The PM kicked off his first official visit to the US by writing an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.  In this article he spoke of the ‘special relationship’ that encountered more attention and scrutiny than any other like it in the world.  He stated it was a relationship that served both national interests.  He acknowledged the UK’s role as the junior partner in the relationship but stated that the UK was a “self-confident country clear in our views and values, and we should behave that way.”  A bit of a puff piece really with a few personal comments aimed at demonstrating his “unapologetically” pro-American views.

But why is there such a furore surrounding the release of Abdelbaset al Megrahi?  The man was released almost a year ago by the Scottish Government.  What does President Obama and the Senators calling for an inquiry have to gain from dragging Mr Cameron across the coals?  The PM wasn’t the PM when the decision was made; he spoke out against the decision at the time, a point he reiterated in today’s WSJ article (“I never saw the case for releasing him, and I think it was a very bad decision.”); and finally it was a Scottish, not a UK decision as justice is a devolved power.

The argument goes that UK oil interests were at the heart of this and that the then PM Tony Blair came to an agreement over oil and a prisoner transfer agreement involving al Megrahi.  Firstly, the Scottish Government unequivocally opposed this agreement.  Secondly, why would the Scottish Government agree to help the UK Government gain oil interests?  Politically the release of al Megrahi does nothing for the SNP in seeking reelection so why would they go out of their way to help the UK Government control more oil when the UK Government doesn’t allow the SNP a say in how Scotland’s oil is managed?

But that’s when the penny drops.  What global company has been in the news a bit lately and has somewhat annoyed America as a whole, not just its politicians?  BP of course!  In the last few days BP have managed to finally shore up the leaking pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico and although the problem is a million miles from being resolved, at least some sort of progress is being made.

However, just as recently things haven’t been looking so well for the US economy.  New mortgages have fallen to an eight month low and retail sales have also fallen and given that consumer spending accounts for around 70% of the US economy President Obama is having a tough time convincing people that his economic stimulus is the right thing to do.

So what does a politician do when they are faced with trouble? They divert attention.  Despite BP plugging the leak for the time being the US Government can maintain their attacks on the company following up on allegations that they lobbied the UK Government for the release of al Megrahi.  This allows Obama to maintain BP as public enemy number one and also bring back up their disgust about the al Megrahi decision all the while diverting attention away from troubles at home.

In their joint press conference Cameron and Obama both reiterated their feeling that the decision to release al Megrahi was a very wrong, very poor decision.  However, Cameron went to great lengths to explain that it was a decision made by the Scottish Government without UK intervention.  He continued that he did not need a formal investigation into a decision he knew to be wrong.  He has since been asked by US senators to pursue a formal investigation into the release of al Megrahi.

However, the Prime Minister is not going to do this.  This Prime Minister has vowed to treat the Scottish Government with a Respect Agenda.  This Respect Agenda has faltered slightly in the eyes on some with Nick Clegg’s proposed referendum on voting reform falling on the same day as the 2011 Scottish election.  For Mr Cameron’s UK Government to order an investigation into a devolved matter would not be good politics. 

For President Obama on the other hand it is good politics to be seen holding the UK Prime Minister to account over BP and the release of al Megrahi.  The last thing Obama wants is for the US economy to be centre stage going into the mid-tern elections.  This is an international alliance that both leaders will use as a domestic political tool when necessary.  So it would seem even in the international arena when forging ‘special relationships’, all politics are local.

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

It was all pretty inspiring stuff, but an issue that kept being raised was the problem of politics. Basically for various political reasons, such innovation was difficult if not impossible in most cases.

But that supposes there is even the appetite for it in the first place.

Like them or not (and obviously most people in Scotland do not) the Tory-Lib Dem government is bringing forward some fairly radical plans, for example with healthcare. Yet in Scotland we seem to be quite conservative when it comes to new ideas.

