To receive The Week Outside Westminster in your inbox, sign up to the email service

Scotland

David Cameron headed north this week to make the positive case for Scotland remaining in the union, whilst dangling in front of Scots the possibility of extra powers if they rejected independence.

Alex Salmond headed south to outline his plans for a £30 billion oil fund if Scotland said yes to independence.

Merv “the Swevere” King meanwhile used a press conference on the Bank of England’s inflation report to promise to say more in the future on the SNP’s plans to retain sterling if Scotland voted to go its own way.

The big news, meanwhile, was that Rangers Football club had entered administration. Conscious of the underlining tensions between the clubs, efforts were made to downplay any sense of joy Celtic might have had the move. Alex Salmond told the David Frost programme on Al Jazeera:

“The most diehard Celtic supporter understands that Celtic can’t prosper unless Rangers are there. The rest of the clubs understand that as well. Therefore you have to have cognisance of these things when you’re pursuing public policy.

“We’ve certainly been arguing to HMRC on one hand, and indeed to Rangers, to for goodness sake get a settlement, get a settlement and a structure over time whereby Rangers can continue because Rangers must continue for the future of Scottish football and for the fabric of the country.”

Celtic responded however by expressing its disappointment at the first minister’s comments, using a statement to argue:

“We are very disappointed with the First Minister’s claims that Celtic ‘need’ Rangers and that Celtic ‘can’t prosper unless Rangers are there. This is simply not true.

“In a series of interviews given just three days ago, we made it abundantly clear that Celtic has a well-defined strategy and a business plan independent of the fortunes of any other club. That remains absolutely the case.

“The predicament of Rangers is clearly a serious and complex matter with a whole range of possible outcomes. However, we are extremely well-qualified to make our own position clear and have no wish to see this being misrepresented for political reasons.”

The former Labour first minister, Henry McLeish sat down with “Holyrood” magazine to call on the party to up its game. He explained:

“The Labour Party faces the most critical four years in its history in Scotland. Apart from the local elections this year, we have the European elections and the referendum in 2014, Westminster elections in 2015 and the Scottish elections in 2016.

“Frankly, time is running out and we need a convincing narrative about where the constitutional question goes and we need to reconnect with the Scottish people.

“What does the party stand for and what are we offering in these big elections? It is a critical period and we are not in the best position we could be, but I think with goodwill, focus and some sincerity we can move a long, long way from where we are, but time is running out.

“I don’t support independence. I think it would be an upheaval too far.

“We live in an interdependent world and it would be a big upheaval for limited gain, so the best objective for the Labour Party would be to say,

‘Most Scots want to stay in the union, but would also like the union transformed, so let’s not waste a lot of time, let’s defeat independence by offering an alternative.’

“We don’t want to wake up in two and three quarter years time with independence defeated but no change on offer, because the Scottish people have shown in polls that they like the idea of more, so why don’t we take that forward? We have to break the mould of the Labour Party thinking that by talking about more devolution they are ceding ground to the SNP.

“My message to the Labour Party is forget Alex Salmond, forget the SNP. This is about what we are going to do, what we are about, what we are for and our leadership and all of our party should be focused on that. We have nothing to fear from the SNP, but with five wasted years behind us, now is the time to move forward and out of the past.”

Northern Ireland

The Stormont Executive announced over £500 million of investment in new road and hospital construction projects to support the creation of close to 3,000 jobs. Analysing the announcement, BBC Northern Ireland’s economics and business editor, Jim Fitzpatrick concluded:

“The announcement of a scaled-down A5 is good news for those construction companies – some local such as Farrans, Grahams and FP McCann – who had been awarded contracts.

“It was always likely that some work would proceed because the money was allocated and the project was ready to go. The reduced scale has freed up money for a mothballed upgrade of the A2 along Belfast Lough at Greenisland and the new investment at Altnagelvin hospital.

“The construction industry will be pleased with the executive predicting 2,500 jobs. But the headline spend on infrastructure has not changed from what was planned.

“In other words, it would have been much bigger story had the executive decided not to proceed with any of these projects.”

For the executive, first minister, Peter Robinson said of the package announced:

“In our draft Programme for Government the executive indicated that our top priority was growing the economy. Today we are making a down-payment on that pledge. Today we are announcing a package of capital projects that will secure jobs in the short term and provide much needed investment in infrastructure for the long term.

“As a result of the decisions reached this morning, these projects will create more than 2,500 jobs for Northern Ireland’s hard-pressed construction industry; further improve our roads infrastructure; and significantly upgrade our health care infrastructure in Belfast, Omagh and Londonderry.

“This is the executive delivering for the people of Northern Ireland – at a time when some parts of the local economy – particularly the construction sector – need our help the most.”

One senior DUP MP, Nigel Dodds, meanwhile called for the UK and Irish governments to do more to tackle the “haemorrhaging” of football talent from the north to the south. Outlining his thinking he argued:

“Action should now be taken to stop the haemorrhaging of talent from Northern Ireland. The British and Irish governments should now work to address this injustice which sees footballing talent developed in Northern Ireland, at some considerable cost, lost to compete at international level with the Republic’s team.

“No one should be opposed to the idea of talks to resolve this issue, and there is a degree of irony about the demands for free eligibility.

“The creation of two international teams was brought about when the FAI split away from the Irish Football Association, and indeed the original restrictions of eligibility were introduced after complaints by the FAI after players had played for both teams.

“The IFA put considerable resources into the development of players through the youth system, which is lost when players then declare for another association.”

