Scotland

Meanwhile, in more examples of sloppy Labour arguments here's a tweet Jim Murphy sent this afternoon: Oh dear. Murphy is usually better than this. I know and everyone else who pays any attention to Scottish politics (this includes Jim Murphy) knows that Alex Salmond has long admired the Republic of Ireland's low corporation taxes; he has almost never bothered talking about personal or consumption taxes. Furthermore, few sensible people think Ireland's boom and bust was fuelled by or made significantly worse by its low rates of corporation tax. To hint otherwise, as Murphy seems to here, is either foolish or dishonest. It is possible to think low business taxes a good thing while also supposing it might be a good idea to avoid the mistakes and excesses that led Ireland to bankruptcy.

In the midst of a futile* call for partisans on either side of Scotland's great constitutional debate to avoid twisting history for their own ends, Professor Richard Finlay and Dr Alison Cathcart write: One feature of a mature democracy is the respect it accords to its past, which means accepting it in its entirety, warts and all. There are good points and bad points in all national histories and accepting both is vital to avoiding the pitfalls of narrow, triumphalist chauvinism or debilitating defeatism. Neither of which is healthy. One of the problems of using history to make the case for or against the Union is that it tends to polarise the debate towards these extremes. What often happens is that we throw our political prejudices back into the past where they do not belong.

As the cousins celebrate the most genial holiday of them all, there are many things one for which one should be thankful. Not having a vote in the leadership contest currently gripping the Scottish Labour party comes pretty near the top of the list. Nevertheless and unlike Ed Miliband I can at least name each of the three candidates for this miserable prize. And like Kate Higgins, were I burdened with a vote in this contest, I should vote for Tom Harris. Granted, he will have to find himself a seat at Holyrood at some point but that's a technical detail which need not concern the rest of us. Granted too, I suspect he needs more than an anti-Salmond agenda to really prosper.

Aha, the Spectator's cover story is gathering pace. If you were tuned into The BBC's Daily Politics just now, then you will have enjoyed a preview of the terrific scrap this time-shifting proposal could provoke. They had on both Rebecca Harris MP, who is pushing for us to move to Central European Time (CET), and Peter Hitchens, who revealed in his article for us that the government is minded to back the idea (as well as describing Harris as "one of those homogenised, UHT female Tory MPs"). The pair were, of course, mediated by Andrew Neil. We shall try to secure video of the discussion, if possible.

Michael Kinsley begins his latest Bloomberg column with an observation so old it's even been made in these parts: If Mitt Romey ever becomes President, it will be because his supporters are convinced that he's a liar. True enough. Kinsley continues: Romney’s campaign is hoping he gets through the primaries without losing his appeal to independents and moderate Democrats in the general election. Meantime, his attempts to enlist the right are like serving haggis (sheep’s stomach stuffed with oatmeal -- yum!) to your distant cousins from Scotland when they visit. You can’t stand the stuff, but they’re supposed to like it. If you can ignore that ignorantly sarcastic "yum!" you'll agree that Kinsley's haggis-point is accurate.

The ballots for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party's leadership election have been posted to members and few people, I think, have any real idea as to what the result will be. In general terms, as readers know, I'm sympathetic to Murdo Fraser's analysis of the woes afflicting conservatism in Scotland and unpersuaded that Ruth Davidson's campaign has been as good as it should have been. These concerns were scarcely assuaged by Ruth's article in last week's Scotland on Sunday. Choked with cliches and boilerplate it was a depressingly thin analysis of the state of the party. "We need to change ourselves, not our name" she wrote which is, well, fine but part of the point of the name-changing idea is to demonstrate once and for all that the party has changed itself.

If Murdo Fraser can boast that a bare majority of his colleagues are backing his leadership campaign, Ruth Davidson enjoys the support of many of the party grandees. Indeed with the likes of Michael Ancram and Lords Forsyth and Sanderson in her corner it's tempting to suggest her campaign amounts to Yesterday's Men for Tomorrow's Woman. The best thing Ruth - whom I've known for many years - has done in this campaign is pledge to support cutting income tax. Not because there's any prospect the Tories will be able to deliver this any time soon but because it sends an overdue signal about what the party believes in. It offers a contrast with the other parties that, however fledgling, has the chance of taking flight one day. There needs to be much more of this.