WHAT DID THE QUEEN TELL MURDO ABOUT HER FOOTBALL PREFERENCES?

The Three Brexiteers. 

In the last post Dean made some observations about Brexit and Scotland's reaction to it. 

In this post I'd like to look at Brexit and what our response might be. 

Firstly, I don't think we should ever give up on what we believe in. Brexit or no, many people simply believe that Scotland is best served being governed for itself, by itself, although clearly working with other countries in international organisations. 

The Brexit débacle may have swayed people in this in one direction or the other, of course.

Let's be clear, Brexit was, and is, made in a perfectly legal referendum decision, not an unreasonable aspiration. I don't knock anyone who believes in it.

Maybe because I see the four constituent members of the UK as separate countries with their own needs and economic and social realities, however, I think that any case that can be made for Brexit is far less compelling if you are from Scotland, or NI, or clearly, Gibraltar. London is rather different, given its status in the financial world. 

Different people in different countries were voting for different things. Northern Ireland for example, already marginalised by Great Britain, is worried that being outside the EU while the rest of Ireland is in it, will be damaging to its economy. It is also a recipient of a great deal of EU money which almost undoubtedly will not be forthcoming from the UK. Scotland, whilst not in the same category still profits from its membership of the EU.

One of the disturbing aspects of the Brexit campaign at least from the 'popular' press, and one that seemed to take root in England in particular, was a level of xenophobia, the likes of which I've never seen before. By heavens the editors of the Sun, Mail, Telegraph and Express seem to either have a visceral hatred for foreigners ... or have worked out that their readers do and from this they can make money. 

How to create a solid wall of hatred.

Of course I will never give up on the idea of independence for Scotland, but like most of us, I have had to accept the will of the Scottish people in a referendum in 2014, to stay in the UK.

But it's fair to say that that vote was based on some assurances, not least one propounded by British politicians of both colours (and probably the LDs) and the EU authorities, that the only way to stay in the EU was to stay in Britain. That Scots voted 62-38 to stay in Europe is a real indicator that that was something that may have influenced them in their 2014 decision.

Aye, Fluffy, whatever...

In any political campaign we know that people lie and politicians of every shade manipulate statistics and facts to their own advantage. Hard though it is for a normal person to understand Mr Mundell's volte face, I'm sure that he and his side are not the only ones to do this. 

Lord knows the NHS staff and some patients may well have been swayed by the implied benefit of £350 million a week from Boris, Nigel and crew.

No, we aren't really being served. But we're only Jocks, Irish, or Gibraltarians.

On our side (independence for Scotland), we have had "the settled will of the Scottish people" rammed fairly hard down our throats for some time. Fair enough. Certainly the politicians at the top, the FM, the cabinet and minister, accepted that, although they continue to work hard to persuade the Scottish people that they made the wrong choice (well the 55%). There's nothing unreasonable about that. You don't give up on a dream if at first you don't succeed. 

Had Nigel lost he wouldn't have said, "oh well, that's it, we'll abandon any hopes of coming out of Europe; I'll just learn French so that I don't have to shout/slur loudly at the bar staff in Brussels".

Our parliament has a majority of members who were elected on a platform that included the proposal that if there were to be a material change in the political or economic situation, then another referendum on independence was possible. Their election too, might be called the settled will of the Scottish people, as might be the 62% for Europe vote in our country.

The 'settled will' in any case is not ever really settled, regardless of what the odious Jack Straw says (in between celebrating  Berexit getting Chilcott and thus his sorry backside off the front pages almost immediately!!) He would have made it illegal for there EVER to be another referendum on Scottish Independence.

To be fair Mr Farage was never one to see irony

Populations are changing all the time, because population is a moving thing: people come of age and people die. People arrive and people move away. It's the way of things. A 'will' in 2014 may have changed dramatically by 2019 because of a change in demographics, particularly given that statistics show that the younger people tend to be much more pro-independence than older ones. So 'settled will' even a few years later, may be very different.