Sinn Fein responded by calling for an all-Ireland team to be created.

Wales

There was a rare glimmer of good news on the unemployment front as figures showed a fall in the number out of work in Wales for a second consecutive month. Responding to the news, business minister Edwina Hart declared:

“On the key measures of unemployment and employment there is cause for some optimism, and the economic inactivity rate in Wales is the lowest since comparable records began in 1992. We hope this is an indication that Welsh government policies are having a beneficial effect during these difficult times.

“We are doing all we can as a devolved government to stimulate the economy to reduce the barriers businesses face, encourage demand and investing for the longer term. For example, almost 500 applications have been received for our economic growth fund to provide immediate access to capital funding for investments to create and retain jobs in Wales.”

Meanwhile, as he prepares to publish next month the government’s strategy on the Welsh language, education minister, Leighton Andrews called for a consensus to strengthen and protect it. Writing in the Western Mail he explained:

“I was delighted when the first minister gave me responsibility for the Welsh Language portfolio in May 2011. As an active Welsh learner, my engagement with the language in a meaningful way goes back to my days as a student in Bangor in the 1970s.

“The language is important to all of us in Wales, and opinion surveys regularly show the majority of Welsh people are committed to and supportive of the language. We must always strive to protect a political consensus around measures to develop and strengthen the language. Next month therefore I will publish a new strategy for the language that deliberately builds on the draft strategy published by the One Wales government.

“The future development and survival of the language depends on the commitment of the people of Wales, and must be owned by all of us.

“Its protection cannot depend on those who are professionally employed in its development or promotion. We must also ensure that we are encouraging people to use the language skills that they have – and not to contribute to a climate in which they feel that less than perfect Welsh language skills are a barrier to participation.”

See also:

• Cameron heads north, Salmond heads south and Mervyn’s living in the future – Ed Jacobs, February 16th 2012

• Scotland unites in wanting to save Rangers – Ed Jacobs, February 15th 2012

• Scotland unites in wanting to save Rangers – Ed Jacobs, February 13th 2012

• The Week Outside Westminster – Robinson and McGuiness pray for the Reverend – Ed Jacobs, February 11th 2012

• A separate Scotland will be worse off if it keeps the pound – Matthew Pitt, February 10th 2012

The head to head battle over Scottish independence between David Cameron and Alex Salmond will begin in earnest today as the prime minister travels to Edinburgh to outline what he hopes to be seen as a positive case for Scotland remaining within the Union.

Previewing a speech he will give in the Scottish capital today, the Prime Minister today writes in the Scotsman:

“When we unite and help each other we are safer, richer and have a fairer society. We should not undo that…

“The fight is now under way for something really precious: the future of our United Kingdom. I am 100 per cent clear that I will fight with everything I have to keep our United Kingdom together.

“To me, this is not some issue of policy or strategy or calculation – it matters head, heart and soul. Our shared home is under threat and everyone who cares about it needs to speak out.

“My argument is not that Scotland couldn’t make a go of being on its own, if that’s what Scots decide. Of course Scotland could. They are plenty of small, independent nation states of a similar size or even smaller.

“There are arguments that can be made about the volatility of dependence on oil, or the problems of debt and a big banking system. But that’s not the point. The best case for the United Kingdom is entirely positive: We are better off together.”

Turning his attention to the accusations meanwhile that intervention by a Conservative prime minister serves only to help the SNP’s cause, Cameron continued:

“A Conservative leader joining this debate is accused of everything from interference to irrelevance. I accept my party’s presence in Scotland is small. I know there are some who even argue we would do better politically without Scotland. My response to all these points is the same: I am not interested.

“This matters too much – to me personally, and to the future of our country. I’m not coming to Scotland today to make a case on behalf of my party, its interests or its approach to office. I am coming as the Prime Minister of the whole United Kingdom to stand up and speak out for what I believe in.

“The strengths that have served us within the United Kingdom through the centuries are precisely the ones we most need today. So let’s have this debate, set out the arguments – and settle the question.”

As the prime minister travels to Scotland to outline the benefits of Scotland remaining part of the union, Alex Salmond yesterday headed south, using a speech to the London School of Economics last night, to pledge to establish an oil fund in an independent Scotland, which he argued could be worth as much as £30 billion. Speaking to the BBC ahead of his speech Salmond argued:

“The only finance department that hasn’t done it really as a major oil and gas producer is the United Kingdom Treasury.

“If you look at every other, just about every other, major oil producing country – whether it’s Abu Dhabi, Norway, or the states of Canada – all of them have built up an investment fund for the future of their state or the future of their country.

“Westminster is the exception in this regard and I think most people looking at the management of oil and gas resources would rather follow the Norwegian example than follow the example of the Treasury in London.”

His remarks however met with short shrift from experts and political opponents alike, with Professor John McLaren, from Glasgow University’s Centre for Public Policy and the Regions responding by asking the question:

“The country has a £20bn deficit without oil. Why would you set up an oil fund when you are massively in debt?”

Scottish Labour’s shadow finance secretary, Ken McIntosh, argued:

“If Scotland started an oil fund in the same year as Norway, the current balance would be zero, because we spend more on public services than we raise in tax. If Alex Salmond wants to change that, he needs to spell out what further cuts he is proposing because you can’t spend the same money twice.”

