Fraser Nelson

A few weeks ago, Boris Johnson made a point about the EU negotiations and the futility of the idea of punishing Britain for the sake of it. ‘If Monsieur Hollande wants to administer punishment beatings to anybody who chooses to escape’, he said, ‘rather in the manner of some World War II movie, then I don’t think that is the way forward, and actually it’s not in the interests of our friends and partners’. Cue howls of outrage. ‘Abhorrent and deeply unhelpful’, said Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s chief Brexit negotiator. But was Boris really so wide of the mark?

What on earth does George Osborne know about journalism? How can someone with no journalistic experience go straight in as editor – editor! – of the London Evening Standard? What were its proprietors thinking? To have dinner with an MP is one thing, but to hire him as an editor? And what does this sacked politician know of the demands facing an editor in the digital era? How can he combine such a demanding job with his duties in parliament and towards his constituents in Tatton? If I wasn’t an editor, these might be a few of my reactions to the extraordinary news today. But much as I hate to admit it, this appointment might actually work. I was rather rude about George Osborne throughout his frontbench career, and regarded him as a deeply disappointing Chancellor.

For weeks, politicians on both houses of Parliament have been carrying on a drama where they pretend to get worked up about the Brexit bill while knowing that the Lords was always going to cave and the Bill was always going to be passed. The House of Lords, which last week voted to make Brexit conditional on final parliamentary approval, has tonight dropped its objection. As everyone in Westminster knew they would. It has been a long parliamentary charade, but there was still something wonderful  about it. The referendum was non-binding: parliament could have overturned the result. Just as it could have overturned the result of the 2014 Scottish referendum.

Throughout David Cameron and George Osborne's six-year double act, we seldom heard of serious arguments between them. Both were keen to avoid a repeat of the Blair-Brown psychodrama and prided themselves on their indivisibility. Same with their respective teams. You would never pick up the Sunday papers and read the sort of No. 10 vs No. 11 insults that we see this morning. The Sunday Telegraph splashes on ‘Cabinet war over Budget shambles’ and describes how even the Cabinet were not told that Philip Hammond was about to break their manifesto commitment not to raise National Insurance. Most of the Cabinet is hopping mad: one member last week told me that Hammond's breaking a promise was bad enough but to do it for such a paltry sum was madness.

In an interview with the BBC last night, Nicola Sturgeon suggested that the autumn of next year would be a ‘common sense’ time to hold another referendum on Scottish independence. Which would, of course, mean voting without knowing what the terms of the Brexit would be. (Or, perhaps, whether it will really happen.) Why the haste? This is another topic that came up on Question Time last night. I suggested that Sturgeon’s sense of urgency might be explained by opinion polls showing her ‘tanking’ approval rating. The 2021 Holyrood election will probably end the majority for independence, given that the SNP will have been in power for 14 years by then and Scots will already be ‘scunnered’ with them (as Ms Sturgeon might put it).

Some thoughts on today's Budget: Hammond breaks Tory promise not to raise National Insurance. Breaks his word, hits 15pc of workforce, raises a pittance. The pledge was made no fewer than four times in the 2015 Conservative Manifesto: no rises in VAT, income tax or National Insurance. And after the election, a law was then passed to stop tax rises, which I thought odd at the time. Did Osborne really need legislation to restrain himself? If Tories have made a manifesto promise, as solemn a promise as you can get in this kind of world, why pass a law? We now know the answer: manifesto pledges are seen as expendable (at least by this Tory government).

Theresa May mentioned Donald Trump only once in her speech to the Republicans gathered in Philadelphia tonight, but its centrepiece was a gift to him. In his inauguration speech, he said that the US was now out of the business of liberal interventionism. She told Republicans that the same applies to Britain. Here’s the key quote:- It is in our interests – those of Britain and America together – to stand strong together to defend our values, our interests and the very ideas in which we believe.  This cannot mean a return to the failed policies of the past. The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over.

With the predictability of an atomic clock, Nicola Sturgeon has come out today condemning the Supreme Court which has reminded her that foreign affairs are not devolved, so Brexit is handled by the UK government on behalf of everyone in the UK. She concludes that 'Scotland’s voice is not being heard and not being listened to within the UK'. She started wanting to find a compromise about Brexit, she said, trying to be reasonable. But she – or, rather Scotland because they are of course the same thing – faces 'hard-right Brexit opinion'. Nicola Sturgeon on the UK Government not having to consult the Scottish Government before triggering Article 50. https://t.co/pfqV2e3r2F pic.twitter.