The proposals made by the Scottish Future’s Trust on Scottish Water have met with a lukewarm response, except from the Unions who are vociferously hostile. The Curriculum for Excellence is roundly derided (perhaps with good reason, perhaps not), successive governments will shy way from anything that looks like it might be a ‘market-led’ reform of the NHS, and everyone and their dog is against projects such as the Edinburgh trams.

Now I am not arguing for or against any of these plans and their particular merits per se, just asking the question; when was the last time some new, innovative or dare I say, even radical idea was forwarded in Scotland, and roundly championed by the various powers that be? And by radical I mean world-leading, you know, like we used to be.

As the Policy Exchange think-tank posed in its report on devolution last week, has Scotland actually done very much with its hard-won devolved powers? Yes free personal-care (which it seems is under threat) and yes the smoking-ban, but is this enough for ten years? Does this equate to Scottish solutions to Scottish problems?

The irony around all of this is that in emphatically rejecting the Conservatives in May’s election, Scotland will still cling to the belief that its left-leaning convictions automatically equate to it being ‘progressive’. And an important part of our national identity revolves around our great inventors and innovators, both in science and technology and in philosophy.

But in being so wedded to our history of innovation actually turned us into a horrible parody of ourselves? We may have rejected the Conservative party, but with our apparently inherent distrust of innovation and change and our tendency to indulge in the national pastime of whingeing, are we not proving ourselves to be a deeply conservative nation?

A great lesson that I took away from the NESTA seminar was that if you keep doing what you have always done, you will keep getting what you have always got. But then maybe that’s just the way we like it.

 [The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

If Cameron accepts his invite he would be the first Conservative leader to speak at their annual conference, a spot normally reserved for a Labour heavyweight. The Transport Union RMT has confirmed that it is initiating organised opposition to this invitation, applying pressure on the TUC to withdraw the invite and threatening a walkout of its members from the conference if ‘Dave’ does take to the stage.

The prospect of Dave endowing his pearls of wisdom and ‘fiscal fascism’ is not your average Trade Unionist’s cup of tea. Especially with rumours adrift of plans to extend upon the union-limiting laws of the Thatcher-era, with transport Secretary Philip Hammond reportedly having met with Boris Johnson with the sole purpose of gaining advice for new rules to govern industrial action.

The RMT have already won support from the North West Region of the TUC who have issued a motion demanding the withdrawal on the grounds that the invitation sent the ‘wrong message to its members’; this statement is not without merit. As Bob Crow was quick to point out the TUC should be about protecting ‘jobs, pensions, public services and living standards’ and it cannot be queried that all of these are under imminent threat from ‘Cameron’s-cuts’.

However, Bob Crow’s boys may have jumped the gun. The invite from the TUC for Cameron to speak is not quite heralding in a new TUC-Tory love-in era, where the Westminster coalition is ushered in to trample over the Unions as they please. Rather the RMT should see Cameron’s potential address as an opportunity in their favour. Instead of running for the hills, in an attempt to gain heroic kudos amongst their peers, the situation should be utilised wisely by the likes of Crow, and time be made preceeding Cameron’s speech for questions, which would allow the Union’s perceived flaws in his administration be exposed.

Given that the conference will command sizeable media attention, coverage of Cameron being given a thorough grilling will dent his airbrushed armour far more so than if Bob Crow, the RMT’s leader, has his way and Cameron’s words left unchallenged ’echoing around an empty hall.’

To follow Crow’s wishes will only serve to reinforce and perpetuate the view from the right of the ranks of Trade Unions being populated by pig-headed old-timers, so work-shy and walk-out prone that they would even abscond from their own key event.

Like it, or-almost certainly in this case- not, Cameron and his policies are not going anywhere too distant in the near future.  As such Unionists should perhaps keep their enemies closer than their friends. If Unions want to retain a strong voice, able to represent their members’ needs and command respect, they must be seen to be willing and able to engage with their age-old enemies of the right in an effective manner. It is understandable that the reflex reaction to news of Cameron’s proposed speech is of disgust, but they cannot sustain this approach. In order to avoid being overlooked as anachronistic, stagnant force Unions must show themselves to be capable of intelligent manoeuvres to challenge issues affecting its membership: the TUC’s invite to Cameron being the first of these.