Meanwhile, as the SNP continue to maintain their policy of retaining the pound and the Bank of England as Scotland’s central bank, the Governor of the Bank, Mervyn King yesterday indicated that he would be saying more on the subject as the debate over independence develops. Speaking at yesterday’s press conference on the Bank’s quarterly inflation report he explained:

“I’m in no doubt that the debate about the possibility of Scottish independence is one that will feature significantly – the economic aspect, and in particular the currency aspect, lender of last resort and so on. Obviously that’s got not a lot to do with the February Inflation Report.

“It’s a very important question and I hope those issues will feature prominently in the debate, but I don’t want to say anything about it today. Those are things we can return to in the future.”

See also:

• Polls apart? The news for the SNP might not be as good as it looks – Ed Jacobs, February 6th 2012

• Scottish independence would leave Trident dead – and the MoD don’t care – Kate Hudson, February 1st 2012

• The Week Outside Westminster – Answering the West Lothian question – Ed Jacobs, January 21st 2012

• Cameron got it wrong on Scotland, and he probably knows it – Ed Jacobs, January 10th 2012

• SNP: Cam’s “economic uncertainty” argument is nonsense; we’ll stick to our timetable – Humza Yousaf MSP, January 9th 2012

A senior DUP MP has called for action to stop the “haemorrhaging of talent” which has seen many Northern Ireland footballers opting to play in the Republic instead.

Under rulings by both Fifa and the Court of Arbitration for Sport, players born in Northern Ireland can opt to decide which side of the border they play on, in line with the Good Friday Agreement allowing those born in the North to choose between holding British and Irish nationality.

A number of Northern Irish footballers, including Everton’s Darron Gibson, Stoke’s Marc Wilson, Preston North End’s Daniel Devine and Sunderland’s James McClean have used the rulings to opt to play instead for the Republic, leading to concerns over the talent heading south.

Outlining his concerns, the DUP Deputy Leader, Nigel Dodds MP has called now for action to address the problem from both the British and Irish Governments. He concluded over the weekend:

“Action should now be taken to stop the haemorrhaging of talent from Northern Ireland. The British and Irish governments should now work to address this injustice which sees footballing talent developed in Northern Ireland, at some considerable cost, lost to compete at international level with the Republic’s team.

“No one should be opposed to the idea of talks to resolve this issue, and there is a degree of irony about the demands for free eligibility.

“The creation of two international teams was brought about when the FAI split away from the Irish Football Association, and indeed the original restrictions of eligibility were introduced after complaints by the FAI after players had played for both teams.

“The IFA put considerable resources into the development of players through the youth system, which is lost when players then declare for another association.

“In club football there are compensation arrangements in place in such circumstances when a player transfers to a different club, but obviously this isn’t possible in international competition.

“There simply is no point in thoughtless calls for an all-Ireland team to resolve this issue as that is not going to happen.

“What is required are discussions at a higher levels between the British and Irish government as well as a recognition by FIFA that the current situation isn’t sustainable and a change is required to bring an end to this ongoing problem.”

Responding however, Sinn Fein has used Dodd’s calls to put forward its own case for a united Irish team, with its MLA, Pat Sheehan declaring:

“This debate has been ruled on by FIFA’s executive committee, who very clearly indicated that soccer players in the North can choose to play for either international team on the island.

“Nigel Dodds cannot force people to play for one team or another just as he cannot force people to choose whether they choose to identify themselves as Irish or British. He would be better calling for talks between the two governing soccer bodies on the island in the hope of having one team represent Ireland.”

See also:

• The Week Outside Westminster – Robinson and McGuiness pray for the Reverend – Ed Jacobs, February 11th 2012

• UUP infighting as McNarry says he feels “abused” and has been “kicked in the teeth” – Ed Jacobs, January 31st 2012

• How does Northern Ireland achieve reconciliation in 2012? – Ed Jacobs, January 3rd 2012

• SNP’s anti-sectarianism bill unites the opposition – Ed Jacobs, December 15th 2011

• Should Northern Ireland football scrap God Save the Queen? – Ed Jacobs, December 13th 2011

By Matthew Pitt

The political heavyweights in Westminster are beginning to fathom the dire consequences of letting Alex Salmond build up unhindered his own arguments for Scottish separation.

His vision for Scotland’s future are rather catching and seem to hail in a new era of prosperity, growth and power for everyone. But pierce through the superficial shell of Salmond’s broad assertions and you quickly begin to realise that it rings rather hollow and is missing something fundamental. In other words, it lacks substance.

Take Scotland’s currency. The House of Commons Library has just published independent research (pdf) on the issue, which is published alongside this article for the first time and will be quoted throughout.

The SNP have moved in favour of keeping the sterling, with or without an agreement with the remnants of the UK, instead of issuing its own currency or using the euro. Known as the process of dollarization – or sterlingisation in this case – a separate Scotland would retain the pound either by way of a currency union or unilaterally. For now, I will focus on the latter option.

The most crucial part to understand about sterlingisation is that a separate Scotland, without a currency board, will have no control whatsoever over monetary and exchange rate policy. Salmond has been mistakenly pushing the argument that goes along the lines of:

‘The Bank of England has had independent control over monetary policy since 1998 and therefore will continue to take Scotland into account’.

Not so. The Bank of England is currently obliged to regard the effects its decisions will have on Scotland. Without Scotland being part of the UK and with no currency board, this will not apply. In other words, decisions that have an impact on Scotland will be taken in another country that is focused on stabilising the national economy, not the Scottish one.