Nicola is doing the right thing in my opinion, to see if the 'will' of the Scottish people, in both referenda can be accepted: ie, Scotland remain a part of the UK and a part of the EU.  That's after all what the Scots said back in 2014 and 2016.

It's not as fantastical as it seems. In the Kingdom of Denmark, part is in and part out. And the Irish situation may well demand a much more flexible viewpoint, for the sake of peace or again the possibility of a part of the UK breaking away.

If, as Westminster seems to be indicating it will, that fails, then the views of the Scottish people may be sought again. Not to do so would be letting down the 62% who are about to be dragged out of Europe with the attendant loss of jobs and increased costs. Particularly because of the specific promise made by UKOKers in 2014.

Well, there you go. The Queen must hate Celtic, Murdo?
Did you ask her how she feels about you telling the world that?

Murdo Fraser, seems to be unaware of what his government is doing in London. He says that the Scottish government must explain what Brexit means, while Mrs May and her Three Brexiteers (Johnson, Fox and Davis) are steadfastly refusing to explain that even to their own MPs. (Maybe that's what Murdo means.) 

How the hell can Nicola, or the Scottish public, possibly know what it means when the folk that are supposed to be in charge won't tell us (or don't know themselves)? And how can the Scottish government plan for something that the Brits haven't sorted out?  This is a good read.

What the Scottish government has tried to do is establish the facts. So Nicola has been to Brussels to meet with people there. What she wanted to know was, what would this mean for Scotland...was there a possibility of a Greenlandic solution in reverse... and how would the EU react to Scotland if it decided independence in Europe was superior to dependence in the UK?

She seemed to get more done in the first few weeks than the mighty British government which acted like a rabbit blinded by headlights from the four winds.

But of course, all negotiations must, in the end, be between London and Brussels.

We are dependent upon people who seem to have little regard for us, and certainly won't much care about our wishes when it comes to negotiating. To be fair they all represent English constituencies and the English population is massive in comparison to ours.

Boris wanted the yacht to travel the world with his two buddies (and presumably Mr Werrity). His boss said NO.

Seriously do you imagine that Johnson, Fox and Davis will give much thought to the people in Gibraltar, Scotland or Northern Ireland when they are sorting out the future?

At the moment they seemed to be more interested in getting the royal yacht recommissioned so they can steam around the world like the colonialists they are, striking up trade deals with anyone who is impressed with a royal yacht. Opium anyone? Watch out, Dean, if some suspicious looking English fellow with a haystack on his head  comes up to you in the street saying "Me sell you opium. Velly good stuff, ask Lord Sewell". Oh no sorry, that was coke!

I'd be interested in people's views on this, and on whether parliament should be given a chance to debate Brexit, albeit with no veto on the referendum result, or whether it should all be done by the back door, privy council, statutory orders or whatever they have up their sleeve when they want to be sneaky... 

FIRST OF ALL LET'S DO THIS...

Commiserations and congratulations, Iceland.

As you won with dignity, you lost with dignity. 

You did a great job for small countries on and off the pitch.

You've done your country nothing but good in this tournament. No one is going to forget the Viking Chant in a hurry and people who never before gave your country a second thought will be wondering about holidays among the charming Vikings.

We, as another small country, are seriously proud of you. Við elskum þig Ísland.
**********
AND IN OTHER NEWS:

Murdo says that if you cut him he would bleed red white and blue.

(I wondered if that meant he too was Icelandic) but it turns out that he doesn't really have any blood! It fittingly come in TUBES!

So if he ever needs a transfusion...Tesco's is yer man!
**********

MURDO THINKS THAT Messrs JUNKER and SHULTZ ARE BUSKERS! TORIES, HUH?

Murdo Fraser ‏@murdo_fraser  2h2 hours ago

LATEST from Brussels: Nicola emerges 'delighted with progress' from high-level talks arranged with busker she met in Grand Place

C

MORE RANDOM THOUGHTS...

