Scotland

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.

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.

A cynic might say David Cameron has an interest in a strong SNP. After all, a meaningful Tory revival in Scotland seems as far away as ever (though it would be closer if the SNP withered away) and this being so, the Tories have an interest in seeing the nationalists win Labour seats at the next election. In that limited sense then, to vote for the SNP is, in one respect, to express the preference that Cameron, not Gordon Brown be Prime Minister. And, of course, there are plenty of nationalists who think that a Tory victory at Westminster will be Scotland's opportunity. (More on this later). Perhaps. So, a temporary alliance of convenience? Well, only up to a point. As I say, that's the cynical view of Cameron's comments in Scotland on Thursday. I think there's more to it than that.

Notice what's missing from this Guardian scoop? A third runway at Heathrow airport would be scrapped by a Tory government that would instead build a £20bn TGV-style high speed rail link between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. In one of David Cameron's boldest moves on the environment, the party will today unveil plans to cut 66,000 flights a year from Heathrow by tempting passengers on to the first new rail line north of London in more than a century. Well, working on the dubious presumption that this track will actually be built (let alone that it will be delivered on time and on budget), you'll notice that these new lines don't run as far as Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Tom Harris, urbane and sensible blogger and, despite that, Labour MP for Glasgow South, writes: It’s called “Scotland’s shame” for a reason: sectarianism makes you feel embarrassed to be Scottish. I hate it when the subject is even raised when I’m with English friends because I imagine they must look at us as a backward nation. That is, after all, a logical conclusion: what kind of people still think it’s remotely acceptable even to care about what religion other people follow, never mind object to that religion? What kind of nation still tolerates this kind of mindset? This, of course, is the standard formula used by politicians and pundits. Sectarianism is a national badge of shame which must be worn by all right-thinking Scots.

American readers may consider themselves fortunate that they have no idea who Tavish Scott is. English readers may do likewise. For that matter, so may many Scots. Nonetheless, Mr Scott, the new leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats (titter ye not) did provide one public service at his party's UK conference last week. He demonstrated the extent to which the Sarah Palin phenomenon has rippled across the world. In a speech watched by dozens, he told party delegates that if Scottish politics were American politics: you would observe that the only difference between Alex Salmond* and Annabel Goldie** is lipstick What a wag. *SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland **Leader of the Scottish Conservative & Unionist party. The SNP relied upon Tory support to pass their budget.

My old cobber, Iain Martin, wrote an interesting column for the Telegraph yesterday arguing that the success of the British Olympic team in Beijing demonstrates that there's life in the old Union yet. There may be something to that. At least there may be right now, this week, this month. Certainly, he is right to argue that: Too often of late, Unionists have made their case in cold and exclusively economic terms, as though this were simply a matter of totting up various columns of pounds, shillings and pence, until a definitive answer on the constitution is arrived at. It is not always just the "economy, stupid". Indeed so.

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.