Instead of actually attaining independence, a separate Scotland will ironically tie itself to the rest of the UK through the importation of the effects of monetary policies conducted by the Bank of England.

The independent Library research paper states that it is thereby “more directly and irrevocably exposed to instability in [the rest of the UK]” by sharing a currency and adhering to the decisions by the central bank on matters of inflation and interest rates.

One of the many issues that slippery Salmond continues to dodge that I wish to address is that of Scotland being left with no lender of last resort.

To take just one example, the Bank of England presently oversees the provision of short-term liquidity to failing banks – logically a rule that will not apply to banks in a State of Scotland. Acting as a poor replacement for a central bank, the only entity able to step in and rescue the banks from collapsing is the Scottish government itself.

Added to this, the financial services bill that is going through Parliament will allow the chancellor, under clause 57, to give directions to the Bank of England governor on matters of support for the financial system or companies where there is the potential involvement of public funds. Still think the Bank of England will step in?

Without power over monetary policy, the Library research paper points out that any such institution would be:

“Unable to respond to a crisis affecting the entire banking system because its inability to print money”.

Vitally, this obviously:

“Means [Scotland] cannot guarantee the whole payments system, or fully back bank deposits.”

Such impotence is underlined further by the report stating that the Government acting as the central bank:

“cannot be an unlimited lender of last resort and it can literally ‘run out of money’ to respond to crises”.

What this entails is that the absence of any lender of last resort will actually:

“in itself make a crisis more likely.”

It is almost unnecessary to point out that Scotland would be unable to bail out its banks, even if a minor financial crisis occurred – as was admitted by Salmond.

The Edinburgh-based Royal Bank of Scotland, an entity that Salmond actively encouraged to make the disastrous takeover of ABN Amro a reality, had to be bailed out during the financial crisis and exposed the UK government to a total of £187 billion, of which £129bn are toxic assets.

To make sense of this, the nominal GDP of Scotland in 2010 was about £111bn.

As Alistair Darling pointed out:

“The disaster that overtook the bank was made in Edinburgh not London”.

Instead of standing truly on its own two feet and forming its own destiny, a separate Scotland under Salmond will give up many powers that a ‘normal’ State enjoys.

It will put the country in danger of being incapable of responding to another financial crisis and being tied to monetary decisions made in another country that will have a direct effect on pensions, mortgages and savings.

See also:

• Credit rating agencies weigh in on independent Scotland – Alex Hern, February 6th 2012

• Polls apart? The news for the SNP might not be as good as it looks – Ed Jacobs, February 6th 2012

• Swinney on Scotland currency – more questions than he answers? – Ed Jacobs, February 2nd 2012

• Salmond’s Scottish referendum is a textbook example of a leading question – Alex Hern, January 27th 2012

• Questions multiply over financial status of an independent Scotland – Alex Hern, January 20th 2012

Scotland is speaking on the issue of independence. What they are saying however remains far from clear.

Sunday saw polling by Panelbase for The Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland asking the same question as that being proposed by Alex Salmond, namely:

Do you agree that Scotland should become an independent country?

Based on this, 37 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement, while 42 per cent disagree, with 21 per cent declaring themselves undecided. However, of those who argued that they were certain to vote, 47 per cent said they supported independence whilst 53 per cent were opposed.

In declaring her pleasure at the results, deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon declared:

After just the first few weeks of the referendum debate, it is abundantly clear that the positive approach towards Scotland’s future is winning over the negative approach from the anti-independence parties – with support for independence now neck-and-neck with opposition.

The poll shows that the people of Scotland are extremely positive about our future as an independent nation – if there was never any doubt that the anti-independence parties are out of touch with the mood of Scotland, this poll proves it.

Dig a bit deeper however and despite the rhetoric from the SNP, the numbers aren’t quite as rosy for them as Ms Sturgeon would suggest.

Polling since the new year, whilst showing significant support for independence, doesn’t yet seem to have achieved the break through the SNP would need if they were to succeed in their ambitions for Scotland.  The Herald meanwhile today carries details of a TNS-BMRB survey suggesting that any hint of a tide in favour of independence might, if it ever existed, have been fairly short lived.

Outlining the findings, Robbie Dinwoodie, the paper’s chief Scottish political correspondent writes:

TNS-BMRB had just started sampling on January 25 based on the wording it has used since the first SNP administration announced its referendum proposals in 2007. It offers two options: To agree that the Scottish government should negotiate with the UK so that Scotland becomes an independent state, or to disagree with that proposal.

The survey of 998 adults, between January 25 and February 1, indicated 35 per cent would vote Yes in agreement, down four points on last August, and 44 per cent would vote No, with 21 per cent undecided, down two.

The poll also repeated a three-option snapshot first taken in October 2011 asking for preferences between maintaining Holyrood’s existing powers, giving the parliament more powers, or full independence.

Support for the status quo has risen from 29 per cent to 32 per cent, backing for more powers has fallen from 33 per cent to 30 per cent, and backing for independence drops from 28 per cent to 26 per cent.

Chris Eynon, head of TNS-BMRB Scotland goes on to conclude:

“From the initial skirmishes, it would appear that the independence bandwagon has currently lost its momentum, in spite of the poll timing coinciding with the high-profile launch of the consultation in Edinburgh Castle on Burns Day.”

For those, including myself, who have long argued that Alex Salmond cannot be underestimated in what he is capable of achieving, today’s findings provide a crumb of comfort. It is beholden on those supporting the union now to provide a positive alternative, vision for the future of Scotland that does not rely solely on a negative critique of independence.

