Alex Massie

All political parties have their cultish moments but some are more cultish than others. That doesn't mean all their supporters are kool-aid drinkers, just that, on balance, they're more likely to be so. This is not, I should have thought, a particularly novel or controversial observation. But, for some reason, suggesting that the SNP's followers are especially likely to be animated by what one might dub a quasi-religious fervour seems to annoy them. And yet, at other moments, they are keen to point out how the SNP is different from all the other parties. Which is kind of my point too. And, yes, the SNP's supporters really do behave in different ways. They are twice as likely as Labour or Conservative voters to view criticism of the party as a personal insult.

So here we go again. Alex Salmond, popping up on the Andrew Marr show while Nicola Sturgeon is in China, makes news without saying anything new about the circumstances in which the SNP might - or might not! - press for a second referendum on Scottish independence. David Cameron, also overseas, responds saying there's no need for any such plebiscite at any point in this parliament. Calm down, Jock. This will, I am sure, be well-received. All of which should surprise precisely no-one. Seventy percent of SNP supporters want another referendum before the end of this parliament; 90 percent want one within ten years. In such circumstances, you can understand why Salmond thinks another referendum is 'inevitable'.

Well, look, it's Ed Miliband's fault isn't it? Thrice over in fact. First for winning the Labour leadership, then for leading the party in the way he did and, finally, for leaving the leadership so abruptly. There are many ways of measuring the funk into which Labour has plummeted but one of the best is to consider that it is now seriously believed, in some quarters anyway, that Jeremy Corbyn might not be the worst choice as leader. Believed, I mean, by sensible people of reasonably sound mind who recognise that Corbyn would be a disaster for Labour and, quite possibly, for Britain. (If you doubt that, consider whether the country benefited from Iain Duncan Smith's tenure as leader of the Conservative party. Hint: it did not.) The alternative, after all, appears to be Andy Burnham.

In 2008 Alex Salmond told Total Politics that: 'As you know, by choice, SNP MPs have abstained from every vote on English legislation that does not have an immediate Scottish consequence. If you're asking me should people in England be able to run their own health service or education system, my answer is yes. They should be able to do it without the bossy interference of Scots Labour MPs. We had this in reverse through the 1980s.' A year earlier, Angus Robertson, MP for Moray, had asked the Prime Minister if he agreed it was 'completely iniquitous' that English MPs 'are not able to decide on matters in Scotland but Scottish MPs from the UK parties can vote on matters which only impact on England. Why does he not join the SNP in abstaining on these issues?

Ed Miliband - remember him? - has just told the House of Commons that the government's proposals for so-called English votes for English laws (EVEL) are a betrayal of everything for which the Conservative party is supposed to stand. Well, that's certainly one way of putting it. According to Miliband, EVEL is "not true to the great traditions of the Conservative and Unionist party" but since the foremost of those traditions is a keen and ruthless appreciation of the best interests of the Conservative party I suspect Miliband, not for the first time, misunderstands the Tory party. “You’re the Conservative and Unionist party", Miliband said. "This is neither for Conservatism nor Unionism.

'Is Home Rule the only realistic alternative to independence?' was the question posed at a Spectator debate, sponsored by Brewin Dolphin, in Edinburgh last week. In one sense the question is redundant since, no matter how much some nationalists claim otherwise, there is no reasonable or realistic scenario in which it is possible to envisage the United Kingdom government scrapping the Scottish parliament. Some measure of Home Rule, therefore, is indeed the only realistic alternative to independence? But what is Home Rule? As the panel agreed (not least since this has long been obvious) there is no agreed or even satisfactory definition of Home Rule. Is it, as the journalist Iain Macwhirter suggested, something similar to the parliament Ireland was promised in 1914?

