The Debatable Land

Glenrothes By-Election Stunner!

It's all very well and good getting excited about the American elections. But let's face it, they were but the appetiser before today's Westminster by-election in Glenrothes. The Kingdom of Fife is a strange place indeed, a sentiment confirmed by the whispers we now hear that Labour have managed to hold the seat.

On the face of it, defending a seat against the 14 point swing needed for you to lose is no great triumph. And yet on this occasion it is, in fact, a rather spectacular victory for Gordon Brown. True, it's his back yard (he represents the neighbouring constituency) and both he and his wife have campaigned in Glenrothes. In such circumstances it would be highly embarrassing for Labour to lose. Worse still, it would have confirmed the sense that the Prime Minister has benefited from the global financial crisis. Perhaps the voters really do think of El Gordo as some kind of economic superhero?

Well, maybe. But I hae ma doots. Labour have lifted themselves off the floor, but they're still a long way from persuading anyone that they deserve another term. Tellingly, their campaign in Glenrothes was almost exclusively concerned with local issues, blaming the SNP-controlled Fife council for, well, just about everything.

But of course Labour didn't need to rely on national issues when the financial crisis was the backgound music to the entire campaign. And in that respect outside events do indeed seem to have damaged the SNP. Salmond's unfortunate past praise for Iceland came back to make him seem foolish in the extreme, while the government bailouts of HBOS and, in particular, the national champion, RBS dented the idea of Scotland and Scottish success - the kind of tartan brio that was supposed to float all boats upon a nationalist tide.

I actually think the financial turbulence ensured that Brown would have survived a defeat, even if a loss in Fife would necessarily have terrified every Labour politician south of the border. That being so, the PM is going to be unbearably smug if Labour have held on, albeit with a reduced majority. There will be mch talk of the "Brown Bounce" about which I remain extremely suspicious.

However, this result would seem to be calamitous for Alex Salmond. The SNP honeymoon at Holyrood - which, with Labour in power at Westminster,  permitted votes for both Labour and the SNP to be counted as "protest" votes - has come to an abrupt end. Salmond co-opted Barack Obama's slogan, vowing the other day that "Yes we can, yes we will". I suspect that some voters will have seen that as Salmond over-reaching himself. Just a little too clever, just a little too pleased with himself.

Still, perception matters. This is therefore a terrific result - if confirmed - for Labour and a terrible night - their first in more than 18 months - for the SNP. That's something Unionists in other parties can cheer. But it's too soon to suppose - partly because of the nature of the SNP-Labour relationship - that it's clear that a Labour victory in Glenrothes tells us very much about the future prospects for Labour's fight with the conservatives in England.

In other words, David Cameron is another of tonight's winners.

UPDATE: The final result shows a feeble 5% swing to the nationalists. That's a very disappointing result for them. Hubris is rewarded.That said, it's the LibDems and the Tories whose support has plummeted. Between them, the two partis garnered fewer than 2,500 votes. I'm guessing many of their voters hopped over to Labour, partly because of the financial crisis and partly because of local issues.In any case, they voted against the SNP rather than for Labour, I should say.

Financial Crisis: Cui Bono?

Unionists of course. That. at any rate, is Alan Cochrane's argument in the Telegraph today.

With his acknowledged acumen in this field, Mr Salmond has tried to put himself at the very epicentre of this crisis but with every day that passed he has looked more and more like a spear carrier in a major production being directed by people altogether more powerful than he.

HBOS and RBS may have their brass plates in Scotland, but the measures needed to cope with the crises afflicting them required action on a scale far outwith the capabilities of one small nation. Mr Salmond’s actions have looked increasingly puny, revealed for what they are — mere whistles in the dark of a global disaster...

With the oil price shooting up and down like a yo-yo, it has already been difficult to see how the SNP can base Scotland’s economic future on North Sea Oil revenues. Gordon Brown, who faces a difficult by-election in his own back yard four weeks today, will be hoping that the banks’ fate — unhappy and unsettling though it undoubtedly is — will prove to be another nail in the separatists’ coffin.

It's an ill-wind that blows nobody any good, right enough. And for sure there's quite a bit to this. After all, Iceland and Ireland aren't looking like such good examples any more. Equally, the current financial crisis does seem to offer some support for the "safety in numbers" school of political thought. This is no time for wee boats to be out in the open sea, you may feel. (Of course, nationalists would say that an independent Scotland would be sheltered by EU membership.)

Nonetheless, Mr Cochrane (a friend and former colleague I should mention) comes perilously close to advancing the case that the collapse of HBOS and, especially, RBS would at least have the cheery upside of denting the nationalist case for independence. Never mind, for a moment, that the largest and most important company in the country (RBS) would have disappeared. See the nationalists squirm instead! Now I doubt that Alan would want this, but he comes closse to making this argument. This is the logic that says my enemy's enemy is always my friend. But this is not necessarily so.