See also:

• Scottish independence would leave Trident dead – and the MoD don’t care – Kate Hudson, February 1st 2012

• The Week Outside Westminster – Answering the West Lothian question – Ed Jacobs, January 21st 2012

• Cameron got it wrong on Scotland, and he probably knows it – Ed Jacobs, January 10th 2012

• SNP: Cam’s “economic uncertainty” argument is nonsense; we’ll stick to our timetable – Humza Yousaf MSP, January 9th 2012

• Referendum on Scottish independence? Time to ‘bring it on’ – Ed Jacobs, June 5th 2011

To receive The Week Outside Westminster in your inbox, sign up to the email service

Northern Ireland

In the week that David McNarry declared himself to feel “abused” by the way he was dumped by UUP leader Tom Elliott, the Conservatives announced their plans to enter the world of Northern Irish politics on its own, a development which received a lukewarm reception at best.

In an editorial, the Newsletter argued:

“If the ‘new’ party is to survive then it will need a new and articulate team of spokesmen and candidates: and it really must be very careful not to become a refugee camp for disgruntled and electorally unsuccessful former members of the UUP.

“But the ultimate test will be the next round of elections. For if it doesn’t breach the eight per cent barrier and start winning seats it won’t be given a second chance to get it right.

“The brutal reality is that this really does represent the last - slightly desperate - throw of the dice for ‘Conservatives’ in Northern Ireland.”

Former UUP staffer Michael Shilliday, meanwhile, declared on the Slugger O’Toole blog:

“The Conservative Party has no hope in Northern Ireland without an existing local base, the best fit being the UUP. The UUP is visionless and increasingly rudderless without the Conservative Party (the real one that is, not what passes for it in Northern Ireland). Seems obvious what to do really.”

Amidst the on-going debate over the future of the Union, meanwhile, Sinn Fein deputy first minister Martin McGuinness argued that a referendum on whether the North wanted to join with the Republic could be held by as early as 2016.

Speaking to the Irish Examiner he concluded:

“It just seems to me to be a sensible timing. It would be on the question of whether or not the people of the Six Counties wish to retain the link with what is described as the United Kingdom, or be part of a united Ireland. It could take place anytime between 2016 or 2020-21.

“I don’t see any reason whatsoever why that should not be considered. I think, in all probability, the people who have got the power to put that in place won’t even contemplate it this side of the next Assembly elections, which conceivably could be 2015 or 2016.”

DUP MLA Peter Weir dubbed the remarks “unrealistic”.

Wales

Having received the most number of nominations for her campaign, Plaid Cymru Leadership hopeful Leanne Wood told of her aspirations for independence.

Writing in the Guardian, John Harris explained:

“Leanne Wood is rather different from most of the UK’s politicians.

“Forty years old and a mother of one, she still lives in the same street in the Rhondda Valley where she was born and brought up.

“She thinks the crash of 2008 should have “resulted in the rejection of capitalism and many of its basic economic and political assumptions”, and that the UK’s coalition amounts to a “hyper-competitive, imperial/militaristic, climate-change-ignoring and privatising government”.

“She is also a proud republican, who refuses to attend the kind of official events at which the Queen turns up, and was once thrown out of the Welsh Assembly for referring to the reigning monarch as “Mrs Windsor”. If any of this chimes with your general view of what’s wrong with the world, it’s fair to say that you’d like her.

“If Wood pursued her political career in Westminster, her opinions might ensure she was kept safely on the fringes. But in her home country, she is a high-profile voice - and the current favourite to take over the leadership of Plaid Cymru, the nationalist party who, until 2011, shared power in Wales with Labour.

“With the result due on 15 March, Paddy Power has 4-5 odds on to win; in her Cardiff office, there is a sense of quiet expectancy.

“The prospect of life as party leader is not the only reason for her air of energised enthusiasm.

“Being a senior Plaid Cymru figure, Wood believes in Welsh independence. And with Scotland set to vote on whether to stay part of the UK in 2014 and the future of the union being argued over as never before, Wood and her fellow Welsh nationalists think there is an unprecedented opening for the most fundamental of their beliefs.

“Certainly, if Scotland makes the leap and leaves a rump United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (“Little Britain”, as it has recently become known), Wales’s marginal position will be self-evident: it will have 30 Westminster MPs to England’s 502, and bump against the political and economic dominance of the English south-east as never before.

“With that grim prospect on the horizon, Wood thinks these could be fertile times for her and her party.”

Health secretary Andrew Lansley, meanwhile, was snubbed by the Welsh government over demands that they let him know before the press, about their decision to fund both the removal and replacement of PiP breast implants.

In a letter seen by the BBC, Lansley wrote to Welsh health minister Lesley Griffiths:

“I would… like to take this opportunity to seek your assurance that in the future you will inform my department if the Welsh government decides to take a contradictory approach to a public health issue before we learn of it through the media, which was the case in relation to your comments regarding the replacement of PIP breast implants on the NHS.”

Responding, a spokesperson for the Welsh government declared:

“Andrew Lansley’s letter is arrogant and patronising. Behaving like devolution never happened flies in the face of the respect agenda so often talked about by the prime minister.”

Scotland

Ed Miliband used a speech in Glasgow to argue that social justice was best achieved with Scotland staying in the Union, arguing:

“I say let’s confront the real divide in our society.

“Not between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. But between the haves and the have-nots. So I am not here to tell Scots that Scotland cannot survive outside the United Kingdom. But I am here to tell you that we need to make Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, a fairer, more just, place to live.