Jon Snow ‏@jonsnowC4  2h2 hours ago

Tories go to court to try to prevent Kent police having extra time to investigate huge sums they spent in defeating Farage in South Thanet.

Scott Nelson ☭ ‏@SocialistVoice  57m57 minutes ago

Osborne is on course to miss his deficit targets, yet says Brexit will bring Britain into recession #PlankOfEngland

NOTE TO UNIONIST PRESS...

Dear Unionist Press,

OK, let's make this clear. I'd be the first to congratulate Ruth Davidson for doubling the number of seats her party got in the General Election (even if to do so she was obliged to sort of 'Murdo Fraser' the party...that is to say heavily disguise the fact that the Ruth Davidson Unionist Tank Party of Unionists and more Unionists and the British Conservative and Unionist party are one and the same thing).

None the less, a job well done. Whatever you want to call them, Ruth appears to have, at least to a certain extent, detoxified the Tories.

But now, let's get it in to perspective, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Unionist Press! The Tankers came SECOND, not first. They have 31 seats out of 129.  The other parties combined have 98. In short they have fewer than quarter of the seats.

The SNP alone has 63 seats. That's twice the number the Tories have got, so the claim that Ruthie and her crack team are going to drive their tanks over Nicola's lawns or, well anything much, is fantasy. They would require the 24 Labour, 5 Liberal Democrats and 4 of the 6 Greens to vote with them, before they're going to make any difference in terms of votes. (Depending upon which party supplies the presiding officer*)

And with respect, how often is that to happen?

So, we all know that you are incredibly excited about the fact that instead of being the third party, the Tankies are now the "official" opposition, but please, let's get it into perspective, shall we? That means Ruth gets to ask the First Minister a couple more questions a week and Kezia gets to ask a couple less, doesn't it?

Now seriously ... keep calm and  do whatever it is you do.

Kind Regards

MUNGUIN

PS: It might be as well to remember that good though it is to have doubled your seats, to triple you seat count is REALLY spectacular...step forward Patrick Harvie.


* Craig Dalzell puts forward an interesting idea for presiding officer in this piece. I'd be interested in what other people think of it, either here or on Craig's own excellent blog.

Has the Conservative Party abandoned that name in Scotland?

Are they now the Ruth Davidson Party?

When Annabel Goldie stood down as leader of the Conservative Party's Scottish branch, because David Cameron and Fluffy Muddle wanted her gone (presumably because they couldn't walk all over her), there were two main contenders for her job.

They were Ruth Davidson and Murdo Fraser.

Murdo stood on a ticket on changing the party in Scotland, losing the toxic brand, and the automatic agreement with everything London dictated, and becoming a new, right of centre, distinctly Scottish party. Many in the party agreed with him. Many outside the party agreed with him. 

Ruth, on the other hand, was David's woman. She areed with every word he said and he used all the power he could muster to have her elected, including supplying her (allegedly), against the rules, with his own PR people. (Not that they are up to much.) 

Ruth disagreed with changing the name or the brand... She arrogantly asserted that the toxicity attributable to Mrs Thatcher should be water under the bridge. Why, she (Ruth) was just a girl when Mrs Thatcher was prime minister.

It was insulting, of course, to those who had lost their jobs, their futures, their dignity and their health becasue of Thatcher's ideological reforms, and it missed the point that the Tories became even more toxic under John Major. Indeed it wasn't until 1997, some 6 years after Thatcher had been shown the door by the Tories, that they reached the depths. In that election they had zero MPs in Scotland. In that respect they have recovered a little since then, having one MP... well, more or less. (As my old boss would say: Half a man is better than no man at all!)

Ruth showed herself as an arrogant and immature 33 year old who needed to do some growing up. But with the help of David Cameron she was duly elected and led the party to its worst result in 100 years in the UK elections of last year.

Well, now she has grown up. And there's an irony in the fact that she isn't  any longer talking about the Tories at this general election. The toxicity has still not gone away, so she's selling herself.

