Alex Massie

Hopi Sen is not alone. There are many people in this country supremely indifferent to the whole and vexatious question of whether or not there should be a referendum on Britain's continued membership of the European Union. Yes, yes, they will tell pollsters that if they must they suppose they might fancy having a referendum some day. But they don't really care. They mumble about a referendum because that seems the done thing to do and because when a pollster asks you if you'd like to have a say on something it sounds better to say Yes than No thanks, I really can't be bothered. And sure, if pressed, they might grumble and chunter about the European Union too and say that it seems to be an unnecessarily invasive institution - or set of institutions, treaties and agreements.

Well, yes, Hamish Macdonell is correct. A coherent devo-max option could win the referendum for Unionists. Some of us, ahem, have been arguing that for years. There were, of course, good reasons for insisting that the referendum vote be a simple Yes/No affair. A single question cuts to the heart of the issue and, notionally, should produce a clear outcome. Nevertheless it also greatly increased the risk - or prospect, if you prefer - of a Yes vote. A multi-option referendum would have killed a Yes vote. But if Hamish is correct I am not, alas, so sure the same can be said of Comrades Forsyth and Nelson. James writes that: The lesson of devolution is that we tamper with the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom at our peril.

Sometimes what doesn't occasion interest or drama or controversy is more interesting - or at least more telling - than what does. So perhaps it is a tribute to the extent to which Nigel Farage and UKIP are now entrenched in the body politic that Farage's speech to the party's latest conference appears, as best I can tell, to have been treated as just another routine appearance by just another politician. Move along now, not a lot to see here. Not much news, not many dead. That is, the reaction has been There he goes again. We know Farage's thing these days and it no longer shocks or even, I fancy, entertains. So when the mask slips no-one is surprised any more. Because the mask is no disguise at all. It is just the same as the face behind it.

You will recall that, according to the greatest account of England's history, every time the English thought they had solved the Irish Question, the Irish changed the Question.  Something similar afflicts David Cameron's grapplings with the Scottish Question. The poor man is damned if he does and equally damned if he doesn't. The other week he was lambasted for his effrontery in giving a speech about Scotland in, of all places, London. Today he is lambasted for bringing his cabinet to Aberdeen. How dare he lecture us from afar; how dare he venture north like some touring proconsul! The optics, as the pros say, are not very good for the Prime Minister. The cabinet very rarely comes to Scotland. Drawing attention to that fact may not help Mr Cameron's cause.

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.

A recording of a conversation between Alex Salmond and George Osborne has been leaked* to The Spectator. An edited extract follows: Alex Salmond: Scotland and England are different countries. So different, in fact, that we should no longer live together. Our interests have diverged and so must our futures. George Osborne: I do not think that is the case. Nor, by the way, do I hope it is. Alex Salmond: But it is! George Osborne: [wearily] Perhaps you are right. Very well; if our interests and futures diverge then perhaps, as you suggest, present arrangements will no longer prove as satisfactory as once we thought they were. Alex Salmond: I knew you would see the light.

An interesting day, then. As I suggested yesterday, George Osborne has ventured across the border on a punitive raid. Nothing like a spot of rough wooing to get you through the winter. The reaction from Scottish nationalists has been interesting, to say the least. Some seem most affronted. Who the hell does George Osborne think he is, anyway? He'll no be telling us what currency we may use. Perhaps not but he - or Ed Balls - is certainly entitled to set out his view of what may be in the best interests of the rest of the United Kingdom. And if that view differs from the Scottish view then tough. Be that as it may, it never ceases to amaze me that nationalists, having declared war upon the British state, are so shocked or appalled when the British state fights back.

Politics is about power. It is surprising how often this is forgotten. Power and the application of power. Sure, there's policy too and noble aspiration and all that happy-clappy stuff but, in the end, politics is a question of who gets to wield the big stick. Lyndon Johnson knew this; so does George Osborne. In the long and sometimes unhappy history of these islands that has more often than not meant power has resided with the English. As Osborne is reminding us, it still does. Osborne, who has little to lose in the popularity stakes north of the border, is being quite brutal. The idea, much insisted upon by Alex Salmond, that an independent Scotland could enter a currency union with the remaining parts of the United Kingdom is fanciful. Poppycock. Daft. Not happening.

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.