Alex Massie

Yesterday, the Scottish government published its ‘plan’ for life after Brexit. It was, at 60 or so pages, more detailed than anything we have yet seen from Theresa May’s ministry. But then it would be, given that Nicola Sturgeon will not be leading the UK’s negotiations as and when they begin. Still, plenty of nationalists crowed that, whatever else might be said of the Scottish government’s document, at least Sturgeon has a plan. But so did Baldrick.  That a plan exists does not make it a good plan. Or even an achievable one. And since we are still in the early stages of the Brexit waiting game the Scottish government’s proposals have the advantage of novelty but freshness is not enough either.

Who could have predicted that the fate of millions of people from EU member states presently residing in the United Kingdom remains uncertain? There may be something deplorable about treating their future as though it was a card to be played in the negotiations to determine the terms and conditions of Britain's departure from the EU but, deplorable or not, there is little that is surprising about it. This is so even though treating these people in this way leaves many people, including many Leave voters, feeling distinctly queasy. If nothing else it offends an inchoate sense of fair-play. But negotiations change previously accepted realities.

As is traditional, St Andrew's Day will be marked in the proper style by expatriate Scots gathering to bless what they’ve left behind. For most of the rest of us it’s just another dreich November day. There is something cheering about this and at least we have spared ourselves the tomfoolery that’s made St Patrick’s day such a toe-curling embarrassment. Still, that’s not to say the day passes without interest. For instance, the Times today publishes a YouGov poll indicating that support for independence is, broadly speaking, back where it was in September 2014. Just (sic) 44 percent of Scots would vote for independence if given the chance tomorrow.  It must be allowed, I think, that the Brexit-bounce the SNP expected has not materialised.

As a general rule, any day the government loses in court is a good day. So yesterday was an especially fine day. A delicious one, too, obviously, in as much as the fist-clenched, foot-stamping, whining of so many Brexiteers was so overblown and ludicrous it toppled into hilarity. People who shouted for months about the urgent need to restore parliamentary sovereignty now reacted in horror to the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty. 'That's not what we meant', they spluttered. We meant governmental supremacy only when it suits us. Well, tough. A certain amount of squealing was only to be expected since, if Nigel Farage has taught us anything, it is that the Brexit-minded really don't like it up 'em. But, still.

Politics is a question of priorities. Push always comes to shove and that's when you discover what a party really thinks is important. We've seen this repeatedly this year. The Labour party, for instance, has decided power is for other people. And the Conservative party has decided that leaving the European Union is something worth risking the Union for. If we have to break-up the United Kingdom to save the United Kingdom, then so be it. A price worth paying, you know. But don't pretend you weren't warned about this. Because you were. Repeatedly. There's a reason, you know, why Ruth Davidson and most of her Holyrood colleagues campaigned for a Remain vote. They could see what was coming down the pipe in the event of a vote to Leave.

Scottish jobs for Scottish workers. We're going to stop foreigners from coming here and taking jobs Scottish people can do. We are going to make companies declare the nationality of their employees: those that do not employ a sufficiently high percentage of Scots will be 'named and shamed'. They have a duty to this country; a duty to our people. If companies wish to employ foreigners they will have to prove they need to and demonstrate that they have tried, but failed, to fill the position with a native-born Scot. We understand the pain felt by those Scots who have lost their jobs to English migrants. We feel your anger too.  As for those English people currently living in Scotland, let me remind you that you are here under sufferance.

According to Theresa May, interviewed by Tim Shipman in today's Sunday Times, Brexit will make the United Kingdom 'a sovereign and independent nation' once again. I know we are all supposed to be impressed by our new Prime Minister and much enthused by her Matron Gragrind approach to politics that is, again, such a refreshing change from the soft-furnished Call me Dave years but, really, can we pause for a moment to note that this is twaddle. Because if it were true - and if it were true that Mrs May believes this - then we are asked to believe that Britain was not, before its blessed liberation in June, a sovereign or independent nation. And if she really believed that, we might pause to ask why she did not campaign for Brexit?

Sunday is the second anniversary of the Scottish independence referendum, the second 'Here's what you could have won' day of thanksgiving. Or, if you prefer, atonement. The referendum is only over in the purest, most technical, sense. The campaign continues and it is clear to everyone that, at some point, on some day, Scotland will have to be tested again. The SNP demand a mulligan and will not cease until such time as they're given a second chance. They haven't gone away, you know. And, in one sense, that is reasonable. The SNP didn't spend eighty years losing elections to give up now they're can see the winning post at last. One more defeat, even a large and significant one, doesn't sting so much when placed in that historical context. There is always next season.

