Stephen Daisley

Whenever a new poll on Scottish independence is published, my phone begins buzzing so frantically it starts to register on the Richter scale. London-based editors want to know what it means. London-based politicians want to know what can be done to stop it meaning what they fear it means. The polls are not great for the Union these days and Wednesday’s, showing support for Scexit at 58 per cent, is further proof of the threat facing the United Kingdom. It’s only natural that this alarms instinctive Unionists but their Unionism could be a little more attentive. The United Kingdom has been under threat for years now, at least since the dawn of legislative devolution and especially after the SNP took control in Scotland in 2007.

Broadly speaking, there are two ways to respond to Communist China's national security law. First, there is the Tony Chung way. Chung, a 19-year-old activist, set up a pro-independence movement and became the first person arrested under the repressive legislation, imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing’s dictators earlier this year. Then there is the Lord Hodge way. The deputy president of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (SCOTUK) has been appointed to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (HKCFA) and as such may help to apply the national security law.

Douglas Ross’s speech to the Conservative and Unionist Party conference was uncanny for being both conservative and unionist. The Scottish Tory leader pitched up to his podium and launched into an awkward conversation with colleagues south of the border. His theme was ‘putting an end to defeatism and disinterest’ and both he blamed on the English Tories and their turn away from Unionism. Unionism, in his rendering, was a categorical imperative of British conservatism. ‘You cannot be a conservative and not be a unionist, the two values are inseparable in our politics,’ he pronounced.

The first rule of Scottish politics is: the SNP always wins, even when it loses. If you’re wondering why the Nationalists were so swift to remove the whip from Margaret Ferrier — once the story that she had travelled on a train after testing positive for Covid became public, that is — be under no illusion that ethical consideration had much to do with it. Nicola Sturgeon’s party are keen on a by-election in Ferrier’s Rutherglen and Hamilton West constituency because they think they can win and put this matter behind them. Doing so is of the utmost strategic importance to the separatists because Scotland is seven months out from Holyrood elections and Covid-19 will be one of the main issues.

Everyone forgets the third article of impeachment. The charge sheet against Richard Nixon, adopted by the House judiciary committee following the Watergate burglary and a conspiracy to impede its investigation, famously accused the president, first, of obstruction of justice and, second, of violating citizens’ constitutional rights. Thirteen days later, on August 9, 1974, and with impeachment all but certain, Nixon became the first president to resign the Oval Office. What did for him as much as what could be heard on the Nixon tapes was his refusal to hand them over until forced to by the Supreme Court.

Peter Murrell is the most powerful man in Scotland but almost no one has heard of him. The SNP chief executive shuns the spotlight but he is one half of Scotland’s ruling class: he is the husband of Nicola Sturgeon. The Sturgeon-Murrell reign has gone largely unchallenged in the ultra-disciplined SNP — but that is changing. The Sunday Times reports that party activists are plotting a vote of no confidence in Murrell at the next SNP conference. The move stems from one of those intricate vendettas in which Scottish politics and the Sicilian mafia specialise. Lanarkshire Labour never went away, it just rebranded with a saltire.

There are two kinds of people in this life: people who say Gavin Williamson is the least capable member of the Cabinet and people who have heard of Ben Wallace. The Secretary of State for Defence, in an intemperate answer in the Commons, claimed the UK waged ‘illegal wars’ under Labour.  Wallace was speaking during the second reading of the overseas operations (service personnel and veterans) bill, which is intended to protect British soldiers from lawfare. It was rather unfortunate, then, that in the middle of trying to pass such a piece of legislation, the Defence Secretary would make a jibe about ‘illegal wars’ to the Labour benches.

Beware a government appearing to do the right thing. Liz Truss, minister for women and equalities, released a statement this morning that appears to do the right thing on reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). Trans activists wanted the 2004 law changed in three key ways: 1) Remove the requirement for a medical diagnosis and allow individuals to legally change their gender by self-declaration, 2) extend this to those who wish to be recognised as ‘non-binary’ rather than male or female, and 3) lower the age at which a person can do these things to 16.

The more the SNP decries the Internal Market Bill, the more I warm to it. Initially, I considered it sensible enough but wholly insufficient given the constitutional threat facing the United Kingdom. (Less keen on the law-breaking bit, mind.) But now Mike Russell, SNP constitution minister and professional hysteric, says the Bill will ‘undercut the existing settlement’ by allowing devolved administrations to be ‘overridden by the whim of the UK Secretary of State’ and by permitting ministers to spend ‘in opposition to the Scottish government’ in what he calls ‘an enormous assault on the devolved powers’. Now, that’s more like it.

In a very specific and limited way, I have concerns about the Internal Market bill. It’s not a bad bill; on the whole, it is a welcome piece of legislation that attempts to bring some cogency to regulation and practice as we exit the EU. The bill will make it easier to trade and contract with and within the UK, standardising and simplifying a regulatory terrain that currently resembles the obstacle course at Sandhurst. It also establishes in black and white UK ministers’ power to invest directly in devolved nations, including via transfers to local authorities. Since the first hint of the bill’s contents, the SNP has been squalling that the UK government is mounting a ‘power grab’ to undermine their bailiwick of belligerence at Holyrood.

Free speech concerns about the SNP’s Hate Crime Bill have been mounting for months now, so it was inevitable that the Scottish Parliament would eventually take notice. The Scottish Conservatives plan to force a vote there tomorrow calling on the Nationalist administration to withdraw the legislation. The Tory motion is unlikely to pass given the numbers at Holyrood. The SNP parliamentary group operates essentially as a single bloc vote while the sole function of the Scottish Greens is getting Nicola Sturgeon’s government out of the latest trouble it’s gotten itself into. What the resolution will do is compel MSPs to take a side.

One of the most impressive qualities of Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership so far has been his ability to land blows on the government without seeming political. He’s a lawyer with the demeanour of a bank manager: he’s just telling you how things are. That has served him well in his broadsides against ministers’ handling of Covid-19. But in his rounding on the Prime Minister’s preferred trade envoy, Tony Abbott, he has faltered. The charge that the former Australian PM’s views make him unsuitable for the role sounds like something cooked up by younger, less worldly advisors and foisted upon the Labour leader. I like to tell myself the same thing about his taking a knee in the Shadow Cabinet room. Abbott stands accused of sexism, misogyny and homophobia.