And it is also a narrow, negative view of the Union, that still sees Scotland as being too poor and too hapless to be its own wee player on the international stage. In other words, Scotland remains a palsied infant. Maybe she is of course. But if so then that's scarcely an enthusiastic endorsement of nearly 300 years of Union. No, the case for the Union needs to be made positivey and not merely by harping on what Scotland would lose with independence. Alas rather too often Unionist logic at the meoment suggests that they would rather see Scotland poor and unhappy and in the Union than rich and successful and "independent".

But then that's the distorting impact of the constitutional debate. Everything becomes a zero sum game that either aids or hinders the nationalists. This creates perverse incentives that do few folk much credit and no-one any real good. Maybe Gordon Brown and the Telegraph will take some grim conslation from the financial hurricane approaching Edinburgh, but that risks formenting an ugly backlash, blaming England and the English for mistakes made in Scotland. Such a backlash is likely to do more harm than good. As so often then, be careful what you wish for...

Who Governs Scotland?

Not to harp on about this too much, but this item from Benedict Brogan's (excellent) blog deserves a response:

About 10 years ago a friend and I were discussing Scotland with Tony Blair. We asked him who was the leader of the Scottish Labour party. He looked puzzled and said "Donald Dewar?" Alastair Campbell, who was there, shot back "No, you are". My friend reminded me of the exchange earlier today as we tried to make sense of the row over the Wendyendum. Ms Alexander leads the Labour group in the Scottish parliament, but Gordon Brown is the leader of the Labour party, and that includes Scotland. And constitutional affairs are reserved to Westminster and the Prime Minister, as Ms Alexander well knows given that she wrote the White Paper that set up the "wee pretendy" parliament a decade ago. Objectively, she has no authority to set policy on this either politically or legally.

Objectively speaking, that may be the case. But be that as it may, the political reality is very different. Alastair Campbell was wrong then, just as anyone who claims Gordon Brown is also Scottish Labour's leader is wrong now. Firstly, it is Wendy Alexander, not Gordon Brown, who has to respond to Alex Salmond on a daily basis. Secondly, Scotland's future will be decided in Scotland not London, no matter how unfair on England or illogical that may be.  To pretend, or worse, insist, otherwise is to play into the SNP's hands.

As evryone knows, Scotland is, politically speaking, semi-detached from the rest of the UK already. The question that has yet to be decided is whether or not Scotland settles for what one might call 75% independence (which can be arranged, obviously, in myriad ways) or will, in the end, plump for complete independence (albeit, equally obviously, within the EU). I doubt many of us can predict which will happen. Salmond is sensible enough to know that gradualism is his friend and that he can't get too far ahead of the electorate but the point at which the electorate - and what one might call a national sensibility - decides that the country has enough control over its affairs without needing to go any further remains to be determined.

It's in this context that Conservatives in London need to - or rather, should - acknowledge that increased powers in Edinburgh can be Unionism's friend, not its enemy. (A secondary point for Scots Tories, of course, is whether they calue the Union more than a revival of centre-right politics in Scotland). Subject to certain obvious anomalies (hello West Lothian!) being settled, a fiscally autonomous Scotland might, in the end, be the best way of preserving the Union, not a stepping stone to "divorce".

That's a gamble, of course, but what isn't these days? Equally, arrangements of this sort would seem most likely to insulate the Union from the threat posed by a Tory government in London and an SNP (or Labour) ministry in Edinburgh. Such a Union would necessarily be looser than the pre-1997 article, but that's the way the oatcake crumbles isn't it?

Taxing Questions

From the Adam Smith Institute:

Once again, Ireland seems to be the destination of choice for companies driven out of the UK by high taxes. Last week, reports Dominic White, WPP, Glaxo, International Power and AstraZeneca all hinted that they could follow Shire and United Business Media's plans to switch domicile to Ireland.

As the ASI point out, Ireland offers a corporation tax rate of 12.5%, compared to the UK's 30%. Attractive indeed. But what of Scotland you ask? Well, the SNP is a hybrid party as any analysis of its taxation policy reveals: Alex Salmond looks longingly to Ireland and dreams of a low tax Scotland that will be a business haven (as seems sensible, if only to offset some of the costs of being on the periphery). It's quite possible that an independent Scotland would favour a pro-corporation tax regime. If nothing else, it would be suicidal to implement policies that drove, say, the Royal Bank of Scotland out of Edinburgh.

How you square that with the SNP's milk and honey promises on public spending  is a different matter. At some point the money seems likely to run out, even if Salmond is a fan of the Laffer Curve. Hence, perhaps, the SNP's attitude to personal taxation:keep it high. I'm not sure why Salmond is never asked why he's in favour of lowering taxes on companies but not on individuals? One might think that the logic of tax competition might apply to individuals as well as corporations, after all...

UPDATE: A piquant issue given the rumour that Aberdeen Asset Management might leave Scotland for Ireland.

Wendy's Referendum Problem

A reader has chided me for failing to publish more political comment lately. But what more - despite the acres of newsprint devoted to the matter - has there been to say about the Obama-Clinton match-up that was not said six weeks ago? Precious little. She still can't win; her continuing campaign makes Obama's job in November more difficult.