Ruth Davidson for opposition. Quite apart from the fact that conceding defeat some 3 weeks before the election is pretty disturbing, it seems that she has come to the conclusion that she was wrong and Murdo was right.

Murdo must have a warm satisfied glow.

Ruth is counting on being the second party. The official opposition in parliament after the May election.

By pinning her party's fortunes so firmly to her own identity, she must realise that any failure in this regard is likely to fall fair and square on her shoulders

If Kezia Dugdale remains the leader of the opposition for the next five years, will Ruth fall on her sword?

SCOTLAND NOW HAS A UKIP MEMBER TO NOT BOTHER REPRESENTING US

There's something you never thought you'd see:
Nigel without a fag and a pint!

I imagine that the majority of Scots will be disappointed that there is now a Ukip member (not) representing them in the European parliament.

Some people are delighted, of course. Possibly some of the people who voted for them, but even a proportion of them must be aware that their protest vote has actually produced a representative from a party which doesn't actually believe in anything about Scotland and has no policies for the country. Indeed until recently it was their policy to scrap Holyrood until someone pointed out that Scots law was different from English law and there really was a need to a parliament in Edinburgh (otherwise a lot of important parliamentary time would be wasted discussing law in jockland).

Is the result surprising? Not really. 

The BBC seems to have been having a love affair with Farage over the last few years. For a man leading a party with no MPs, he seemed to spend a disproportionate amount of time on Dumblebum’s Question Time. 

Of course he’s good telly. A bit like Nick Griffin (ha ha ha ha*), he pulls the audience in. And the BBC seems uninterested in providing a balanced coverage of anything these days, commercially based as is it. So wall to wall Farage stories gave the party prominence it didn't really deserve. 

I wonder what Nick will do after next May?
House of Lords? International banking?
Write a book "How I wrecked the Libdems"?

The fact that the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK appeared in two television debates with the man will have raised his profile too. Not surprisingly for a man with apparently no political principles, Clegg lost badly against Farage who has very firmly fixed ideas. Now we await the UK Prime Minister's debate with Farage. Cameron will also almost undoubtedly lose to Farage. 

Is it a blow to Alex Salmond and the SNP? Well, although the Tories Murdo Fraser thinks so, I doubt it. It's certainly a disappointment that they didn't win the third seat, although they came close.

I’d say to murdo that it was a blow to us all, but probably mostly to the Liberals, who have been wiped out in Scotland (and only have one seat in the UK). 

It’s a blow to Scotland in that Ukip MEPs have a reputation for not turning up for work, so instead of its derisory 6 MEPs, Scotland will effectively now have only 5 representatives in Brussels. 

And across the UK it is a blow to every party because Ukip came first, pushing them all back a place (or, in the case of the Liberals, several).

Fraser, whom you would have thought should have known better, tweeted to the effect that the result disproved the theory that Scotland had a different political culture from the UK. 

Politicians should probably avoid tweeting late at night

I’m not sure how he arrived at this conclusion based on the result of the Euro election (on a small turnout), where UKIP won 10% of the vote in Scotland and 30% in the UK, and came in in 1^st place in the UK, but 4th in Scotland. Maybe maths isn't a Tory strong point.

Fraser must also be aware that while the UK elected his party to government (albeit in coalition) and polls indicate that it will do so again, albeit with a different partner) Scotland elected them (even with the benefit of PR) to be the 3^rd party in Holyrood far behind the opposition Labour party in numbers. There is, so fa,r no indication that that situation will change, solid as it has been since the first days of the parliament.

And while both governing parties in the UK had disappointing results after 4 years of government, the governing party in Scotland, after 7 years of incumbency, saw their vote hold up and indeed, came in first.

No. I don't see one political culture across the UK there Murdo. What is it you’re on?

There is a really amusing piece on the Euro results by Wee Ginger Dug which had me rolling about laughing at the ungodly hour of 6 this morning.