“And we can do this best together.”

Assessing the speech, George Eaton at the New Statesman wrote:

“Buoyed by his victory on Stephen Hester’s bonus (he accused Cameron of failing to act as a “responsible shareholder”), Miliband presented his own brand of social democratic Unionism.

“The crux of his argument was that “the real divide” in Britain is not between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom but between “the haves and the have-nots”. The task of creating a “more equal, just and fair society” is one best performed by the nations of the UK working together, he said.

“He spoke of the Scotsman who founded the Labour Party (Keir Hardie), the Englishman who led the “most successful Labour government” in history (Clement Attlee) and the Welshman (Nye Bevan) who founded the NHS.

“In his Hugo Young lecture last week, Alex Salmond argued that an independent Scotland could serve as a “progressive beacon” for the rest of the UK, but Miliband turned this claim on its head.

“Scottish secession, he warned, would trigger a “race to the bottom” on bank regulation, wages and conditions at work. For instance, citing the example of Ireland, Salmond has pledged to slash corporation tax should Scotland win fiscal autonomy.

“Perhaps partly for this reason, Miliband argued for a single-question referendum, excluding the possibility of a “devo max” option.

“There are some in Labour, citing Donald Dewar’s echoing of devolution as “a process, not an event”, who argue that the party should embrace devolution max, which is favoured by a majority of Scots, as a positive alternative to independence.

“The danger in leaving devo max off the ballot paper, they note, is that Scottish voters conclude that the only way to win fiscal autonomy is to vote for full independence. But Miliband, like Cameron, seems wedded to the high-risk option of a one-question referendum.”

As “Fred the Shred” this week lost the “Sir” to become “Mr Goodwin”, Alex Salmond outlined his regrets at previous support for him.

He told the BBC:

“If we all had our time again we’d look at things differently. I think there are very few people who can justifiably say that they anticipated the full extent of the financial collapse – the financial crisis.

“I mean I know some people claim they did but I think if you examine the record you’ll find there’s very few people on the planet – and I am certainly not one of them – who anticipated it.

“So, yeah, of course, if we had the benefit of hindsight we’d do things differently and I am sure that is true of lots and lots of people.”

Also this week:

• Sign up to receive our weekly summary of the news from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, The Week Outside Westminster

• Swinney on Scotland currency – more questions than he answers? – Ed Jacobs

• “She calls her town a ‘s***hole’”: Irish newspaper smears Polish migrants – Alex Hern

• Conservatives in Northern Ireland – what’s the point? – Ed Jacobs

• Scottish independence would leave Trident dead – and the MoD don’t care – Kate Hudson, CND

• McGuinness in Irish unity poll call – Kevin Meagher

• UUP infighting as McNarry says he feels “abused” and has been “kicked in the teeth” – Ed Jacobs

• Miliband to outline vision of a fairer Union – Ed Jacobs

Amidst the ongoing air of crisis in Brussels over the future of the Euro, John Swinney is this evening expected to rule out an independent Scotland joining in the euro for at least a decade.

Publishing extracts of his lecture at the David Hume Institute in Edinburgh the Scotsman reports that the Scottish finance secretary will say to those gathered:

“I can’t foresee a set of circumstances that will see the economic conditions being correct for the euro for some considerable time. It would be difficult to define that but it feels neither to me like the short term or the medium term.”

In reiterating the SNP’s policy that independence should mean Scotland should retain sterling as its currency with the Bank of England as its central bank, Mr Swinney, the Scotsman reports will outline how he is planning for a “lengthy and solid agreement” with the Bank of England as Scotland’s lender of last resort.

Meanwhile, seeking to make contrasts between an independent Scottish government and the economic path taken by the UK coalition, Swinney today argues in a guest piece for the Scotsman:

My vision of an independent Scottish economy is one in which monetary policy acts to underpin price and macroeconomic stability, supported by fiscal and economic flexibility to promote growth and create jobs. Price stability is the key to creating an environment that is conducive to trade, investment and economic growth.

Indeed, this is one reason why all major industrialised economies including the UK, the Eurozone, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA have established independent central banks with the core focus upon maintaining price stability.

Scotland would continue with such an arrangement post-independence in a sterling zone with the Bank of England responsible for monetary policy.

But monetary policy cannot directly tackle youth unemployment, promote innovation, boost skills, target overseas investment or promote investment in key sectors. To address these issues we need greater fiscal powers and an opportunity to use them.

This vision, he said, compares with George Osborne’s plans which, he declares are:

“Proving to be self-defeating with borrowing now rising.”

The finance secretary’s remarks come as Whitehall appears to be in some state of confusion about whether Scotland would or would not be able to keep the pound.

Speaking just last month to the BBC in Scotland, Scottish secretary Michael Moore made clear that he did not see any legal problem with Scotland maintaining sterling. This as George Osborne gave an implicit threat to ban Scotland from keeping the pound.

Assessing Swinney’s thinking on the issue meanwhile, the Scotsman’s editorial has argued that his remarks raise more questions than they answer, concluding:

The more we learn of the Nationalists’ plans for an independent Scotland, the less we know for sure.

That is the only conclusion to be drawn from the interview with finance secretary John Swinney, which we publish today. Mr Swinney, a respected figure less prone than some colleagues to resort to the politics of assertion, has revealed significantly more about the SNP’s economic thinking. But for every answer, more questions arise.