Meanwhile, in Scotland Wendy Alexander, the pocket-sized Scottish Labour leader, announces that she's fed-up with Alex Salmond winning all the headlines month after month and, consequently, says she's quite happy to have a referendum on independence after all. This, despite constant assertions that it was the last thing the country wanted or needed. In London, this has been interpreted as a humiliating blow to Gordon Brown. Wee Wendy, after all, is one of his creations. Doubtless there is some truth to this and Brown, whose ministry is probably over anyway, could have done without this extra blow to his authority.

But then again, Brown has accepted - or, more probably, been forced to accept - the new political dispensation with greater equanimity than much of the press. He's leaving the Scottish Question to the Scottish Labour Party. This is probably sensible: the electorate north of the border is not, I suspect, likely to take kindly to lectures from Brown in London. He may speak for Britain, but he doesn't speak for Scotland. Secondly, this looks like being a tough fight and ever since Labour entered power in 1997 Brown has made it his business to be absent without leave whenever there's an awkward or embarrassing political dilemma that requires resolving.

So if Brown has disowned Wendy, what of Wendy herself? Alas, her conversion to the referendum cause looks, well, positively Brownian. It's a tactical move not a strategic shift; it smacks of panic not strength. On the one hand it seems clear that she felt the need to distance herself from the crippled Prime Minister - a necessary move since she's unlikely to land many blows on Salmond if each time she jabs he can move away and say "there she goes again, doing her master in London's bidding"; on the other it seems she could have chosen a better target for her fire than her own foot.

Labour and the Tories like to accuse the Nationalists of being "opportunists" and of course that's exactly what they are. They're slippery, awkward southpaws boxing against ploddingly predictable orthodox fighters. The public seems not to mind this since, as they know what the SNP are actually about, they hold them to a lower standard of consistency than they do the older, "traditional" parties who, much to their vexation, must sometimes wonder if they are playing to the same set of rules at all.

But there you have it. Wendy must have thought she'd called Salmond's bluff. After all, the widespread suspicion is that he doesn't really want to have a referendum in 2010. How better to confound him then that to press for one now?  alas, poor Wendy, the time for this has passed. This was exactly the ploy you should have seized last May. But no, back then you talked about hwo a referendum was a waste of time, how there was no demand for it and you pilloried the nationalists' talk of having a vote.

But they were bluffing then and hold stronger cards now. For one, you've permitted the Labour party to be outflanked on the populist left; for another the nationalists are happier about their referendum prospects than they were last year. This poll puts support for independence at 41%.

And of course you look like either a) a fool or b) a headless chicken right now since, before you talked about a "snap" referendum you endorsed your own tri-party constitutional review process that will, in time, deliver its views on what, if any, additional powers Holyrood needs if it is to work more effectively. Assuming that the upshot of that process was a three question referendum - independence, more powers, status quo* - it was generally thought that Labour would campaign on the "more powers" platform.

Now although that policy necessarily bought a degree of nationalist logic - which is, after all, also the prevailing drift of the electorate - it at least made some sense. Now there's this lunge to find the last remaining magic bullet that might kill Salmond. But it looks panicked and hasty: a spur of the moment decision, not one borne of wisdom or calculation. What happens to Wendy's own constitutional review policy now?

The moment, as I say and said then, for the Unionist push for a two question - independence or status quo - referendum was after the election. It's foolish to believe that moment is still there. It isn't. The game has moved on. So, wee Wendy gave up a favourable position last May and won nothing for doing so, now she seeks to fight the same point on ground markedly less favourable to her.

Verily, she's a Brownite.

*The Nationalists should press for a fourth option: "dissolution of the Scottish Parliament" since that will attract support from the "status quo", making it more likely that independence or more powers get over the 50% winning line. win a plurality. (Thanks reader, Andrew. You're right.)

Berwick Irridenta!

Salmond says it's game on!

ALEX Salmond would start legal moves to bring Berwick back under Scottish control if the town's residents voted to leave England in a referendum, it emerged yesterday.

A spokesman for the First Minister said borders were "fluid" and there were precedents from around the world of towns changing hands from one government to another.

He was responding to the results of a new poll of residents in Berwick-upon-Tweed which found a clear majority in favour of becoming part of Scotland...

A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "If there was an official referendum, there is no administration, no matter what party is in charge, who would not take Berwick back. It would be foolhardy for Westminster to ignore the wishes of the people. If there was a vote in favour, we would respect that self-determination and make the necessary representation to Westminster.

"Borders are fluid and there would have to be negotiations, but  there are precedents for this happening from around the world."

Writing in a Sunday newspaper, the First Minister said it was clear that there was "significant support" for Berwick to become Scottish, but he said it was wrong to see the debate solely in terms of public services and money.

Mr Salmond said: "We prefer to look on the views of the people of Berwick as an indication they prefer the policy programme of Edinburgh to the diktat of faraway London."