I wonder if there is anyone, except Griffin himself,
who feels sorry for him.

* Nick Griffin lost his seat, as did the other BNP member. Still, when Mr Griffin goes to the Job Centre on Tuesday he will doubtless be able to avail himself of some unpaid work stacking shelves at Poundland thanks to another right wing freak, Iain Duncan Smurf.

SNP RESIGNATIONS OVER NATO ...

Two MSPs have resigned from the SNP as a result of the conference vote to join NATO.

John Finney and Jean Urquhart, who are both Highland Region list members, announced their decision this morning.

They don't intend to stand down as list members and will continue to support the government as independents.

Needless to say the news makes the headlines of both the Scotsman and the Herald. The Record makes it their second story.


It will not change the situation in parliament. The two new Independent MSPs have indicated to Alex Salmond that they support the rest of the government's programme and will continue to vote with them on matters other than Nato. They will, of course, continue to support the YES Scotland campaign.

Some will suggest that they should stand down and I can understand that, but I can also see why they hae deided to stay. They stood on the platform of a non-Nato Scotland. It is is SNP which, democratically, (vote of 426 - 332) changed its policy. There was bound to be fall out, and there may yet be more.

Whilst I'm sorry that the pair have felt it necessary to resign, I respect their position. Conscience is something that is sadly lacking in so many politicians. It is hard to be critical of it when is does show itself. 

Should members of other parties not consider their position?

There are, I am sure, on the Labour benches, many who take strong issue with Mrs Lamont's assertion that Scotland is a "something for nothing" country and with her move to the right, so welcomed by the Conservative group. Thus far none has had the guts to do what John and Jean have done.

Equally, when the Conservative Party leadership elections took place last year Murdo Fraser stood on a platform of drastic change, removing their connection to the English Tories and renaming them in an attempt to bury the Thatcherite past. He had a number of supporters on the Tory benches, and indeed came second in the contest. When, by fair means or otherwise, David Cameron's preferred choice, Ruth Davidson, won, thus ensuring totally loyalty to the English party, Murdo meekly accepted a junior role in the parliamentary party. There were no resignations from the party.

Murdo and his supporters were proposing a new right of centre party because the old one was no longer fit for purpose. Where, I ask, are the principles of these people?

In light of the SNP resignations, the parliamentary arithmetic still gives the SNP a majority, but one that is far slimmer than the one that they started with.

Tricia Marwick's election to presiding officer obliged her to stand down from the party, and Bill Walker left the party following the disclosure of his lack of disclosure in respect of his past domestic life. 

WHAT DOES 2012 MEAN FOR SCOTLAND? ...BRING IT ON AND LET'S SEE

It's December 31: a time to reflect on the year past.


For Scotland it has been momentous. There was a general election which produced an SNP majority government, though the system was designed specifically to avoid any majority government, much less an SNP one. 


So far, with the exception of the Sectarian legislation, all has been well and support for the government has increased rather than diminished in the months since May.

John Swinney has worked miracles with ever decreasing financial settlements over the years  first from Labour and now the Liberal Tory coalition and has continued his magic touch, and Scotland's pensioners, sick, poor and those looking for homes, enjoy much that England's equivalents do not.


Of course, despite having made it clear before the election that the referendum would be in the second half of the 5 year-parliament, the opposition parties seem to find little else to question the government about. And talking about opposition parties, all but the Greens have had a change of leader since May. 

First the Liberals, having swapped their 16 seats for 5, swapped Tavish Scott for Willie Rennie, a bad deal in my estimation. Tavish, despite his intense dislike of the SNP, had at least heard of constructive opposition and was prepared to apply it for the benefit of his country. Willie, maybe having failed to realise that his party had lost 2/3 of its seats because of its participation in Westminster with David Cameron and Tavish's inability before the election to distance himself from that, threw away his opportunity to start a fightback and backed Cleggameron's policies from day one. Duh!