An address by Cameron to the TUC should not be seen as Unionists selling out to the flavour of the week, instead a well considered initiative, acknowledging the powers at be who will continue to influence the values they represent, creating a forum for interaction with them.

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

When a government, politician or any other body takes a position, makes a statement or enacts a policy, one of the key questions that should be asked is why? What is behind it, what are they trying to achieve?

According to The Scotsman, some ‘devolution sceptic’ MPs from the Labour party are behind the move. So the question is, why?

Well of course the motives could be totally innocent, Labour are after all the party that brought about devolution and it could be that given the general consensus for some sort of further devolution to Holyrood, they feel that now is the time to take stock and work out what could be being done better.

Or there could be some more partisan motives behind it – we are after all now entering the run-up to Holyrood elections where Labour look favourites to regain power.

Whatever the motives are, it is clear that devolution has put real pressure on Scottish MPs to justify their existence, their salaries and their expenses.

A crude estimation of the Holyrood/Westminster power balance is that Holyrood is responsible for around 75% of issues that affect the average Scot on a day to day basis. Given that these types of issues are likely to have accounted for most MP casework, it is fair to say that their workload must have diminished significantly.

And so, in our austerity age and with a Tory-led government at Westminster, there must be the potential for them to have salaries cut (after all they now have much less responsibility than their English counterparts), or be reduced in number – neither of which will be palatable for the embattled Scots MPs.

Such issues and problems are in many ways devolution’s rough edges, loose ends that will be tidied-up as time passes and English resentment grows. But there is another issue at stake here and one which in my opinion has the potential to be far more controversial.

Who is Holyrood accountable to? The Scottish people would be the popular answer, but as Holyrood was created by an Act of Westminster, it could be revoked or amended by the MPs who sit there. In crude terms, Holyrood exists as a gift of Westminster, and they could take it away if they so wished.

Now of course the idea that Holyrood would be dissolved or even have its powers diminished is outlandish in the extreme (which could in itself be an indication of how successful devolution has been), and any party who tried to do it would be taking an enormous gamble.

But at a time when constitutional reform has become an accepted reality for all the parties at Holyrood, the question of who Holyrood is answerable to has the potential to open a can of worms for all involved.

And as for judging how well devolution has worked, it is highly subjective and problematic – can you really judge a process by how well (or badly) it is used by individual governments? Would any perceived failures of devolution be failures of a system or of the individuals working within that system particular time? And how will the MSPs take to being ‘judged’ by a group of people that they have largely replaced but who still seem to view them as inferior?

And surely the Scottish MPs behind this move have their chance to judge how well Holyrood is working – the same as the rest of us do when they cast their vote for their MSP every four years.

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

Let me say that I am not against this idea, there are many merits to holding a referendum on our electoral system on the same day as the devolved elections.  Firstly, it will save the taxpayer money.  According to Mr Clegg’s speech today it will save an estimated £17 million.  This fits in nicely with our new austerity age.  Secondly, there is a good chance that voter turnout will be increased or at least not ridiculously low and a high turnout is needed to give the outcome more legitimacy.  Thirdly, such plebiscites being tagged onto elections are a relatively common event throughout Europe and the US. 

Finally, I don’t think the argument that people won’t understand what to do stands up to scrutiny.  I don’t think that it is the case that the public won’t understand what they are voting for or how to do it, rather it is politically expedient for some parties to claim that it will be too difficult for the public to understand.  I have faith that those who vote are more than capable of following simple instructions.

My issues with this relate to the UK government’s Respect agenda and fairness.  Thus far David Cameron and his merry men have stuck to their promise to treat, not just Scotland, but all the devolved administrations with respect.  However, this is now the second time that they have hi-jacked an election date from the devolved administrations.  The first time was the announcement of fixed term parliaments which will result in the next Westminster elections falling on the same day as the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections in 2015. Both of these decisions have been taken without consideration or consultation with the devolved governments.  This hardly exudes respect from Westminster to their devolved counterparts.