And he added: "We have no territorial ambitions for any part of England. But if it were to be agreed by Westminster that the views of the people of Berwick should be respected, I am sure any government in Edinburgh would be happy to welcome them home."

As y'all know, Berwick changed hands no fewer than 13 times before being annexed - unhappily - by England in, er, 1482.

Sadly, Wikipedia suggests that the most entertaining thing about Berwick - namely it's century long war with Russia - is, well, not true:

There is a curious apocryphal story that Berwick is (or recently was) technically at war with Russia. The story tells that since Berwick had changed hands several times, it was traditionally regarded as a special, separate entity, and some proclamations referred to "England, Scotland and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed". One such was the declaration of the Crimean War against Russia in 1853, which Queen Victoria supposedly signed as "Victoria, Queen of Great Britain, Ireland, Berwick-upon-Tweed and all British Dominions". However, when the Treaty of Paris (1856) was signed to conclude the war, "Berwick-upon-Tweed" was left out. This meant that, supposedly, one of Britain's smallest towns was officially at war with one of the world's mightiest powers – and the conflict extended by the lack of a peace treaty for over a century.

The BBC programme Nationwide investigated this story in the 1970s, and found that while Berwick was not mentioned in the Treaty of Paris, it was not mentioned in the declaration of war either. The question remained of whether Berwick had ever been at war with Russia in the first place. The true situation is that since the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 had already made it clear that all references to England included Berwick, the town had no special status at either the start or end of the war.

Nevertheless, in 1966 a Soviet official waited upon the Mayor of Berwick, Councillor Robert Knox, and a peace treaty was formally signed. Mr Knox is reputed to have said "Please tell the Russian people that they can sleep peacefully in their beds." To complicate the issue, some have noted that Knox did not have any authority with regard to foreign relations, and thus may have exceeded his powers as mayor in concluding a peace treaty. The whole curious scenario was the focus of a question on the third series of the gameshow QI.

what's needed, however, is a multi-option referendum. Berwickers should be given the choice of a third way: independence. Just think, the town could become the Monaco of the North Sea...

Alex Salmond's Southern Helpers

Sometimes it is useful to be reminded that the English are often barely more knowledgeable about Scotland than Americans are about Canada.Today's Guardian piece "Life Without Scotland" is by turns juvenile, irritating, superficial, irritating and ignorant. It's meant to be tongue-in-cheek funny but it misses each and every one of its targets.

Nonetheless, the most interesting element of the piece is that it was published at all. It is rather odd to see the English slowly waking up to the fact that Scotland is now officially a semi-detached member of the Union. They don't seem to like it much.

Complaints about lavish spending on health and education north of the border  fail to recognise that these policies could have been pursued by the old Scottish Office in the pre-devolution era without anyone noticing at all. If Scotland spends more on health that's partly because it spends less on policing. And so on.

Equally it's useful to remember that Scotland's public-spending advantage is refers only to the 85% of UK government that is considered "identifiable". It is a reasonable supposition that most of the remaining 15% is spent in England generally and London and the south-east particularly.

That's by the by. John Swinney delivered the SNP's first ever budget this week. It's a characteristically sober document, neither especially dispiriting nor terribly uplifting. That's probably sensible.  There's little need for the Nationalists to poke the English lion any more at this stage; not when the English are doing their best to inspire Scots to say to hell with it all perhaps even by Salmond's predicted date of 2017).

Still, if Salmond wanted to be truly bold he'd wait a year or two and then use - or try to anyway, given his minority administration's wobbly status - the parliament's power to vary income taxes. The amount of revenue returned to citizens by a 3 pence in the pound cut in the basic rate of income tax would not be the point of the ploy (welcome though it would be). No, the point would be to further enrage the English so that a comprehensive reform of the Barnett Formula became inevitable. Of course, any such revision is unlikely to be favourable to Scotland.

That would be, despite what you may think, a victory for the Nationalists of course since it further dents the economic case for maintaining the Union. If the bribe advantage of extra spending is off the table that's one less reason to be afraid of filing for separation.

If English Unionists want to save the Union then, they should be careful. Getting what they seem to want - a revision of the arrangement governing Scottish representation at Westminster and recalculating funding formulae - will further increase the distance between London and Edinburgh. That's a pyrhhic victory for Unionism.

Unionists may find it unpalatable, but they need to pipe down and, however reluctantly, accept the current constitutional and financial anomalies. These may be an affront to reason, logic and that famous English sense of fair play. But then so are many things, including much of the (unwritten) constitution in the first place. Grumbling should be a private not a public matter - unless that is these self-proclaimed Unionists are actually carrying water for Alex Salmond. Ruthless consistency and logic are much more likely to bleed the Union to death than bind its wounds. They may not like the alternatives but they'd be advised to lump them.

A tax-cutting gambit might have been a step too far this year, but it's a secret weapon I would deploy at some point in the future if I were Alex Salmond.