Then the Tories swapped the estimable Annabel Goldie, a woman much more popular than her party, for Ruth Davidson, who had only just been elected to her seat a few months before. In doing so they threw away the opportunity to move forward as a new distinctly Scottish right of centre party under Murdo Fraser, and lost a good deal of support, including from our own resident Tory (or ex-Tory), Dean from New Right.


Finally Labour ditched the inestimable Iain 'don't sleep in the subway' Gray, a dreary soul who never seemed to make the right decision and whined his way through FMQs every week before being left battered and bruised. Iain had presided over Labour's most humiliating defeat ever in Scotland, and it was clear to everyone that a drastic change  of direction was needed, so Labour elected the woman who had been second in charge under the catastrophe, Johann Lamont. Smart thinking.

Each one of the parties has failed to see that there is a new politics in Scotland. Maybe we are on the road to independence; maybe devo max, or independence light, but the status quo is not an option, and sticking to it, on orders from their London bosses, may minimise the damage done to the government (which is of course all about change), but it's not what is best for Scotland.  


While a new separate identity is what people seem to want, Willie Rennie walks around in Clegg's shadow and Ruth is David's woman all the way. After all, David's own strategist man came to Scotland to give her campaign advice.


Whilst it is true that Mrs Lamont in now supposedly leader of everything she surveys in Scotland: (in order of importance, or should that be 'impotence') MSPs, MPs, MEPs, Councillors, the tea fund? the Lords, it's not quite clear what that means. 


Do Labour's English/Scottish stars, Spud and Wee Doogie, at Defence and Foreign Affairs respectively, report to her? Would they continue to do so were Labour in government? Does Vinegar Maggie report to her? Who's boss of whom? 

I suspect that the changes in Labour's constitution are cosmetic only and that orders will inevitably continue to come from London. I don't see Johann as a rebel. But I wonder how long it will be before someone blows a hole in the pretence. That will be interesting.


So far there has been an air of unfinished business about parliament. Now the new leaders are all in place, let's hope that somehow, together we can take Scotland forward to survive what everyone predicts will be battering year all over Europe.

WHITHER THE TORIES...AND UNDER WHOM?

Jackson Carlaw has had a bright idea to get new blood into the Scottish Tories in parliament. Unlike his rival, and still favourite for the leadership job, Murdo Fraser, he does not intent to scrap the party and start again with something less tarnished.

He wants to get fresh blood into the existing Conservative party by regulating who can stand. Those who cannot get themselves elected to a first-past–the-post seat, will not be able to serve in PR list seats for more than (and here he’s sketchy on detail) 3 or 4 parliaments.

This might solve the problem of Murdo and his place in a party that goes on being a branch office of the London Tory party, and of the popular, highly experience current leader Annabel Goldie. Both of them would be obliged to stand down were he to set the bench mark at 3 parliamentary sessions.

His idea was based on the experience of David Cameron at Westminster (wouldn’t you just believe it) who decided that to get rid of dead wood in the English party and persuaded old hands to stand down in favour of what he called “A-list” candidates. Jackson might like to note that this has not necessarily been terribly successful for Mr Cameron. Many of the famed “A-list” appear to have minds of their own. (There seems almost no chance of a repeal of the “Hunting with Dogs Act”, thanks to the fact that his A-listers won’t vote for it.)

Of course JC has a point. If people are not performing well as MSPs, and Jackson seems to think that some are not, it shouldn’t be automatic that they retain their place at the top of the regional list. On the other hand if they have performed well, as, for example, has Annabel, it is hardly fair or right that he should remove them. (Unless of course he prefers to have his ex-boss out of the way so that she can’t outshine him.)

Everyone thought that Murdo was finished when he came up with the idea of selling the [Scottish] Tory Party for scrap, but they didn’t reckon with old Jackson and his desire to get rid of experience and bring in a pile of newbies. Newbies like, for example Ruth Davidson, who showed how in touch she was with Scottish voters when she dismissed the notion that Thatcher was still a malign influence. SHE, at 33, had hardly even heard of Maggie, was just a toddler when the Ironing Lady ... no sorry, Iron Lady... was on the throne, and therefore few of the rest of the population should remember her either. Idiot!

