The Debatable Land

Karl Rove and the SNP

I doubt many Nationalists would welcome the comparison but facts are stubborn things and the fact is that the SNP and Mr Rove have quite a bit in common. Just as Rove orchestrated campaigns in 2002 and 2004 that portrayed the Democratic party as being, in some odd sense, fundamentally unpatriotic (principally for the crime of not being Republicans) so the SNP's default presumption is that any opposition to any of their policies is somehow an attack on Scotland itself. They are the only patriots in town. No-one else really has the country's best interests at heart. How can they, after all, when they're in thrall to a "foreign" power (ie, Britain)?

Thus, for instance, when Ian Gray suggests that the Nationalists economic policies aren't all they might be, Finance Minister John Swinney dismisses such criticism as "ill-advised and ill-informed".

"They are actually an attack on Scotland and our potential as a nation, and Labour's unremitting negativity will be extremely badly received by families and businesses across Scotland."

In other words, it's impossible to oppose the SNP without also opposing Scotland, or the idea of Scotland. For sure, the Nationalists talk about an open, inclusive, civic nationalism, but the manner in which they seek to stifle debate by playing the flag card suggests a rather narrower, pinched definition of patriotism...

[Via Scottish Unionist.]

The Scottish Tory Dilemma

Someone needs to tell Tom Harris MP that the "Unionist" in the "Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party" referred to the Union with Ireland, not that between Scotland and England.

Equally, the fact that the Conservatives (in London) and the SNP (in Edinburgh) sometimes seem to be reciting similar talking points should scarcely come as any great surprise: the Labour party is their common enemy. True, the Conservatives oppose the Nationalists north of the border but as far as the UK party is concerned that's a secondary front and one, more particularly, on which there's little need for a fresh offensive this year.

If, as Alan Cochrane hints, the Scottish Tories have dropped "Unionist" from their name then fine, even if they might actually be better off dropping the "Conservative" bit. That remains a tainted, even toxic, brand in Scotland - not least because the electorate doesn't care that the Tories have spent the past decade on their knees begging forgiveness for their supposed sins. As is so often the case, the Bavarian model is the attractive one here.

Cochrane asks how the Tories are supposed to win back support if they don't distinguish their attacks from those salvoes the SNP are hurling at Labour. Well, the easy answer is that they can't and so they should concentrate on a) incremental gains and b) winning the Battle of Ideas. That means having some.

Since it is the nature of the electoral map that an SNP-Tory alliance is the safest, most natural way of defeating Scottish Labour, the Tory agenda should concentrate on developing policy ideas that, if implemented in coalition with the nationalists (a trick the Tories missed: Salmond is happier alone than he would have been in an SNP-Tory coalition) would move the governance of Scotland to the right and, theoretically, therefore in an encouraging direction.

Sure, there's the constitutional question, but the Tories ought perhaps to have some faith in the people: there might be some desire for the devolution of additional powers to Holyrood, but there is no massive groundswell of support for outright independence. At least not yet. But that's a battle and an argument for another day. The bottom line is that the Tories can't fight Labour and the Nationalists simultaneously. That means they need to be opportunists, shamelessly so in fact and take their chances wherever they arise.

I maintain however that the Scottish Tories should prefer a Nationalist ministry in Edinburgh to a Labour one. It presents greater opportunity (not least because there are, after all, quite a number of Tories inside the SNP, whereas there are none in the Labour party.)

Why will no-one support independence?

Commenter Rab O'Ruglen  doesn't have much sympathy for the crisis afflicting the Tartan press:

While I have every sympathy for those who find themselves in employment difficulties through no fault of their own I cannot say I have any sympathy for the Scottish print medium whatsoever.  If you are looking for an example of a people less well served by its press than Scotland's, you have to go to totalitarian states to find it.

It is incredible that when the Independence movement has reached the stage of forming a government, all-be-it a minority one, that every single one of Scotland's public prints is pro-Union.  Sometimes vitriolically so.  These instruments in the main for the propagation of right-wing propaganda and the Union, supposedly in support of free market forces, seem remarkably resistant to the idea that they might not be able to make a profit indefinitely out of forcing on their readers a point of view with which they do not concur.

I know that this is a point much-cherished by many SNP supporters, who chafe at what they perceive to be the press's bias against the party. But it can only be a keenly pertinent point if it is, like, true.

First, there is not, at present, and, a couple of rogue polls aside, ever been a majority in favour of independence. If one assumes that, roughly speaking, at any given time somewhere between 25 and 40% of voters actually truly support independence, any newspaper that endorses the idea risks alienating the majority of its readers. Now if you could guarantee that all SNP voters would flock to buy a pro-independence paper then you might have a commercial argument for endorsing the idea. But you can't make any such guarantee. Are SNP voters in Glasgow going to purchase the Scotsman if the Edinburgh paper supports independence? This seems pretty unlikely.