Gordon Brown's Best of British

Earlier this year I wrote a piece for TNR's website suggesting that Gordon Brown's Scottishness might become a problem for him. Well, with Labour riding high in the polls and talk of an autumn election running rife you might think that this was overblown nonsense. Maybe so. But don't take my word for it, have a gander at the speech Brown gave to the Labour party conference yesterday.

For all the talk of change and renewal and driving the country forward, by far and away the most notable element of Brown's speech was the way he wrapped himself in the Union Flag. He mentioned "Britain", "British" or "the British people" no fewer than 75 times in his speech.

True, when he talked about the need for immigrants to learn English he was addressing reasonable fears over the nature an extent of muslim assimilation, but the thrust of his salute to the flag was, first, a response to Alex Salmond's success at the Scottish parliamentary elections in May and, secondly, designed to reassure English voters that Brown is not a dour, scowling, brooding, alien figure from north of the border who's unable to share or appreciate the concerns and aspirations of Middle England. To wit:

And as we saw again this summer there is no Scotland-only, no Wales-only, no England-only answer to the spread of disease or to terrorist attacks that can strike at any time, anywhere in any part of our country. And sharing this same small island, we will meet our environmental, economic and security challenges not by splitting apart but when we as Great Britain stand united together.

So my sense of talking to people in all parts of these islands is that instead of leaving us pessimistic, these three months make us more optimistic about what we the British people at our best can do.

Our response was calm and measured.  We simply got on with the job.

Britain has been tested and not found wanting.

This is who we are.

And there is no weakness in Britain today that cannot be overcome by the strengths of the British people.

So don’t let anyone tell us Britain is not equal to every challenge.

We all know that in our society we do have real problems to solve, real needs to meet, but don’t let anyone tell us – the British people – that this country of ours, which has over centuries given so much to the world, has ever been broken by anyone or anything.

I am proud to be British.

I believe in British values.

Time will tell how successful this approach has been, but for now I think you could argue that Brown was over-compensating to defend a vulnerable flank.  The significance here is not so much waht Brown says but that he feels the need to say it at all.

Iraq as cause of Scottish independence? Hmmmm...

Ben Crair has a piece at TNR today headlined, The Iraq War is Responsible for Scottish Independence. Really.

Well, up to a point Lord Copper. The "Really" is an unfortunate indication that this pudding may be a little over-egged.

Few people would deny that discontent with the war played a part in the SNP's victory in this year's elections. But other factors were at least as, and probably more, important. Among them:

1. Alex Salmond's return from his Westminster exile. Salmond brings a heavyweight presence that trumped anything the SNP could put up in his absence; it trumped Jack McConnell's pretensions to statesman status too. You wouldn't feel embarrassed being represented by Salmond. Alas, the same could not be said of McConnell.

2. Unhappiness with the Labour party's performance in office, coupled with a sense that if we sent Labour back to power this time we might never be able to get them out. As always, the election was a two stage referendum: did the Labour led coalition deserve to be returned and, if not, was the SNP a sufficiently credible alternative? Just enough people answered "No" and "Yes" respectively. Some left-wing voters who abandoned the Labour party may have done so because of the war, but dissatisfaction with Labour's colourless, dreary performance in office existed across the political spectrum. Labour failed but opposition to the war was not enough to persuade folk to trust the nationalists with power.

3. The referendum promise: nothing made Labour's relentlessly negative campaign (which almost certainly turned off some voters) seem more absurd than the SNP's promise to hold a referendum on independence. By doing so the party removed the greatest obstacle to its achieving power while also, happily, underlining its belief in the essential sovereignty of the Scottish people. Implicit in this pledge was the promise "we trust you to decide our nation's future; Labour doesn't". Equally importantly, the referendum "normalises" independence as an everyday issue, giving the electorate time to come to terms and be comfortable with the prospect. It won't happen overnight- hence a desire to hold a plebiscite in 2010 not 2008 - but it will, the SNP banks, happen at some point.

The point that needs to be borne in mind is that the independence cause is a process not an event; Tony Blair's unpopularity and the Iraq war may help in a short-term tactical sense but they are largely irrelevant to the longer-term strategic objective. The cause ebbs and flows like the tide, but each time it has receded these past thirty years the tide-mark has been that little bit further up the beach than it had been the previous lunar cycle...

So, no. Iraq may have played a part, but she's not the prima donna singing this old song. If Scotland chooses a velvet divorce form the rest of the UK it will be because the electorate is persuaded that this is the common sense way forward; it will not be the result of pique or an intemperate response to an unpopular war or an unpopular prime minister.

The herring question: fishing for Britain's future

Following on from this post on Des Browne's interview with The Scotsman today, the Secretary of State for Scotland (who is also the Secretary of State for Defence, though you might think that ought to be a full-time job) also had this to say:

Mr Browne also dealt a blow to the aspirations of the SNP Executive, which has started negotiations with Westminster in an attempt to get Scottish ministers to lead for the UK in European fishing talks. Mr Browne said the UK government would not agree to such a change. He said: "As far as fisheries is concerned, Scotland has a voice in the fisheries negotiations annually, but they are UK negotiations. It's the United Kingdom which is a member of the European Union and Alex Salmond knows that.