She also declared, despite the vast majority of the population wanting more power for the Scottish parliament, that she will veto it if she becomes leader. Bravo, you silly lassie. Best thing you could do, is sit and watch how Annabel does things, learn your lessons from a woman who knows what she is doing for another 10 years or so, and then think about leadership.

Clearly I don’t have a vote in the election, but, if I did Jackson Carlaw and Ruth Davidson wouldn’t get my vote in a thousand years. They are a pair of diddies.

Controversial though it is, Murdo’s idea to kill the Scottish branch of the English Tories stone dead is the only possibility. If there is to be a centre right party in Scotland (and there should be) then it needs to be a new one with only a fraternal connection with the Conservatives.

Pics: Jackson Carlaw, Ruth Davidson (don't you think she looks like a younger Wendy?) and Murdo Fraser.

PS: You can vote for your favoured candidate at Subrosa's blog

MIGHT WE SOON BE LOOKING AT THE NEW McTORIES? OCH AYE, WE MIGHT

So where is Dean when you need him for the inside info?

I read in the Daily Telegraph that Murdo Fraser has indicated that, should he become the new Scottish Conservative leader when Ms Goldie stands down next month, his stay in that position will be brief, for he will disband the party and launch a new Scottish centre-right party.

Murdo, quite rightly in my opinion, has the idea that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party is a toxic name. His will launch his campaign on Monday in Edinburgh with the slogan “A new party for Scotland”.

He says that he has spoken to senior English Tories including Munguin’s Republic’s dear friend Francis Maude. Maudie is apparently wildly enthusiastic about it. (Perhaps he will volunteer to do something for it as part of his VAST big society commitments?)

Reading through Murdo’s claims, the word “NEW” appears as many times as it did in Tony Blair’s early rantings about NEW Labour. A NEW party; a NEW belief in devolution (how can you have a new belief in it when you grasped it firmly before?); a NEW approach to policy making; a NEW name; NEW supporters from all walks of life; a NEW positive message about staying in the union; a NEW party; a NEW unionism; a NEW dawn... Oh Poleeeeze! (And no, I didn’t make that last one up!)

But, one of the OLD party’s problems was that it required funding from England to continue to survive. Indeed reform was a must if it was to continue to receive the bounty of the English membership. Will it still need Tory funding?

But would a new name and a new party and a new...well, you know the list... would it be enough to change the party’s lack of support in Scotland? Murdo says that it would. But he also says that its members would take the Conservative whip in London and would be eligible for posts in a Conservative government, and so, for possibly the first time in my life, I find myself in agreement with the old windbag, Michael Forsyth. Mr Forsyth thinks that it is naive and simplistic in the extreme to imagine that a change of name can bring about electoral success. I do think that distancing themselves from the toxic name and record...and the association with an English cabinet of multi-millionaires from English public schools and Oxbridge might make a slight difference to their Scottish image. But is the Scottish public going to believe that it is all that NEW when one of its members (David Mundell) is a junior minister in the Conservative party?

It would be difficult for David (I want to be prime minister of all the UK) Cameron. Dave would be the first prime minister to have no members in two of the four constituent lands of the UK, leaving England and Wales the only countries in which the Tories still existed.

Northern Ireland, already more Irish than British, and Scotland with its own legal system, seem to be slipping farther away with every step.

Of course Murdo may not win the leadership. Jackson Carlaw and Ruth Davidson are also standing.

But if he does, what effect will this have on the fortunes of the centre right in Scotland? And what effects will that have on the SNP, and on independence?

Any thoughts?

Pic: Dave, on the left, looking a tad jowly. You just can't get the botox these days. And Murdo, on the right (or not as the case may be) erm... with a very very nice tie.