Furthermore, it's worth recalling that the press is vastly less hostile towards the SNP than it used to be. The Scotsman, Scotland on Sunday and the Sunday Herald all endorsed the nationalists at the last Holyrood election. Granted, that had a good deal to do with the failures and tedium of the Lbour-Lib Dem coalition and granted, too, that these were not endorsements of independence at all. But still.

Finally, the idea that the Scottish press exists "for the propagation of right-wing propaganda" is entirely laughable, given that there isn't a single conservative paper in the country. No, not even the Scotsman. And SoS has certainly moved towards the left since the days when I wrote editorials for the paper.

And a last point: if no newspaper supports independence, that's as much a reflection of the SNP's failure to make an entirely persuasive argument as it is of any proprietorial hostility towards the party and its Big Idea.

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.

Miliband Day 2

Since Camilla Cavendish makes some points in her Times column today that are similar to some I made about David Miliband's leadership challenge yesterday, I obviously think she's written a fine, penetrating piece. As she says,

In policy terms, it is the Conservatives who have so far seemed optimistic about the ability of people to make decisions for themselves, and Labour that has made devolving power to a few hospitals and headteachers look like an am-dram production, involving more histrionics and agonising than Racine. The irony is that where it has devolved most power - to Scotland and Wales - it has let nationalists hollow out its core vote.

This last point - about devolution - is not quite right. I was discussing this with my father the other night, as we recalled that it's often forgotten that the Tories were devolutionists before Labour were converted to the idea of Home Rule. Now, of course, the Conservatives retreated from Ted Heath's Declaration of Perth while Labour slowly  - very slowly in fact, once you remember that the 1979 referendum was effectively killed by a Labour amendment - moved in the opposite direction.

But Labour moved, not because it wanted to do anything in Scotland but because it wanted to stop things from happening. Labour's support for devolution was essentially negative: a parliament in Edinburgh would spike the nationalists' guns and, just as importantly, protect Scotland from the supposed ravages of Thatcherism. In that respect, Labour stood athwart the constitution and yelled "stop". Out of power at Westminster and menaced by nationalist snipers, the Scottish Labour party cut itself off from its allies south of the border (presuming, arrogantly, that the English had no say or interest in constitutional matters) and retreated into its compound with no clear idea of what it wanted to do in power but very firm convictions as to what it was against.

This being the case, it's hardly a surprise that the party's performance in power proved so disappointing. (Not helped, of course, by the fact that most of Labour's A-List talent resided at Westminster not Holyrood). Labour seemed more interested in office for the sake of office. Power predicated on a negative programme for government can only be sustained for so long before the voters lose patience. And that is exactly what has happened.

The Tories, of course, were slow to realise that, no matter how much they disliked the idea, devolution was here to stay. But localism and subsidiarity should be Tory principles, leaving the door open for a revival of centre-right politics in Scotland. They blew that opportunity, of course, leaving the door open for the SNP to advance.

Then again, as I've written before, outside the constitutional question, there was an opportunity for the Tories to form a de facto alliance with the nationalists that could have, if they had been bolder or more imaginative, revived centre-right politics in Scotland while also limiting the nationalists room for manoevre. But it wasn't to be, though of course it may yet come to pass in the future. At some point conservatives in Scotland may have to ask whether the Union is more important to them than a centre-right revival. That's a matter for another day, however...

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?

Gordon's Folly Compounds Wendy's

Silly me for daring to presume anything competent could emerge from Downing Street these days. And, yes, it was reckless to suppose that the Prime Minister might acknowledge that the question of Labour support for a referendum should be decided by the Labour leadership in Scotland. That, of course, would be the sensible thing. But here's how the BBC Brian Taylor describes the days developments:

So where's your referendum now? At Prime Minister's Questions, Gordon Brown offered an entirely different interpretation of the scenario offered by Wendy Alexander.

According to Mr Brown, Ms Alexander had not demanded an immediate referendum on Scottish independence.

"That", he opined in response to David Cameron, "is not what she said."

Rather she intended to review matters after - and only after - the cross-party Calman Commission has produced its ideas for the revamp of devolved powers.

So let me get this straight. When Ms Alexander deployed an unaccustomed demotic touch by declaring "bring it on", she was actually saying that this was an issue which should await the outcome of an extensive and lengthy review.

Mr Cameron said the Prime Minister was "losing touch with reality". Alternatively, one might suggest that he has apparently lost patience with Ms Alexander.

Far from endorsing her standpoint, he went out of his way to dilute it.

Well, indeed so. But this is more stupidity from Brown. he does not seem to appreciate that he risks turning Scottish Labour into a 21st century version of the 1980s and 90s Conservative party. With the SNP in power it is more important than ever that the other political parties - ie, the Conservatives as well as Labour - are seen as fully-fledged Scottish organisations and not merely branch offices of HQ in London. That perception helped kill the Tories in Scotland and it will damage Labour too if wee Wendy is seen to be humiliated by the Velcro Prime Minister.