"I frankly don't think there is any possibility of the UK government conceding a position which reflects a different constitutional position than the one that we have."

This is not surprising, even if one may argue that it's bad policy. Certainly if I were a fisherman I'd rather the UK were represented by Alex Salmond in Brussels than by whichever third-rate flunky is dispatched from London. This would be true even if I were an English fisherman.

There is a practical case for letting the Scottish Executive take the lead in fishing talks. Roughly 70% of the UK catch is taken from Scottish waters. Fishing - as the industry has learnt to its cost - is not a priority for the UK government; it is much more important to the Scottish Executive (especially one led by the SNP whose northeastern stronghold is also the fishing industry heartland). 

So the fishing industry may reasonably conclude that its best interests are being ignored for purely political reasons. From a Westminster perspective this is too bad: you may not like it, but you'll damn well lump it. But Salmond appreciates - as politicians at Westminster apparently do not - that there is something to the Europe of the Regions concept. The European Fisheries Agency, for instance, is now located in the Galician port of Vigo.

But, no, better by far to have fishing policy led by people with no real interest or stake in the British position rather than by people who do. The great opportunity for Salmond here is that this allows him to make his case while seeming perfectly reasonable.

He can go on Newsnight and the Today programme and argue, quite legitimately, that this is not a matter of Scotland vs England but one of getting the best deal for fishermen, Scots and English alike. He can say, again reasonably, that of course he's not suggesting that Scotland take the UK lead in, say, defence issues, but that's it's silly - just silly - to suppose that there's no area in which Scottish ministers cannot play such a role.

If Salmond presents himself - and his country - not as a victim, but as a country willing to assume its proper share of responsibilities (and he should stress that he'd be after getting a good deal for English fishermen too) as a grown-up, mature place, he would not only elevate his own stature but that of the Scottish Executive itself.

Such a development would also demonstrate that London and Edinburgh can work together, allaying the fears still held by much of middle-Scotland that the SNP are just one dram away from the worst sort of tartan populism.

So, yes, one can see why Des Browne is opposed to the idea of Scotland taking the lead in fishing talks. It's a tricky position for Westminster: agreeing to the Scottish proposals would be to lose face, but not agreeing to them might result in political embarrassment further down the line.

Treating Salmond - and by extension Scotland  - as a child ("It's the United Kingdom which is a member of the European Union and Alex Salmond knows that") is not very smart politics however. 

Secretary of State for Scotland delivers message to Scotland: sod off

Interesting, though unsurprising, interview in today's Scotsman. Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Scotland, tells the paper's political editor Hamish Macdonell that there's no need for any talk about new powers for Holyrood. Move along now, please. Nothing to see here.

Mr Browne delivers the standard Labour ministerial line: we'll have a consultation and "listen" to all views but our mind is made up. So what's the point?

Score this as another victory for Alex Salmond. Wendy Alexander, the likely new leader of the Scottish Labour party, is understood to want a review of the devolution "settlement". It would be a surprise if she were not. She is a creature of the Scottish parliament, not Westminster. Like any bureaucracy or legislature, Holyrood has a natural desire for growth.

Any split between Westminster and Holyrood Labour is good news for Salmond. On a trivial level it is always entertaining - and good for troop morale - to see Labour fighting one another. More importantly, a north-south split in the Labour party further strengthens the growing consensus that the devolution settlement is not only not set in concrete but that it's inadequate for purpose too. (As it, in fact, is - especially on the revenue raising side of the ledger).

If that consensus continues to develop momentum (as I suspect it will, though Salmond may be smart enough not to run too fast too soon) then the political landscape is painted in nationalist hues. That then allows Salmond and his allies to put Unionists on the defensive: if the assumption that greater powers are a good thing becomes the default position then it's those who disagree with this who have to persuade folk why the status quo is manifestly superior. The burden of persuasion is shifted from nationalism to Unionism; the debate is framed in nationalist terms.

Unionists' - or those favouring the status quo, since there are Unionists happy to devolve more power -  problem, in turn, is to find an answer to the question "If we can do this, why can't we do that?" that doesn't patronise Scots or treat them as incompetents or children. Scotland You're Crap is not  - or should not be - good enough.

Salmond makes his move: l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace

UPDATE: Welcome, Ross's readers. Feel free to have a poke around. Should you be so interested, other stuff I've written about Scottish politics and the like can easily be found by clicking on "Scotland" in the categories column on the right.

Meanwhile, in Scotland...

It's been a startlingly successful first 100 days in office for Alex Salmond. His minority ministry has proved more stable - and more quietly effective - than many sceptics feared. That's quite an achievement, even if Salmond did arrive in office with a degree of goodwill. Yes, many voters remain unconvinced by the SNP but many others who voted Tory or Lib Dem were relieved to finally see Labour bundled out of Bute House. More significantly, however, Salmond has enjoyed his success without having to compromise his ambtions or trim his strategy to meet current circumstances.

