it must be said, the culture is against them. Few things vex the Scottish cricketer more than the accusation that there is something suspicious about being a cricketer in Scotland.

Like Iain Martin, I was not sure a full ceremonial funeral was quite appropriate for Margaret Thatcher. That is not to dismiss her achievements or her significance, merely to wonder if such pomp was wholly suitable for a figure who has proved as divisive in death as she was in life. And yet, the majesty of the service at St Paul's worked its magic. Combining grandeur with simplicity it said simply this: Margaret Hilda Thatcher mattered.  It is hard to think of other non-Royal Britons who will be afforded, far less merit, this kind of send-off. I thought the Bishop of London's address splendid. It deftly punctured some of the myths that surround the Thatcher legacy. She was, in truth, always more complicated than either her admirers or her enemies admitted.

It is 34 years since Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. Coincidentally, she entered Downing Street 34 years after Clement Attlee won the 1945 general election.  The whole history of post-war Britain is cleaved, neatly, in two. If the first half of that story was dominated by a left-led consensus, the second has been a triumph for liberalism. We have lived in an era of liberal emancipation and are much the better for it. Mrs Thatcher, of course, was a great economic liberal. Her approach to economics, guided by Smith, Hayek and Friedman, stressed the importance of individual endeavour. Remove the dead hand of state control and Britain could flourish again. The many individual invisible hands of the market would improve our collective lot. Decline was not inevitable.

Politics is at least partially a matter of perspective. The same object can look very different depending upon the angle from which it is viewed. Which brings me to Brother Forsyth's latest column. I bow to no-one in my admiration for James's reporting and astute analysis. Nor do I dispute much of what he says in his analysis of David Cameron's legacy. No, what's interesting is what isn't there. The Union. I know. Scots go on and on and on about this stuff. It is true that the Caledonian gene is strong on self-absorption.

So, an independent Scotland. Neoliberal nirvana or Scandinavian paradise? True, these are not the only choices available but as a useful shorthand for the size of the state and its optimal take of national revenues it will do for the time being. That is, should taxes rise, fall or remain much as they are at present? What external pressures will hamper Edinburgh's ability to set its own course, free as the wind? And, for that matter, whose dreams are most likely to be confounded and whose worst fears most liable to be misplaced? That was the subject of an article I wrote for the Scotsman at the weekend. The gist of it: The battle for independence has entered a new phase.

Alea iacta est. And not before time. More than a year ago and at the outbreak of this independence referendum virus I wrote an article for this magazine arguing that, crikey, there was just a hint that the Conservative and Unionist party might become relevant in Scotland again. Or, at any rate, there was an opportunity for them to do so. You see, the referendum offered Tories a chance to press the case for something they should have embraced long ago: proper fiscal autonomy within the Union. This might satisfy Scots' evident thirst for real Home Rule without needing to go to all the trouble of winding up the Union after 300 years. And - let joy be allowed to gambol briefly in the winter sunshine - Ruth Davidson today has moved towards embracing this logic.

So we have our date with destiny. Scotland will march to the polls nine days after the 501st anniversary of the Battle of Flodden. September, 18th 2014. There are fewer than 600 days to go. And already the spin is starting. Stephen Noon, that smart nationalist strategist, is first out the blocks with a post asking who would stand to benefit from a No vote? His answer should not surprise you. Noon thinks David Cameron's own re-election campaign will be boosted if Scotland says no to independence: Labour and Tories may share a platform and campaign together before the vote, but as soon as the votes are counted there would be only one person in the No victory spotlight. Peer into that future and what do you see? It's David Cameron, UK PM, alone on the winner’s podium.

Let us begin with a statement upon which everyone can agree: Aspiration Nation is a rubbish phrase that should be abandoned forthwith. Robert Colvile is correct about this. Secondly, the budget is a response to, but hardly a cure for, the worst recovery in recorded, memorised, history. Thirdly, the soft bigotry of low budget expectations is such that I agree with Sam Bowman and think this may - at first glance - be George Osborne's best budget yet. That scarcely means it was a triumph. How could it be when the forecast for growth this year has been halved to a wholly inadequate 0.6%? This was a budget sired by Labour, out of failure. More selling plate at Pontefract than the Derby at Epsom.

So, it seems some kind of torturous "deal" has been reached in London on how best to regulate the press in the future. If David Cameron's proposals for a Royal Charter are less reprehensible than the plans favoured by Labour and Liberal Democrats that is not, in the end saying very much. But I suppose even midget mercies are worth welcoming. This is not quite the end of the matter, however. It remains to be seen what impact this deal has on the other jurisdiction in these islands. That press regulation is a devolved matter is, I think, pretty much an accident (it was left off the list of explicitly reserved powers) but devolved it is. Alex Salmond convened an "expert panel" headed by the former Solicitor-General Lord McCluskey to consider how to build upon Lord Leveson's proposals.

Sometimes I wish Conservative cabinet ministers would couch their arguments in favour of the Union in terms of principle, not process or drab accountancy. Philip Hammond, the unimpressive Secretary of State for Defence, is the latest minister to warn that some of the perfectly solvable problems that are an inescapable feature of unwinding the United Kingdom are in fact so intractable that it's a fool's mission to even think about resolving them. Mr Hammond's interview with the Daily Telegraph today is but the latest example of this question-begging. He appears to believe that Scottish independence is an idea so obviously ridiculous that it effectively refutes itself without the need for proper argument. This is not actually the case.