Perhaps Brown doesn't realise that things have changed. Scotland is semi-detached from the UK; that requires that its politics be quasi-independent too. Controlling matters from London is a way to boost the nationalists, not defeat them. The public retains an open mind on independence, but I doubt it wants to see our domestic politicians taking orders from London. On the contrary, there's a widespread, if perhaps still shallow, consensus that "standing up for Scotland" (however you want to define that concept) is what the public wants, not kow-towing to London bosses.

Then again, given his troubles in England, you can understand that Scotland is the very last thing Gordon Brown wants to talk about.

UPDATE: James forsyth thinks that, hang it all, Brown might as well go for a referendum.

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.)

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.

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...

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.

Salmond vs Brown: Alex ahead on points after Round 1

There may be trouble ahead. Gordon Brown is a very clever man. But he's prone to bearing grudges for decades. This we know too. It seems he has not forgiven Alex Salmond for his temerity in bloodying Scottish Labour's nose. As Gerri Peev reports in The Scotsman:

IT COSTS a few pence but the price of a phone call to congratulate Scotland's new First Minister was too high for the next Prime Minister to bear.

Gordon Brown has not picked up the phone to call Alex Salmond, the First Minister, whom he believes is hell-bent on destroying the United Kingdom, the political stewardship of which Mr Brown is weeks away from inheriting...

...[At a press conference in London Mr Brown] grinned repeatedly as he took questions about his triumph and about the full prime ministerial range of political issues, from managing the National Health Service to Britain's relationship with Europe and the US.

But one question seemed to send a dark cloud fleeting across the Chancellor's sunny visage: "Why had he not congratulated Mr Salmond on his appointment, and did he look forward to working with the new First Minster?"

"I congratulate him on becoming First Minister," Mr Brown replied, momentarily forgetting to smile. As for why he had not picked up the phone in person, Mr Brown insisted that a call to Mr Salmond on Wednesday from Douglas Alexander, "our Secretary of State for Scotland," would suffice."

This is silly. And childish. Brown's characteristic lack of grace - or, moe importantly, the perception of said failing - hands the SNP a victory before the new parliament has convened for business. Brown's refusal to call Salmond makes him appear churlish and small-spirited. Salmond, who has struck all the right magnanimous, inclusive notes this week, was able to be outwardly generous:

"Now that the dust is settling I'm quite sure that Gordon, like me, puts the Scottish interest among our paramount concerns and that we will work together in the Scottish interest."

That's a teasingly barbed comment. I'm quite sure is really code for It will be interesting to see if Gordon is big enough to accept the election verdict. I'm not so sure he is, are you? The surface chumminess of the comment hides the deeper questions you can be sure Salmond will asks each time London tries to thwart him: Who speaks for Scotland? Who guards the Scottish interest? Holyrood or London Labour?

Now, as I've argued before (and will, you are warned, do so again) this is a bandwagon the Tories should leap aboard. They should be Tartan Gaullists, committed to speaking for Scotland, not to sever the Union but to strengthen it as a partnership of equals. The Union can only survive, they should say, if it respects the rights and privileges of each of its members. That means more power for Scotland at Holyrood and more power or fairness for England at Westminster.

The price of this, naturally, is a sort of confederal United Kingdom (here, perhaps, is a role for a more systematically reformed House of Lords), but so be it. Having been caught on the hop by the desire for devolution, the Tories should be in the vanguard o trying to make it work. Small stuff on "bread and butter issues" is all well and good, but the Tories need to be bold and creative. They have little to lose from taking some risks.  By doing so, thy can have some fun with Labour, portraying Labour and gordon Brown as the paty that doesn't like or respect or trust Scotland to manage its own affairs. Since Brown's reputation as a control freak is hardly unwarranted there's every reason to suppose this could be an effective ploy.

Equally, the Tories need to be Scots first and Tories second if they are to have any hope of challenging the SNP in the nationalists' once-Tory rural and north-east strongholds. That means, as I say, a proud Tartan Gaullism.

So, First Minister Salmond it is. Dare one risk saying that these are exciting times north of the border? I think one might.

In one respect, mind you, this minority administration at Holyrood is actually something of a return to old habits. The SNP will be compelled to administrate rather than legislate, much as the ministers in the old Scottish Office managed to run Scotland without feeling the need to pass much Scottish-specific legislation at all.

Of course, that did also mean that Scottish bills were often tacked on to English bills at Westminster, receiving little by way of scrutiny. So theoretically the committee process at Holyrood should be more rigorous than was the case in ancient times when Scotland was also ruled by a government that only a minority of Scots supported.

So there's that. A minority administration is not the end of the world. Anything that makes it difficult for politicians to pass legislation is to be welcomed. Since much of the worst legislation Holyrood has passed has been tiresomely, depressingly popular within the Scottish Parliament (and theft, free goodies for the middle class, banning things etc etc) there's extra reason to cheer a minority administration that will find it more difficult, one hopes, to interfere with people's lives. Well, one lives in hope.

God knows why, but one does...