Unlike the boss, I thought Liam Fox's comments on fat and lazy British businesses that could be exporting more but aren't because, well, an afternoon on the golf course is more comfortable than striving for Britain were deplorable. But they were also telling. Because they were a further confirmation that the United Kingdom now has a nationalist government. The liberal Toryism of the Cameron era is gone, sunk with a whimper in record time. In its place is a Conservative nationalism that envisages SS Britannia buccaneering its way across the world's oceans. This, after all, was the animating spirit of what we might call the Brexit campaign's more cheerful wing.

Just three years ago, the Scottish government enjoyed claiming that an independent Scotland would be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Perhaps even the sixth wealthiest, as measured by GDP per capita. Sometimes the claims made were a little more modest. Scotland might be only the 14th richest country on earth. But, however the figures were calculated and wherever Scotland was presumed to rank, one thing remained consistent: Scotland would be richer than the United Kingdom it would be leaving behind. Well, you can't make that case any longer. In truth, it wasn't a case sensible people bought in the first place. It was too good to be true, too dependent upon time-sensitive statistical chicanery, to be entirely convincing.

Scotland is a small place. This has many advantages. There is an intimacy to Scottish public life that can, on occasion, be charming. It is a place where everyone knows everyone else and this helps foster a climate of relaxed informality. Politicians, even more than elsewhere, are known by their first names. So it's Nicola vs Ruth vs Kezia and this isn't just because they are all women and all, in their different ways and to different degrees, quietly impressive figures. But a small place, like a family, can be suffocating too. Intimacy is the other side of cosy. If that reflects itself in tight connections between politicians and those who cover them, it also manifests itself in the pressure politicians place on newspapers and, especially, broadcasters.

There is no party in Britain quite as fake as the Scottish National Party. The SNP, now entrenched in its dominance of Scottish politics, imagines itself a revolutionary force for change. Its mission to break up Britain bolsters that impression. But if the SNP campaigns with zeal, it governs with caution. These are the most conservative revolutionaries on the planet. On health, education and taxes, the SNP stresses continuity. The party saves its radicalism for issues the public considers trivial. One is Trident. Another is land reform. According to an opinion poll earlier this year, just 3 per cent of voters consider nuclear weapons one of the three most important issues facing Scotland. Just 2 per cent think that of land reform.

Nicola Sturgeon still believes in Scottish independence. I know, who knew? That's the point of the SNP, a party Ms Sturgeon joined as a teenager back when she felt, or so she has said, that Neil Kinnock was busy leading Labour into the wilderness. That, remember, is when she says it all started going wrong for Labour. This is something worth recalling the next time you see or hear some SNP elected representative concern-trolling the Labour party. The weaker, the more unelectable, Labour is the better that suits the SNP. Anyway, the First Minister gave a speech yesterday in which she spoke about Scotland's five ‘key’ EU interests that ‘must be protected’ if she's to remain a cheerful soul.

For some time now, and especially since September 2014, the SNP administration in Edinburgh has been inspired by a single, powerful, notion: govern as though you were enjoying the early days of a newly-independent state.  Of course, Scotland is not - or not yet - an independent state and, for the time being at least, still has two governments, one in Edinburgh and another in London. But in attitude and demeanour, the SNP behaves as though independence has already arrived in everything except the formal recognition of that fact. This is a matter of mood and framing, for sure, but it's also something which has consequences. It's why Theresa May's visit to Scotland and her meeting with Nicola Sturgeon today is a heavily symbolic matter.

Britain voted for Brexit so Brexit is going to have to happen. That's the way it works and there's no point in Remainers wishing otherwise. But if Britain evidently voted for Brexit it is far less clear what kind of Brexit it voted for. As with the death of old man Talleyrand, we are left to wonder what the British people meant by this. Some things are becoming clearer, however and one of those things is that Andrea Leadsom does not actually need to win the Tory leadership battle to win the Brexit war. If Brexit trumps everything else, Leadsom may win even if Tory members choose Theresa May. Theresa May may have been a super-reluctant Remainer but she is going to have to campaign as though she was a mildly-reluctant Leaver.