Furthermore, I think – although I suppose we won’t know for sure – that it will result in nationalist parties being drowned out on the campaign trail for their own parliaments as they claim they were throughout the general election campaign.  Come next spring we will see Clegg et al (if there still is a et al by then) on their yellow fun bus touring the country promoting the merits of AV.  This offers them the chance to also slip in the merits of the Scottish Lib Dems in Scotland etc.  I don’t think that the nationalist parties can match this kind of spending or will be afforded similar media coverage and as in the general election this could marginalise them.

So what’s the outcome?  Well the referendum on voting reform is going to go ahead on the same day as the devolved elections.  Voting reform might I add that isn’t the STV that the Lib Dems campaigned on, why isn’t there a choice of more than one voting system?  Why isn’t the question in two parts – one asking if voting reform is wanted and the other a list of the potential electoral systems for us to mark our preference?  Apologies I digress. 

The lack of consultation or even a heads up to the devolved governments just doesn’t strike me as being respectful.  Let’s face it, if the issue has formed a united front between the SNP and Scottish Labour then the new government has to wonder just how far they’ve strayed from their ‘Respect Agenda’…

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

These stories are going to provide opposition parties with ample material with which to attack the SNP and Alex Salmond.  Secondly, it could leave Mr Salmond fighting a battle to keep his own party onside.  These are hardly appealing prospects for a party running for re-election.

Firstly, the opposition.  Scottish Labour et al hardly need an invitation to attack the SNP or their leader, however this is like Christmas come early.  It’s been labelled an admission of defeat by Alex Salmond, the final nail in the coffin for independence and an ignominious end to an administration.  On Thursday I predict that we will hear (from Iain Gray most likely) that the SNP are an independence party without the independence.  Or something to those lines, I can’t think of the pun just now but I have no doubt there will be one.

Despite these attacks from the other parties in Scotland, I doubt that these comments were made flippantly.  The General Election wasn’t a successful one for the SNP they didn’t lose anything but didn’t get close to the more than slightly ambitious target of 20 seats.  Out of fear of a Tory government at Westminster, Scotland voted big for Labour and there was a slight swing from SNP to Labour.  Furthermore, in a recently published poll for The Herald the stat men put the SNP on 29% for the constituency vote and 28% for the regional vote against Labour’s 45% and 41% respectively.  This pretty much leads to the conclusion that there will likely be a Labour government in Scotland from next May, and one not too short of a majority. The above figures put Labour on about 60 seats.

So a change of tact is necessary for the SNP if they want to hold onto power.  Alex Salmond seems to have realised this and acted accordingly.  After all, he didn’t say that independence was being shelved.  He said that gaining more fiscal powers for Scotland was a more realistic prospect and that the duty to campaign for what is good for Scotland as well as campaigning for independence.  In this he is attempting to show the electorate that the SNP are not only a one policy party and his parties belief in independence does not come at the expense of what is in the interests of Scotland.  It seems to me that it’s not a case of losing the independence debate, the SNP see it as not having taken place…yet.

Secondly, Alex Salmond may face some resistance to his comments from within his own party.  What do they want?  Independence (obviously), when do they want it?  Well, it depends on who you ask.  Some within the party favour independence right now some prefer to continue along the current path of devolution, more fiscal powers which, they believe, will lead Scotland to independence.

For this reason, Alex Salmond’s apparent backing away from a focused agenda on independence will be disconcerting.  It may be viewed that if he’s not the leader to push for independence then naturally they will want someone who will.  This course of action is very unlikely for the foreseeable future but those who disagree will not stay quiet if this strategy doesn’t work.

My guess is that recess can’t come quick enough for Alex Salmond.  He’ll want to get through this week, re-group over the summer and come out fighting in the autumn.  After all, if they don’t win this election then independence gets further away, not closer.

