Snp

David Cameron says he wants the case that he makes for the Union and against Scottish independence to be 'unremittingly positive'. Is it? In an interview with BBC News, the Prime Minister said: 'That’s my whole argument, which is go back to the big picture, and I think this family of nations is better off together. Not just is better off in the United Kingdom, but we in the rest of the United Kingdom think we’re better off with Scotland that we want you to stay. That argument is one that is unremittingly positive about the success of this family of nations and how we should keep this family together.

Stewart Hosie, the SNP's finance spokesman at Westminster, said something unwittingly revealing last night. Taking part in the latest of BBC Scotland's referendum debates (you can catch it here), he observed that: There is a plan from the Scottish government and the Yes side… What we don't have is a plan a from the No people about what happens in the event of a No vote. So I want them to explain to you today when are they going to cut £4bn from Scotland's budget? [...] There is precisely nothing from the No camp to explain what they're going to do to Scotland in the event of a no vote. Give Hosie marks for honesty. You don't often get it as clear as this. I don't think Hosie mis-spoke here. Not when he's inventing a phantom threat to the Scottish block grant.

After a couple of weeks of something frightening and bad called 'campaign rhetoric' from Westminster politicians, Alex Salmond today tried to reassure Scots that everything would be OK if they did vote for independence. 'The rest of the UK will never be foreign' to an independent Scotland, he insisted, sounding rather in favour of another aspect of the Union (alongside the Queen, the pound and so on). And this 'campaign rhetoric' about the currency union was wrong - and dangerous to the rest of the UK, said Salmond.

Personally, I’m now waiting for the Queen to get involved. After all, there’s not much left of Alex Salmond’s independence-but-not-independence blueprint that is left intact. First it was his ‘we’re going to share the pound in a Sterling zone’ claim. That was ruled out by George Osborne (and Ed Balls and Danny Alexander) last week. Then it was his ‘independence in Europe’ claim, and that was dismantled by Jose Manuel Barroso today. The only pillar of Salmond’s grand ‘everything’s-going-to-remain-the-same-only-different’ scheme which remains in place is a shared monarchy. So it can’t be long before Her Majesty also intervenes and says: 'Do you know what?

It might be bullying but, I suspect, it will be effective. The Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats ruling out Scotland sharing sterling after independence—as Nick Watt reported this morning — is designed to hole below the waterline the SNP's attempt to reassure voters that even after independence they could still share a currency union with the rest of the Union. (Alex Massie does a very good job of taking apart the SNP's response). The potency of this argument is a reminder of what a disaster the Eurozone crisis has been for the SNP. It has made the Euro a far less attractive alternative currency than it was a decade ago and it has alerted everyone to the dangers of currency unions that aren't accompanied by political union.

David Cameron will tell Scots this morning that the UK wants Scotland to stay a part of the Union. That he's giving this speech at all is being read in some quarters as a sign that he's at least underwhelmed by the show put on so far by Better Together leader Alistair Darling. The PM's intervention certainly marks a change of tone from the most recent speeches, particularly Mark Carney's, which George Osborne praised as a very good 'technical' speech. Thus far the 'no' campaign has relied more on the technical argument which Alex Salmond has brushed away as minor objections to the great principle of independence. So Cameron is making the emotional case.

[audioplayer src='http://traffic.libsyn.com/spectator/TheViewFrom22_6_February_2014_v4.mp3' title='Matthew Parris and Alex Massie discuss how Alex Salmond could wreck the Union even if he loses' startat=55] Listen [/audioplayer]From a kind of torpor about this year’s Scottish referendum, Lord Lang of Monkton has roused me. You may remember Lord Lang as Ian Lang, a Scot who as MP for Galloway served Margaret Thatcher and John Major as a minister, under the latter both as Scottish Secretary and then President of the Board of Trade. A pleasant, steady and notably capable man, it was possible to imagine him as a potential Tory leader, but he stuck with John Major throughout.

Why, a Tory grandee asked me recently, won't more businesses come out against Scottish independence? It was, in his view, axiomatic that independence would be bad for businesses north and south of the border. So why the silence? Perhaps, or at least in part perhaps, because when businesses do raise their concerns they often contrive to present themselves as hopeless chumps. I am sure Bob Dudley, chief of BP, is personally committed to Britain but the idea, as expressed in an interview with the BBC, that Scottish independence creates "big uncertainties" for his business is poppycock. Well, a kind of poppycock anyway. It would require BP to operate in another country and I can see why the petroleum giant would be happy to stick with the familiar status quo.