Scotland

James reports - and since it's James doing the reporting there's no reason to doubt him - that some of the strongest opposition to doing a deal with the Tories came from Scottish Lib Dem MPs. Apparently the poor lambs think they could be wiped out if they were tarred with the Tory brush. I assume that they are fretting about the Holyrood elections next year, not the next Westminster election (though of course, all the jockeying and manoevering must be judged in the light of its potential impact on that contest).

John Redwood says it is "Time to speak for England" while over at ConservativeHome Paul Goodman argues that this is something which needs to be addressed. As he notes the Tory manifesto does contain a theoretical commitment to answering the West Lothian Question and creating a de facto English parliament. And in theory there's nothing wrong with that. Quite the contrary in fact. Few people in Scotland, I think, would consider this either unfair or unreasonable. Indeed, if my memory is correct, polling suggests that a majority of Scots think this would be a fair way forward. Certainly, there are excellent arguments for revisiting the Barnett Formula - though Barnett was actually, remember, created as a means of reducing disparities in public spending.

Whither Scotland? Well, apart from Labour regaining the two seats it lost in by-elections not a single seat changed hands north of the border. Indeed there was a swing to Labour and I suspect that Brown and Jim Murphy won votes when they warned that a vote for anyone else was a de facto vote for the Conservatives. Such is life and it's remarkable how these ancient ghosts still retain the ability to spook the populace. So why should Cameron speak to Salmond? Well, because he should be able to get the SNP to at least abstain on a putative Tory budget. Cameron has already said that the Scottish government's grant will not be addressed this year (because the budget has already been agreed and passed) and that's a decent starting point for talks.

It stops at the Tweed. Dave was in Glasgow and East Renfreshire yesterday on the Scottish leg of his 36-Hour-Dash-To-Save-the-United-Kingdom but, while symbolically useful, it won't have done him or his party that much good north of the border. Today's Scotsman poll puts the Tories on 17% in Scotland. More remarkably, the Scotsman finds that Brown has a +4 approval rating in Scotland while Cameron endures a -2 rating. I can't help but feel that many of my compatriots are employing a double standard here. As Cameron put it: "Of course it is always frustrating when you are not always getting through." "I believe in the UK and I will always fight for a Conservative recovery in Scotland.

Ben Brogan accepts Labour's challenge to judge Gordon on substance not style and, unsurprisingly, finds him wanting. But in his critique he also includes this: On the substance of the constitution, he gerrymandered new bodies that turned on Labour and undermined the union. What on earth is he talking about? What are these bodies, how have they been gerrymandered and how have they undermined the Union? I really have no idea.

The other day a wise friend, lamenting the "madness" of the people carried away with Cleggmania, fretted that it all amounts to the beginning of the end. For the Union, I mean. These days, you see, it's Unionists who are forever whistling an old song and always wondering if it's for the last time. I didn't, I admit, quite follow his argument but it had something to do with the Liberals in power, the advent of proportional representation leading eventually and inexorably to an English parliament and thus loosening the ties that bind to the point that they may be severed with a single blow of a Damoclean sword. Or something like that anyway. Conventional wisdom in Nationalist circles has always been that the independence cause is best advanced by a Conservative victory.

That would be Scotland, of course. Dear old Scotia, meek and mild and quiet as a well-nursed child. There was another YouGov poll released at the weekend and this Scotland on Sunday survey had its own startling findings. To wit: Labour - 40% SNP - 20% Lib Dems - 19% Tories - 16% Others - 5% You read that correctly. After 13 years and the worst fiscal apocalypse in 70 years 40% of my compatriots will still, like so many zombies, endorse the Labour party just as their faither did before them and, god knows, perhaps his faither before him too. True, this poll may slightly under-estimate currrent levels of Lib Dem support since half of it was conducted before last week's debate.

It's a strange business this campaigning lark, isn't it? William Hague was in these parts this morning. I learnt this from his Twitter* feed. He can't have spent much time in Hawick**, mind you, since he was soon in Edinburgh as part of a day-long tour of nine Scottish constituencies. Tour, of course, vastly overstates matters. Hague is dropping in on constituencies for a few handshakes, a pep talk to local party workers and, if the candidate is lucky, a few photographs for the local papers. A lot of frenetic activity, then, but it's hard to see how any of it can reasonably be expected to influence voters. William Hague's presence on Hawick High Street can't possibly, one must imagine, change anyone's mind or recruit any more punters to the Tory colours.

Imagine if Durham University were to decide that for courses heavily over-subscribed with qualified applicants it would reserve a small percentage of places for would-be students hailing from within 50 miles* of the university. Would anyone raise an eyebrow? I doubt it. Yet when Edinburgh University adopts precisely this approach - for some of the humanities and, I suspect, medicine - suddenly there are hysterical cries of "racism" and "xenophobia". Tom Harris MP** [see update]  says this is "shameful" and goes so far as to label the university "an embarrassment to Scotland". What piffle.