Alex Massie

The reaction to the Trojan Horse scandal has, in my view, been as interesting - and telling - as anything in the scandal itself. It is not, of course, surprising that opposition parties, including the Liberal Democrats, should seek to make capital from the drama in Birmingham but the manner in which they do so remains valuably illuminating. Gove-bashing plays well with the loyal remnants of the Lib Dem base and given the choice between pandering to his base or defending liberalism Nick Clegg must these days pander to his base. So be it. The case of Tristram Hunt is more interesting. The dismal thing about Ed Miliband's leadership of the Labour party is the manner in which he appears determined to abandon the noblest parts of his inheritance.

Perhaps. Because when you cross the Rubicon you obliterate a line in the sand. Or something like that, anyway. Ruth Davidson was elected leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party on a platform promising no more concessions to the SNP. She was the candidate favoured by the party establishment, the candidate for continuity not change. By contrast, Murdo Fraser's tilt for the leadership argued that the party should dissolve itself and start again. Four in ten Tory members voted for euthanasia. The publication today of the Strathclyde Commission's report on further devolution of powers to the Scottish parliament is perhaps best understood as a synthesis of the Davidson and Fraser approaches.

Here's the thing many people misunderstand about Scotland's referendum on independence: it isn't really very much to do with England. When someone starts chuntering on about Braveheart and Bannockburn you know you're listening to a fruitcake. This is true whether the fruitcake is Scots or English. At least the latter have the excuse of ignorance, I guess. Anyway, the point is that as much as we may occasionally dislike or, more frequently, be irritated by the English they're not the problem. The people we really hate are our fellow Scots. And with good reason. I mean, look at us. The worst part of losing the referendum (whichever side you favour) is having to share a country with the winners. I spy much unhappiness. So I enjoyed Iain Macwhirter's column in today's Herald.

Yippee! The number-crunching boffins are at war again. The UK and Scottish governments have today released rival forecasts for life in an independent Scotland. It will not surprise you that the UK government's projections run towards the pessimistic side of the ledger while their opponents in Edinburgh take a sunnier view of Scotland's future economic circumstances and performance. Fancy that! The Scottish government suggests there might be £5bn windfall from independence; the UK government reckons each Scot receives a 'Union dividend' worth something like £1,400 a year.  They can't both be right. In fact the probability is they are both wrong. That is, Scotland's fiscal and economic position would be neither as bleak as London suggests nor as rosy as Edinburgh claims.

I've never quite understood why so many people hate Michael Gove. I mean, really hate him. To my mind his heart is so obviously in the right place that I'm happy to forgive him his occasional excesses. It may not quite be the case that anyone who so thoroughly upsets the teaching establishment must be doing something right but it is very plainly something more likely to be right than wrong. Which, I suppose, means I do understand why so many people hate the Education Secretary. As the left often reminds us (albeit usually tediously) speaking truth to power is rarely popular. But no, Michael Gove has not banned  the teaching of To Kill A Mockingbird or Of Mice and Men. Nor has he suggested the English literature GCSE begin with Shakespeare and end with Milton.

Alex Salmond and David Cameron have more in common than a shared appreciation for Andy Murray's tennis. Not, of course, that you would ever persuade either of them to admit that. At the very least, their supporters are more alike than either man would like you to believe. A new survey commissioned by Dundee University's Five Million Questions project confirms as much. On a range of issues SNP supporters are as close, or closer, to Tory voters as they are to Labour voters: [datawrapper chart="http://static.spectator.co.uk/M9xAk/index.html"] This will not surprise diehard leftists, of course. If the First Minister was ever a socialist he ceased to be a comrade long ago and if SNP voters think* like Tories that may be because a good number of them used to be Tories.

Let's be fair, however, UKIP have not cornered the market in weirdness. One of the odder elements of the Scottish independence campaign is the manner in which so many Yes voters deny being nationalists: I support independence but please don't make the mistake of thinking me a nationalist. I only support nationalist aims, like.  I suppose this is just about tenable if you are a member of the Green party or if you swim in one of the Yes campaign's other minor tributaries but it's a mighty rum thing to hear from members of the SNP. Which brings us to Pete Wishart, member of parliament for Perth and North Tayside. The other day he tweeted that he has "Never much cared for any 'nationalisms' whether Scottish, British or Whateverish.

Because, well, just look at them. These Young Spodes are not quite the Master Race are they? And this is the problem with extremism: it cannot avoid being ridiculous. I know there is never room for complacency but it's hard to feel threatened by these Pythonesque boobies. Nor is the absurdity limited to the white right. The problem for Muslim extremists in Britain is they swank around the place in their kaftans claiming to be voice of the people (or "their" people) unaware that the people (including "their" people) neither recognise them nor want anything to do with them. In time, thanks to the good sense and humour of the British people, they will fail too. The fire will be contained, then it will fizzle out.

'Utter fucking bollocks'. In case that's not clear enough for you, the suggestion that Alistair Darling is being replaced as the head of the Better Together campaign is, as one insider puts it, 'absolute horseshit'. Douglas Alexander, the man replacing Darling according to the Daily Mail, was at the Better Together HQ in Glasgow earlier today and, I understand, mildly surprised to learn of his elevation. Then again, the Mail only reports that there will be 'no formal announcement of a change' merely a 'secret agreement' that Alexander should effectively supplant Darling. So secret, however, that no-one involved appears to have heard of it.

What are we supposed to make of Boris Johnson? I mean, are we supposed to pay attention to what Boris actually says? Or is he permitted to play the game of politics by different rules? That is, the sort of stuff that applies to other politicians does not apply to Boris because the Mayor of London is a great entertainer and thus granted some kind of relief from the usual rules of responsibility. Just asking, you know. Consider his recent remarks about Tony Blair and the Iraq War. During an appearance on LBC last week, the Mayor appeared to endorse the fashionable daft idea that Mr Blair should be tried as a War Criminal. At the very least, Boris suggested, this is what Blair deserves.

The British economy is growing. Not before time you might say. Be that as it may, there is a breath of summer in the air after a long winter. The quickening recovery has the Tories in jauntier spirits than for some time. The polls are closing. The Conservatives are within the margin of error and though the odds may remain it is no longer utterly fanciful to think they might remain the largest party at Westminster next year. What ho and what larks, good news is all around. Except in the north. Always the contrary north. A chill wind blows from North Britain and the message it bears should warn David Cameron he's being used by his enemies. Scottish nationalists endlessly carp that Unionists are obsessed with Alex Salmond. A vote for independence is not, per se, a vote for Mr Salmond.

Why do the Tories have a problem with black and ethnic minority voters, daddy? It is, with all due respect to Isabel and Paul Goodman, the British political question that is easiest to answer. We all know the answer too, even those of us on the right. Race might not be the Conservative party's original sin; it's still a pretty high-ranking sin. And, look, it's not ancient history either. It's not a Different times, different attitudes but, please, can we move on now? kind of thing. Nor did it die with Enoch either. (Poor old Enoch, so brilliant but a touch troubled too, don't you think?