Take the issue of the currency Scotland would adopt after independence. We learn, surprisingly, that the SNP believes Scotland will be part of the sterling zone for at least a decade.

On the face of it, this is welcome clarity with Mr Swinney ruling out any attempt to join the eurozone and stressing his determination to bring certainty and financial stability to a newly- independent Scotland.

Yet this attempt not to scare the unionist horses raises further policy questions. What will Scotland’s relationship with the Bank of England be exactly? How will it interact with and influence what will in effect become a mini-European Central Bank, the central bank for the nations of the former United Kingdom?

See also:

• Scottish independence would leave Trident dead – and the MoD don’t care – Kate Hudson, February 1st 2012

• Miliband to outline vision of a fairer Union – Ed Jacobs, January 30th 2012

• Salmond’s Scottish referendum is a textbook example of a leading question – Alex Hern, January 27th 2012

• Questions multiply over financial status of an independent Scotland – Alex Hern, January 20th 2012

• SNP: Cam’s “economic uncertainty” argument is nonsense; we’ll stick to our timetable – Humza Yousaf MSP, January 9th 2012

Sign up to our weekly “Week Outside Westminster” email service summarising the week’s news from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

Since the announcement in 2008 that the UUP and Conservatives would look to form closer links with each other, David Cameron has made it a mission to enter the world of electoral politics in Northern Ireland in a belief that a truly unionist party needed to contest elections in every part of the country.

In 2010, the electoral pact between the parties was a disaster to say the least, leading as it did to the resignation of the UUP’s only MP in Westminster, Lady Sylvia Hermon, in protest.

Indeed, at the time, former UUP deputy leader John Taylor, now Lord Kilclooney, declared, somewhat unflatteringly, the partnerships to be akin to a “mongrel relationship” whilst the then Conservative chair of the Northern Ireland select committee, Patrick (now Lord) Cormack, dubbed it “odd” and “inconsistent”.

Having had advances to re-establish a pact rejected by UUP leader Tom Elliott, the Conservatives have instead decided to go it alone and establish a Conservative party in Northern Ireland completely separately of any other party.

Announcing the plans, the party’s co-chairman Lord Feldman declared:

“For too long politics in Northern Ireland have been built around sectarianism and division. We want to move past the politics of the peace process to a more normal state of affairs where everyone in Northern Ireland has the opportunity to vote for a modern, centre-right, pro-Union party.

“This new political party won’t be encumbered by the conflict and divisions of Northern Ireland’s past. We want to reach out to everybody in Northern Ireland, regardless of their background.”

On the face of it, at a time when the debate over Scottish independence rages on, the idea of bringing Northern Ireland out from the cold and into the mainstream of UK politics might seem appealing to unionists. Dig deeper, however and it’s not hard to realise how difficult a move it could be.

Firstly, how can David Cameron ever now hope to be able to act as an independent arbiter in Northern Ireland politics when he will now have his own electoral chances to consider?

As shadow Northern Ireland secretary, Vernon Coaker, has argued:

“The Conservative party in Northern Ireland has been relaunched more times than the Big Society.

Instead of prioritising their party’s self-serving misadventures in Northern Ireland, the prime minister and the Secretary of State should concentrate on meeting their responsibilities to help secure the peace process and build a shared future.”

Secondly, it has to be questioned how timely the move is for the Conservatives to be entering the world of Northern Ireland politics at the exact same time as even Tom Elliott himself has admitted that he is exploring how the DUP and UUP can better co-operate to give unionism in Northern Ireland a stronger voice. What role does the Conservative Party have to play in this?

Indeed, given their accusations that the proposed boundary changes in Northern Ireland, spearheaded by the Conservatives, amount to “gerrymandering”, the DUP will not be in any mood to give Cameron et al an easy ride.

And finally, just how new is the proposal? As former UUP staffer, Michael Shilliday, has observed on the Slugger O’Toole blog:

“Let’s be clear, there is to be no “new party” in Northern Ireland. They are not farming off their existing branch, they are attempting to tart it up a bit. And what are these momentous changes? They MIGHT get a seat on the Conservative party board (hardly a sign of a new party is it?), they MIGHT be allowed to elect a leader, and they will be allowed to have a Chairman (so what has Irwin Armstrong been doing all this time?)

“It all begs the question, what is the point? It sounds a bit like they will attract a few failed UUP candidates, but is that together with some semantic dressing up really going to turn an electorally insignificant and utterly failed group into the vanguard for liberal Unionism?

“The Conservative party has no hope in Northern Ireland without an existing local base, the best fit being the UUP. The UUP is visionless and increasingly rudderless without the Conservative party (the real one that is, not what passes for it in Northern Ireland). Seems obvious what to do really.”

With the UUP having made crystal clear that it cannot foresee a new electoral pact with the Conservatives, Cameron’s foray into the world of Northern Ireland’s politics is the wrong move at the wrong time.

See also:

• Tories and UUP split over merger deal – Ed Jacobs, January 5th 2012

• Has the UUP/Tory link hit the rocks? – Ed Jacobs, February 3rd 2011

• Northern Ireland: The challenges facing Mr Cameron – Ed Jacobs, May 17th 2010

• UUP-Tory alliance a “mongrel relationship” – Ed Jacobs, March 12th 2010

• Cameron accused of “sham marriage” with Ulster Unionists – Ed Jacobs, March 10th 2010

Northern Ireland’s Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, wants to see a referendum on Irish unity by as early as 2016.