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

Yes it would appear that the new couple are settling into their coalition quite nicely.  A joint party manifesto: check.  Spending cuts of £6 billion: check.  Queen’s speech: check.  Joint banking account:  just for entertainments sake let’s say check.  In all seriousness the first three are real achievements.  It is far too early to tell how it will turn out over the 5 year term but it is a good start.

On the other hand, don’t you think that it has become a little bit of a one-sided agreement?  I realise the Liberal Democrats are the junior partners but look at the agreement.  Trident will be renewed but the Lib Dems can talk about an alternative if they want.  There will be a referendum on AV voting system but the Tories will campaign against this.  Actually don’t be overly surprised if Labour campaigns against this too just to get one over on the Lib Dems.  Absolutely no joining the Euro and the Lib Dems can’t even mention this for the next 5 years. 

Anyway, this wasn’t the intended direction when I started writing.  Things have died down since the election and subsequent coalition agreement but it’s not the end. In fact we’re only just the beginning.  Now we’re on the Road to Holyrood. 

In a little less than a year, devolved Scotland will go to the polls for the first time under a government other than Labour.  So what will the future hold for Scotland’s political parties?

Following their dismal display in Scotland at the General Election, the Scottish Conservatives found themselves being branded ‘marginal’ in Scotland and that they should ‘pack up north of the border’.  However, these were not the cynical first attacks from opposition parties these comments came from Tory Lords Forsyth and Tebbit.  They described their parties display in Scotland as ‘disastrous’.   To add insult to injury for Tories in Scotland, their only Scottish MP was passed over for the Secretary of State Job with David Cameron preferring to install Danny Alexander.  Despite the election setback, leader in the Scottish Parliament Annabel Goldie has reacted and shuffled her shadow cabinet aimed at presenting a break from the old Conservative stereotype.  Will this prove to be good enough to overcome the (un-natural?) Scottish perception of the Tories?

Labour had a successful General Election if you only take Scotland into account.  They managed to increase their share of the vote by 2.5%, won back two seats that had been lost in by-elections and there was a swing from SNP to Labour – albeit a minute one.  So the Scottish Labour party have every reason to be buoyed going into this Scottish 2011 campaign.  They may also have a lift from the news that Gordon Brown wants to play a role in the campaign.  The General Election would appear to show that Scotland does not share the same distaste for Gordon Brown as the rest of the country.  However, would Gordon Brown intervening in the campaign not overshadow the role of Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray?

Onto the Liberal Democrats then.  I don’t know what to make of their role in the coming Scottish election.  There had been a backlash in the days following the coalition agreement but that seems to have largely disappeared.  Ultimately, I think that the Lib Dems will be judged on the performance of their brothers in the UK party and their role in government.

Finally, what of the Government?  The SNP have many areas in which they can point to success.  Frozen council tax rates, free tuition fees, (nearly) free prescription charges, and wider NHS improvements.  In spite of this, opposition parties will campaign on failures on pledges on class sizes, help for first time buyers and the largely disappointing Scottish Futures Trust.  In the General Election they saw their popular support slide but they did hold onto their six seats.

So what are we in store for?  A Labour minority government?  As surely another coalition with the Lib Dems is untenable.  Can the SNP tap into anti-Tory sentiment and scare the public into restoring them to power and onward to Independence?  Are the Tories and Lib Dems really marginal in this election?  Who knows, only time will tell.  So as the UK settles into their new coalition in Westminster, the Road to Holyrood has just begun.

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

There are several changes that will likely receive much media attention.  The current Inverness East, Nairn and Badenoch and Lochaber seat held by the SNP’s Fergus Ewing is to be split with Lochaber and Badenoch joining the Skye seat and Inverness East and Nairn making up a separate Inverness and Nairn seat.

The current Tayside North, Dundee East and Angus all held by the SNP are to be split between four seats:  Angus North and Mearns, Angus South, Dundee East and Perthshire North.  This will mean a change of seat for Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney.

Liberal Democrat Jeremy Purvis’ Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale seat has now been redrawn to take in part of Midlothian with the new seat being called Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale.  The rest of Midlothian will become part of Midlothian North and Musselburgh.

