Scotland

Ruth Davidson became leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party in large part because she was the candidate favoured by the party establishment. Where Murdo Fraser suggested - rather too boldly as it turned out - the party should fold its tent and start again under a new banner, Davidson preferred a more cautious approach. Moreover, she said it was time to "draw a line in the sand" on the matter of transferring further powers to the Scottish parliament. A little more than a year later it seems as though that line has been washed away by the tide. Perhaps it was a mistake to draw it in the first place.

At the risk of seeming parochial, I'd suggest that David Cameron's long-awaited Europe speech and his endorsement of an In or Out referendum has implications and consequences for another referendum campaign closer to home. I suspect he has bought himself some time on the Europe question but this comes at a price. He has made winning the Battle for Britain - to be decided in 2014 - more difficult. The SNP should be very pleased today. Cameron has demolished a couple of core Unionist arguments. He can no longer credibly point to the unknown uncertainties of Scottish independence. Not when he has embraced, even made a point of celebrating, uncertainty regarding Britain's membership of the EU.

This week's Think Scotland column takes a gander, just for once, at the Scottish Green party. Patrick Harvie's party is in favour of Scottish independence for reasons that, frankly, seem pretty damn unconvincing. I suspect that the Greens, like those parts of the far-left that also favour independence, are liable to be desperately disappointed by life in an independent Scotland and that they will come to realise that it is not much better than their present miserable existence within the United Kingdom. Harvie, of course, rejects the label "nationalist". He is, he insists, no such thing and you don't need to be a nationalist to favour independence. Well, maybe not. But you're still, quite evidently, aiding a nationalist project. Anyway, here's the piece.

Alex Salmond is back in Bute House, refreshed and chippered by a much-needed holiday. If 2012 was a year in which the Referendum Guns were first deployed it was still, in the end, something of a phoney war. At the risk of exhausting an easily-exhausted electorate, 2013 should see more action. This week's column at Think Scotland argues that the SNP need to broaden their vision and approach the campaign with a greater sense of generosity than is sometimes seen. At present they depend too heavily - in my view - on the idea that independence is a way to Tory-proof Scotland. That's a negative, not a positive, case. Moreover it's one that muddles a short-term inconvenience (A Tory-led government with little support in Scotland) with a long-term reality: independence is for life, not Christmas.

Today's Think Scotland column takes a gander at the rumpus over an independent Scotland's accession to the EU. Until recently the SNP promised that said accession would be automatic. Now it's simply "common-sense".  This is because Jose Manuel Barroso, the Spanish Iberian agent* at the heart of the EU Commission, has made an awkward intervention. Scotland would, he says, not be an automatic member of the club at all. Intuitively this is obvious just as Scotland would not be an automatic member of the United Nations. It would have to apply. Once it applied it's application would most probably be accepted. There are few plausible grounds upon which to reject it. With regard to Brussels, however, the truth is that no-one quite knows precisely what would happen.

Europe, so often the rock on which Conservative hopes foundered, is now causing considerable trouble for Alex Salmond. The Scottish First Minister has long campaigned for Scottish separation under the slogan ‘independence in Europe’. Leaving aside his difficulty in justifying the departure from one Union only to become a junior member of another, this has always been a tricky proposal to sell. The main reason for the SNP’s vulnerability has been that no-one has really ever known how Scotland could leave an existing member state and automatically become another one in its own right – not without having to drop all the opt outs and advantages that the UK has squeezed out of Brussels over the decades.

In the rabid hamster-eating-hamster world of Scottish politics Nicola Sturgeon is a rarity: a politician of obvious competence who's respected by her peers regardless of their own political allegiances. There are not so many folk at Holyrood of whom that could be said. The Deputy First Minister is not a flashy politician but she's quietly become almost as important to the SNP as Alex Salmond. This, according to one sagacious owl, makes her one of the ten most interesting politicians in Britain. Hard though it is to imagine this, there are voters immune to the First Minister's charms. Part of Nicola's remit is to reach those parts of Scotland that are disgracefully reluctant to trust Mr Salmond. So Unionists should take Sturgeon seriously.

Even the cheapest, Poundland crystal ball will tell even a blind observer that Europe is pretty soon going to be a pretty hefty problem for almost all of Britain's political parties. Almost all, I say, because that includes the SNP* whose europhilia is, in some respects, a product of a time that no longer exists. Anyway, the odds of manifesto pledges promising an in-or-out referendum in the next parliament seem to be shortening all the time. I have no idea what this is supposed to achieve since, as best I understand the matter, neither the Conservative nor Labour parties wish Britain to leave the European Union. Asking the question necessarily increases the chances of receiving an answer you do not think sensible or in the national interest.

Philip Hammond is one of those ministers who seems to be held in greater esteem by those inside the Westminster hamlet than those of us who live beyond its boundaries. Westminster's natives may, of course, be right, but it is striking how often the Secretary of State for Defence prefers to cast his arguments in terms of economics rather than, well, defence. He's at it again today. Mr Hammond is popping in to the nuclear submarine base at Faslane where he will "announce" that the government is splashing another £350m on the next phase of the mission to replace Britain's Trident nuclear missiles. For reasons best known to himself, the Secretary of State seems to think this will make some difference to the arguments about Scotland's constitutional future.

With two years to go, Alex Salmond's campaign for a 'Yes' vote in the Scottish independence referendum is facing a big challenge to turn around public opinion. Ipsos MORI have a new poll out today, showing almost two-to-one opposition to independence, and support for Salmond's cause has been declining all year. This matches the findings of two other pollsters. YouGov found the split going from 33 'yes'/53 'no' in January to 27-60 in August. And TNS-BMRB have it going from 35-44 in January to 28-53 this month. So the SNP has its work cut out — it needs to change plenty of Scottish minds if its even going to make the 2014 vote close. They seem to be testing out messages to achieve this, having commissioned a YouGov poll last week.

Here's David Torrance with the kind of acute observation I wish I'd thought of first. There is, he writes, a comparison to be drawn between Alex Salmond and Boris Johnson: [Salmond's] approval ratings also remain remarkably high, but then Salmond enjoys a very specific sort of popularity. Asked who best “stands up for Scotland” he wins hands down, but if voters are asked if they agree with his vision for an independent Scotland then it’s two-to-one against. So Scots like Alex Salmond, but they only like him in a particular setting. That context is the halfway house between full government and opposition otherwise known as devolution.

These days, alas, the only time the leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party makes it onto the front pages of the nation's newspapers is if she's made some almighty blunder. Sadly, Ruth Davidson's speech to a fringe meeting in Birmingham this week was a calamity. That's the subject of my latest Think Scotland piece: Ruth Davidson's suggestion, made during an appearance at a fringe event in Birmingham this week, that, in effect, most Scots spend their lives suckling on the government teat is not, I'm afraid, a helpful one.

Interesting comments from Ruth Davidson, the chairthing of the Scottish Conservative Party, about her fellow countrymen. Only twelve per cent of Scots, she says, contribute more to the exchequer than they take out in the form of benefits. “The rest lie around on filthy sofas in subsidised homes, watching daytime television while farting, mainlining heroin and stuffing their sad grey faces with pies full of regurgitated sheep gizzards and Windolene.” Actually, I paraphrase a bit there. She didn’t say all that stuff. She just said almost nine out of ten Scots take more in benefits than they generate in wealth. This is, she says, shocking, and the Scots have too great a sense of entitlement.