In an interview with the Irish Examiner, the Sinn Fein heavyweight argues that the “sensible timing” of such a vote would be sometime during the next session of Northern Ireland’s Assembly, sometime after 2015.

McGuinness argues that the vote would be on the question of:

“Whether or not the people of the Six Counties wish to retain the link with what is described as the United Kingdom, or be part of a united Ireland.”

He added:

“I don’t see any reason whatsoever why that should not be considered”

McGuinness also believes Sinn Fein’s power-sharing partners, the DUP, will support such a move.

Last November, first minister Peter Robinson, leader of the Democratic Unionists, conceded that he may be the last Protestant first minister, with Northern Ireland’s in-built Protestant, unionist majority steadily whittling away through demographic change.

However he argued that the Irish Republic’s recent economic woes were “not appetising” for nationalist voters:

“I think the more stable our structure, the more peaceful Northern Ireland is, the more it works as part of the UK, then the more people will think, ‘Why on earth would we change?’”

Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, the decision whether to call a referendum on Northern Ireland’s constitutional status rests with the secretary of state.

McGuinness said:

“I think, in all probability, the people who have got the power to put that in place won’t even contemplate it this side of the next Assembly elections, which conceivably could be 2015 or 2016.”

Although 53 per cent of Northern Ireland’s population identified themselves as Protestant in the 2001 census, a recent study showed that when asked to state their religion, 54 per cent of boys and 55 per cent of girls in Northern Ireland described themselves as Catholic. Moreover, 49 per cent of Northern Irish students were Catholics, while only 35 per cent were Protestants.

Although the broad assumption remains that Catholics want a united Ireland, while Protestants prefer to remain part of the UK, McGuinness argues this view is now “too sectarian”.

As the British state already faces the real prospect of Scottish independence in 2014, its oldest and most persistent secessionist issue – Ireland – looks set to come back into focus once more.

See also:

• UUP infighting as McNarry says he feels “abused” and has been “kicked in the teeth” – Ed Jacobs, January 31st 2012

• What’s the point of the UUP? – Ed Jacobs, January 19th 2012

• Preview 2012 – Northern Ireland – Ed Jacobs, December 30th 2011

• Should Northern Ireland football scrap God Save the Queen? – Ed Jacobs, December 13th 2011

• UUP renew calls for opposition at Stormont – Ed Jacobs, October 25th 2011

UUP MLA David McNarry has declared that he feels “abused” over how he has been treated over revelations about discussions between the UUP and DUP over potential future co-operation, describing his treatment as akin to being “kicked in the teeth”.

On Friday it emerged that the UUP leader, Tom Elliott, had taken the decision to remove him from his position as vice chair of the Assembly’s education committee, while last Monday, McNarry used the Belfast Telegraph to reveal that top level meetings had taken place between the UUP and DUP over forging closer ties to maximise the unionist vote, with suggestions he had minutes of such meetings to prove his case.

Speaking of the decision to effectively sack McNarry from his job on the education committee, Elliott said yesterday:

“There was no issue with him talking to the DUP – I had him as a liaison with the DUP so there was no issue around that – it was because he went beyond his remit.

“Quite clearly once you see someone talk about the possibility on the future of the DUP holding the first minister position and the Ulster Unionist Party holding the junior minister, that’s way beyond the remit.”

The affair prompted Elliott to write to party members to reassure them over the nature of the talks with the DUP, declaring the party’s aim to do no more than to “explore areas of cooperation for the benefit of unionism in general”. McNarry duly resigned the party whip in the Assembly.

Hitting back at the weekend’s development, however, McNarry has argued that Elliott himself was at the very meetings that looked at greater co-operation between the UUP and DUP.

Speaking to the Newsletter, McNarry declared:

“I took notes in my own handwriting, in the one book. They follow consecutive dates and are just reports of what was taking place. When Tom wasn’t at a meeting I reported to him what had happened.”

Addressing the way he had been treated since his revelations in the Belfast Telegraph became public, he continued:

“I felt abused; I felt that somebody had trespassed over me here and I felt that unless Tom is prepared to tell people what has been happening it makes it very difficult for me because I’ve been protecting him.

“The notebook protects my integrity and at the moment my integrity is under the microscope. If it continues to be under the microscope then I will have to consider where I am.

“I had the utmost respect for everybody who was involved in what was going on.”

And turning his attention to Danny Kennedy, the UUP’s sole minister in the Stormont government - who gave very public support for Elliott’s decisions - McNarry concluded:

“Danny Kennedy and I are unionists from the same oak and I appreciate the public position he has taken. But it is not what we have talked about in private.

“I’ve had support from other MLAs by telephone and text message. I’ve gone for honesty and transparency and I’ve been kicked in the teeth.”

Just a few weeks ago, Left Foot Forward asked what the point of the UUP actually was. This week’s developments will serve only to compound the problem, making all the more difficult Tom Elliott’s efforts to carve out a distinctive identity for his party, eclipsed as they remain by the much larger DUP as the principle force of Unionism in Northern Ireland.

See also:

• What’s the point of the UUP? – Ed Jacobs, January 19th 2012

• Preview 2012 – Northern Ireland – Ed Jacobs, December 30th 2011

• Should Northern Ireland football scrap God Save the Queen? – Ed Jacobs, December 13th 2011

• UUP renew calls for opposition at Stormont – Ed Jacobs, October 25th 2011

• Time for normal politics in Northern Ireland? – Ed Jacobs, May 10th 2011