Snp

I'm not convinced the Scottish parliament's 2009 bill permitting individuals with pleural plaques to sue for asbestos-related damages was a good law. Nor ca one be wholly comfortable with retrospective legislation. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court today upheld the Court of Session's judgement that the insurance companies could not credibly claim their human rights had been breached nor that the Scottish parliament lacked the standing to legislate on such matters, even when that legislation was a case of overturning or reversing previous Westminster* decisions.

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.

Regarding Mr Miliband's hapless interview with BBC Scotland David, like James Kirkup, expresses what is the conventional view in London: But, as James Kirkup notes, the Scottish Labour Party is a serious issue. It is the only check on Alex Salmond, which makes it essential to the future of the union. And it’s important for Labour’s electoral recovery, not that you’d realise that listening to the senior party. As I revealed on Sunday, Labour shadow minister Ivan Lewis displayed extraordinary complacency about Scotland at a fringe event, implying that Labour will return to power in Holyrood as a matter of course, no effort required. Miliband’s ignorance only compounds that sense...

Like most sensible folk I have a grand opinion of Alan Cochrane and, this being the case, alert readers will know that this is by way of a throat-clearing before we move on to the business of suggesting that his latest Daily Telegraph column is a little less persuasive than the Sage of Angus would like it to be. As Alan concludes: It is hard not to sympathise with what Mr Fraser is trying to do. Something dramatic does need to happen to galvanise centre-right supporters in Scotland and the idea of a completely separate party but which is part of an electoral pact with the UK Conservatives in the Commons has been kicking around for decades.

There are three things to be said about Murdo Fraser's willingness to put his own party out of its misery: this is not a new idea, it is not enough, on its own, to spark a centre-right revival in Scottish politics and it is a brave way to begin a leadership campaign. Tactically it is a risky ploy; strategically it makes sense. Put all this together and there's every chance, yet again, that nothing will come of it.  For that matter, it may be a mistake to make this the crucial issue in the leadership campaign. The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party may be feeble but it is also stubborn and most of the time it is guided by a kind of paleounionism that will lead to its extinction.

John McTernan's latest Telegraph column has an entertainingly provocative headline -Tell the Truth: Scotland has been indulged for far too long - but is, in fact, less a blast against Alex Salmond's monstrous regiment than an assault upon Mr McTernan's colleagues in the Scottish Labour party. This attack is disguised by John's observation - scarcely controversial and, anyway, being addressed, in part, by the Scotland Bill - that the Barnett Formula is no longer working as originally intended. He's right that much of Scotland has prospered since Margaret Thatcher came to power; it's also the case that the Labour party, above all others, has persistently denied this.

What does Independence in Europe mean in 2011? That's one of the questions Alex Salmond and the SNP have preferred not to ask, far less find an answer to. Way back in the dog days of the Thatcher-era Jim Sillars coined the slogan as a way to demonstrate that Scotland, small and on the periphery of the continent, would not be cut adrift and helpless were her people persuaded to back the Scottish National Party's vision for independence. It was a canny move: reassuring and progressive and other nice and cosy things. That was then and this is now. The ongoing crisis in Euroland necessarily means things have changed. The euro is not the safe harbour it once promised to be and this awkward fact, like so many other troublesome details, is a problem for Salmond.

The great traditions of journalistic hyperbole justify this magazine's cover image this week (Subscribe!) but that doesn't mean we must take it literally. "Britain" is not "ablaze" even if the riots we've seen in London, Birmingham and Manchester might make it seem as though the entire country is on fire. So a little perspective might be thought useful. Is the situation serious? Yes, of course it is. Is it crippling? Of course it is not. So one can see why Alex Salmond - and his allies -  have been determined to point out that these are not "UK riots" but "English riots". In one sense this is correct.

Sorry Pete, but I don't think there's anything hugely ambiguous about the result from the Inverclyde by-election. This was a pretty solid victory for Labour and another reminder - if these things are needed - that Westminster and Holyrood elections are played by different rules. Labour and the SNP ran neck-and-neck in the gibberish spin stakes last night as some Labour hackettes, preposterously, tried to claim that the seat "was the SNP's to lose"; for their part the nationalists tried to suggest they'd never been very interested in winning Inverclyde at all. More weapons-grade piffle. Then again, without this stuff how would anyone fill the weary hours of television before the result is announced?

Here's a clue for politicians: when you're asked if you've just criminalised the national anthem and all you can do is say "Er, maybe, it all kinda depends on the circumstances" the chances are you've produced a bill that tests even the patient, hard-to-exhaust, limits of parliamentary absurdity and you should probably put it through the shredder and start again. If, that is, you should even be legislating in these matters at all. We do things differently in Scotia New and Braw, don't you know?