The current Glasgow Govan which is held by Nicola Sturgeon will brought into the new constituency of Glasgow Southside, as well as some of Shettleston, Rutherglen and Labour held the Gorbals.

Also, Labour held Eastwood will lose Neilston, Uplawmoor and Barrhead to Renfrewshire.

To view the full report of the Boundary Commission, follow this link.

Timescales are flexible, but we will look to begin the internship at the end of June for it to run until the end of August.

The ideal candidate should have:

• Strong academic background
• An interest in and knowledge of current affairs and policy at Scottish, UK and EU levels including political institutions and parliamentary procedure
• An interest in and knowledge of the media
• First rate research and communication skills
• The ability to work independently
• Proven IT skills (Microsoft Office, e-mail, etc) 

This position would suit an individual eager to develop experience within public affairs. 

Contact: Please send your CV and a covering letter demonstrating why you would be a suitable candidate to Keith Small at keith@morhamburn.com

Website: www.morhamburn.com

Closing date for applications: Wednesday 9^th June 2010

As the musket-smoke of the general election cleared, we here in Scotland were left shocked by just how pointless it had all been – a replica of the last result in 2005.

But while this stasis could be interpreted as some sort of political malaise in Scotland, it could also be looked upon as quite a remarkable result when taken in the context of the UK results, and emphasising just how different Scotland is from the rest of the UK.

Indeed, former FM Henry McLeish called the results ‘remarkable’ in his Holyrood column this month, specifically for the way in which they highlight the growing political divergence between Scotland and England.

While David Cameron’s Conservatives swept to power across England & Wales, here in Scotland, as former Holyrood Tory leader David McLetchie MSP ruefully observed, they have to convince the electorate that they don’t eat babies.

The Conservatives remain ‘toxic’ and Labour in Scotland remain the chief beneficiaries. While some have accused them of running a pretty negative campaign, it is difficult to know if they merely reflect the prejudices of the Scottish people or are actively promoting them – probably a bit of both.

What is in no doubt however is that the Tories in Scotland have a big problem, and it is difficult to know just how to get out of it – irrational prejudice is hard to combat.

Is prejudice too strong a word?

From Dictionary.com: prej-u-dice (noun) – an unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

Without knowledge, thought, or reason; an interesting idea to ponder. Exactly what was it about Cameron’s policies that caused such revulsion among the electorate? No, I’m not sure, and I suspect that many of those whose reflex position is anti-Tory don’t know either.

Instead, the prejudice is fed on a diet of scaremongering, anti-middle-Englishness, inverse snobbery and history. Because that’s what Thatcher is to Scotland now, history.

Two decades have passed since she stopped being PM. Twenty years, the last thirteen of which have been spent with a Labour government with so strong a majority it could have reversed much of the damage of Thatcher if it had been so inclined.

That it chose not to could well turn out to be Thatcher’s biggest vindication.

In George Bernard-Shaw’s play ‘The Devil’s Disciple’, a central theme is the wafer-thin divide between hatred and love. While aware of the perils of using pop-psychology to psychoanalyse an entire nation, I do wonder about Scots and their obsession with Thatcher.

It is surely now bordering on the dangerously obsessive? People would have been casting their votes for Labour and against the Tories (Thatcher) who were not even alive when she was in office.

As Bernard-Shaw alluded to in his play, do we hate those whom we secretly need or admire?

Perhaps Scots need to have a pantomime villain so that we can retreat to our favoured position of downtrodden underdog, slighted victim, romantic losers?

Perhaps we retreat to anti-Thatcherism two decades after she ceased to be relevant because we miss her and the ready-made excuse which she represented?

As long as tales of bogey-women dominate the political discourse of Scotland, how can we have a proper debate? Is it healthy for a country to be so overwhelmingly convinced of the merits of a single political point of view? Does such consensus not equal stagnancy, not breed complacency and retard political debate?

It is often said that democracy needs strong opposition. Contrary as ever, us Scots seem to disagree; it seems we would rather just live in the past and have a good whinge.