On the contrary it suits him quite well to be a minority administration, allowing him to play the conciliatory statesman while, conveniently, also clipping the wings of his more radical colleagues. There's no point  demanding border posts by dawn when there's no immediate prospect of their construction. So Salmond has turned what could have been a weakness into an unexpected strength. Not for the first time we may reflect upon the foolishness of the Scottish Tories: if they really wanted to bell the SNP cat they should have found a way to form a coalition with the nationalists. Intead they've given Alec a free hand and, unsurprisingly, he's running rings around them.

On Tuesday he launched what he genially calls "A National Conversation" about the country's constitutional future in advance of the referendum on independence Salmond "hopes" to call in 2010. So, there you have it: three years to save or end the Union. Right now the polls are such that Salmond knows that though he and his party have enjoyed a post-election wave, there's no majority for independence. But by making a referendum on independence an integral part of the election (avoiding the mistake made eight years ago when the SNP downplayed the importance and prospect of independence) Salmond managed to put the fear of god into the other parties (the electorate, of course, are rather more sanguine about all this than you might think were you entirely dependent upon the more hysterical newspapers for your information).

Yet again the Tories, in particular, missed an opportunity. They should have called Salmond's bluff and supported an up and down referendum vote to be held by May 2008. Salmond would then have been in the awkward position of talking his way out of a referendum that would have been held in unfavourable circumstances. Even Alec might have had some difficulty selling that to the party membership (many of whom are not quite so enlightened as the leadership).

Salmond's "Conversation" puts the opposition in a bind: take part enthusiastically and they give momentum to the idea of independence: the very fact we're having the conversation means it's no longer an impossible or absurdly outlandish or romantic dream (an important psychological hurdle that the nationalists  - and perhaps the country too - need to clear). But staying in their room in a huff would allow Salmond to portray them as hostile to Scotland and Scottish interests. The SNP would be the party speaking for Scotland, asking reasonable questions about the devolution "settlement": if this can be controlled from Edinburgh then why can't that? (Domestic broadcasting, for instance. If here must be government regulation, then there's no real reason, it seems to me, why that role must be played by Westminster exclusively). After a while a collection of small, reasonable requests for greater autonomy starts to look like an impressive pile of grievances. The Tories still haven;t recovered from being cast (rather unfairly ) as the "anti-Scottish" party. I doubt that's a mistake Labour will feel like emulating.

Indeed, one of the happiest aspects of Salmond's success is the extent to which it must be driving Labour mad. Well, good. Scotland, after all, can't be free in any meaningful sense until the last Labour councillor is strangled with the last copy of The Daily Record.

All this meant there was a remarkable statement released by the opposition leaders Jack McConnell (Labour, now stepping down), Annabel Goldie (Tories) and Nicol Stephen (LibDems). After the usual girning and blathering, they conceded defeat:

"We are willing to enter into debate jointly about the way in which devolution within the UK can best develop in the years to come."

In other words, they can see which way the wind is blowing. Poll after poll suggests that there's a plurality at least who would like to see the parliament accrue more powers. That's what "develop" means. Hell, even Scotland on Sunday and The Scotsman  - both Unionist newspapers - used to be very bullish on full fiscal autonomy, arguing, correctly in my view, that no parliament that is not responsible for raising its own revenue is likely to govern efficiently or with any kind of reforming spirit. (Of course I like to think those were reasonably cogent editorials since I wrote quite a number of them.)

The Tories and the Labour party have walked into a trap largely of their own devising. By insisting that there was no need for a referendum they put themselves on the wrong side of public opinion. I suspect voters quite like the idea of being asked their own opinion. Furthermore, by opposing the referendum and letting the SNP govern as a minority they have given Salmond room to go over their heads. He can't, as matters stand, pass a referendum bill at Holyrood, so instead he's taking his case to the country at large. It's bold and brave and it might work.

The upshot then is most likely, one would guess at this stage, to be a multi-option referendum at which the electorate will vote for increased powers for the parliament but stop some way short of independence. How far short and for how long will be the question.

If one were to borrow from navy parlance one might say that though Salmond is up against a fleet armed with greater firepower than he can bring to bear, he is the better sailor. Plus he has the weather gage and can afford to play the long game: poking the opposition, knocking off a spar here, a mast there until eventually the day is his. From his point of view there's no need for a yardarm to yardarm stramash; what's puzzling is why the opposition parties have been so willing to do battle on Salmond's terms. It can't just be stupidity can it? Actually, maybe it can.

So, interesting times in Caledonia. But it's a long game. It took a century from the Union of the Crowns in 1602 to finally consummate the political marriage with England, there's no need to rush the divorce. 2010 may prove to be the start of new song altogether, but I wouldn't put too much money on that. At least not yet...