Writing in the Herald this week Iain Macwhirter noted that “Any trace of ethnic nationalism, and anti-English sentiment, was expunged from the [Scottish National] party in the 1970s”.  Responding to this JK Rowling - of whom you may have heard - suggested this was "Quite a claim", suspecting that plenty of English-born Scottish residents might take a slightly different view. This, obviously, made for great Twittering and, equally predictably, gave plenty of people enough characters with which to hang themselves. Tiresomely, they are both correct. As nationalist parties go, the SNP really is a remarkably broad church. It imposes no kind of genetic test upon its members.

As a general rule I prefer the stupidity theory to the mendacity concept of politics. That is, if a politician says something obviously wrong it is more probably because they are thicker than mince than because they wish to deceive the public. There are some exceptions to this usual rule but, most of the time, dumb beats cunning. Occasionally, however, dumb can also be cunning. Consider this statement from Angus Brendan MacNeil, MP for the Western Isles, as recorded by Hansard: Now Mr MacNeil, bless him, often fumbles his way towards wishful thinking but this will not quite do. The Vow, no matter how ballyhooed it may be these days, said precisely nothing about Full Fiscal Autonomy. We know this because, helpfully, it was splashed on the front page of the Daily Record.

David Mundell, the somewhat improbable Secretary of State for Scotland, had at least one good line yesterday: "The SNP are asking for something they don't really want, but of course they will complain if they don't get it." It being our old chum Full Fiscal Autonomy (or Responsibility) for Scotland. Now if the ordinary rules of politics still applied you might think a party might pay some price for bitterly complaining about a £100m cut to the Scottish block grant while also advocating measures that would require some £7 billion in additional tax increases or spending cuts would be laughed at. But the ordinary rules of politics no longer apply and no-one finds anything very funny in Scotland any more. Nevertheless, that is the SNP's actual policy at present.

I suppose David Cameron had little choice but to offer a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. How else could he have held his party together? Indeed, it is possible that he owes some part of his small majority to that promise. Nevertheless, it will all end badly. I think there is no plausible scenario in which it can end well for Cameron. Indeed, it is entirely possible that having begun this parliament with a majority he - or, rather, his successor - will end it leading a minority administration. The most important thing to remember is that perhaps a quarter of his backbenchers actually want the Prime Minister to fail. They have no interest in his cockamamie renegotation strategy.

Neither man will much care for the comparison but, more than ever, Alex Salmond is rather like Gordon Brown. Each struggles to admit their opponents might ever have a point and that said point might be held in good faith. More importantly, each has the habit of thinking their opponents lesser mortals simply because they dare to take a different view on the great issues of the day. I thought of this today when I saw Salmond's remarks responding to the sad news about Charlie Kennedy's death. They were revealing remarks, just not in any way that flatters the former First Minister. Salmond, like everyone else, acknowledged Kennedy's essential decency but then, as has often proved the case, found himself unable to resist the lure of some wishful thinking.

Of course, as the SNP keep reminding us, this year's general election had nothing to do with advancing the case for independence. Besides, please, you must remember there's much more to the party than its thirst for national liberation. Any suggestion to the contrary is quite deplorable. Which is fine, I suppose, as far as these things go. Unfortunately these things do not go very far. If you doubt this, ask yourself this question: would the SNP advocate, far less pursue, any policy it thought likely to hinder the drive towards independence? Helpfully - for us, if not for the party leadership - this question was answered by Kenny MacAskill earlier this week.

So this is what history feels like. Painful, frankly.  None of the usual meteorological metaphors - earthquake, hurricane, avalanche, landslide, tsunami - seem strong enough. Make no mistake, Theresa May was right. This is the biggest constitutional drama - even crisis - since the abdication. Actually, it's bigger than that. It's the greatest (internal) shock to the British state since the 1918 election. Sinn Fein won 47 percent of the vote in Ireland that year as it all but swept southern Ireland. The Irish Parliamentary Party lost 61 of its 67 seats, every one of them to Eamonn de Valera's party who increased their representation from 6 to 67. As then, so now. Even nationalists can't quite believe this has happened. Motherwell! Rutherglen! Paisley! Coatbridge! Kirkcaldy!