Salmond steps up to the plate

Generally speaking Alex Salmond has performed well since the SNP's narrow but significant triumph in the Scottish parliament elections two months ago. He did so again this weekend. In every respect Salmond seemed a bigger, more statesmanlike figure than his immediate predecessor Jack McConnell had ever managed.

Just as importantly he resisted any temptation to link the weekend's attacks to the war in Iraq - a war he has criticised repeatedly and bitterly. Nor has he done anything that could leave him open to being accused of politicising a delicate situation.

This morning Salmond was refreshingly candid. As matters stand, he said, he saw no reason for sweeping new police powers in response to the weekend's events:

"The failed terror attacks in Glasgow and London should not be used to justify detaining terror suspects for 90 days, Scotland's first minister said today.

Alex Salmond said there was nothing in the current investigation that supported arguments that the law should be changed from 28 to 90 days' detention for terror suspects.

Last month, before he became prime minister, it was reported that Gordon Brown wanted to increase the detention period to 90 days, although he said yesterday that now was not the time to focus on the issue and that a consensus needed to be built.

Tony Blair persistently argued for the toughened detention laws despite suffering his first House of Commons defeat on the issue in November 2005, which prompted calls for him to resign....

...Asked about the detention laws today on BBC Radio Scotland, Mr Salmond, who has previously voiced doubts over the government's tough terror legislation, said: "We have not been persuaded about the necessity for that, as indeed other parties haven't."He said it was "far too early" to draw conclusions from the Glasgow incident, but added: "Obviously if new information comes forward then I'm sure all political parties would want to look at it, but currently we are not persuaded."

That's a refreshing dose of common sense that, as matters stand, one would hope Ministers in London might heed. I'm not holding my breath, however.

Scots Tories threaten to be interesting then realise what they've done and back away

Well, well, well, here's a surprise: initial reports that the Scottish Tories were preparing to make a bold, confident, surprising manoevre were, it seems, somewhat exaggerrated. This should come as no surprise. 

Though the party's vice-chairman Richard Cook, told Scotland on Sunday that he favoured a referendum on the question of Scottish independence sooner rather than later as part of an ambitious bid to "shoot the nationalist fox" (hunting foxes with hounds having been, of course, outlawed), I agree with Mr Eugenides that this seems to be an instance of Mr Cook trying to bounce the party leadership into at least contemplating such a move, rather than any real indication that such an unusually adventurous move will become party policy.

This is, of course, maddening. I remain agnostic on the question of independence, but have bored on time and time again about how the Tories and the SNP are natural allies. Had the Tories been brave enough to embrace a referendum from the outset they could perhaps have found a way of forming a coalition government with the SNP. But no, better by far to remain on the outside, far from power...

Of course, the Tories and the SNP would find themselves on opposite sides in any such plebiscite, but that need not have been an insuperable obstacle to an alliance born of convenience, yes, but also some useful political advantage for both parties too.

Nonetheless, Mr Cook makes a point familiar to those readers who have doggedly ploughed through previous posts on this subject: 

"My position is that we should be making the positive case for the Union, not the negative case for independence. We are talking about the things that are bad rather than the things that are good about the Union at present."

The Tories have been making this mistake for 20 years; Labour joined them in negative campaigning in the recent election. Scots might look askance at any "Morning in Scotland" type of speech, but you can only tell people they're uselessly and hopelessly incompetent for so long before some of them at least will become fed up and tell you to sod off. This too is why the future of the centre-right in Scotland lies with a party prepared to act as Tartan Gaullists, not with a party that sees any further political expression of Scottishness or move towards independence as a step along the road to ruin.

Indeed, it's hard to imagine anything worse for Scottish conservatism than that it should be identified as the home for last-ditch Unionism and nothing else. The future of centre-right politics in Scotland to some extent depends upon the Tories ability to escape that trap. Finding a way to get into government would be a good start.

So, no surprise then that the party leadership has dismissed the idea of an early referendum - much, I suspect, to the relief of First Minister Alex Salmond who cannot really relish the prospect of a referendum he would most probably lose. After all, why would the Tories want to risk creatng a fuss or setting the agenda? That's for other people to do.

Hope lives!

Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland, yesterday:

Let me also say something about the Government's approach to law making. Despite waiting a very long time to govern, it is not our position that legislative change is always or often the best way to effect change… we will not have a default position that assumes that any problem—however big or small—should be resolved through legislation. That route can undermine public confidence. The Parliament must beware of being seen as too intrusive and too interventionist.

A Parliament's job is not only to legislate but to debate, to inquire, to hold to account and to understand. It is time for Government to become more efficient and more creative in the way that decisions are made. Our job in this Chamber is to lead and to persuade, not to impose unnecessary burdens on business, communities and individuals.

Granted, Salmond is running a minority administration that has its wings clipped before it can even fly, but still... Welcome stuff. Words are easy; actions tougher mind you. But this is at least a promising, refreshing start even if my cynicism can't help but recall that many of Salmond's MSPs eagerly supported piece after piece of rotten, liberty-eroding legislation during the long, dismal years of the Lib-Lab coalition.