Unionists papering over the cracks

Alex Massie is one of those mealy-mouthed unionists of the same ilk as Gordon Brown, Malcolm Rifkind and Alan Cochrane; the type who have devolution for their own country but dismiss English claims as the bleatings of English nationalists.

One thing these Scottish unionists have in common is extremely strange hair.

But I digress.

In his latest post Massie highlights the following Cameron quote, which for Massie is acknowledgment that Cameron will lack a Scottish mandate and the moral basis on which to govern.

"If we win the election and if, by some miracle, we don't have 25 seats in Scotland and have slightly fewer, then I would be a Prime Minister who would want to govern in the interests of everyone in Scotland.

"I would recognise the shortage of mandate, if you like, in Scotland by getting straight up there and meeting the First Minister and saying, look, anyone who wants to try to work with me, I will work with them. I will make sure my ministers go to Holyrood and listen to committees there. Likewise, Scottish ministers should come to Westminster and engage with the committees here.

"I would do whatever it takes to govern in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom and to try to make sure, that over time, that we can strengthen that United Kingdom. I would be prepared to consider anything to enable us to do that."

I don't like to bleat, but why should SNP ministers come to Westminster to participate in committees? The devolved government of Scotland belongs in Scotland, not England. England should not tolerate interference from politicians who only speak for Scotland when there is not one politician who can legitimately claim to speak for England; why should England submit to the backroom politics of a Scottish 'nationalist reading' of an English Tory victory?

Such is the blinkered view of commentators like Massie that they don't see this as an issue, all that matters to them is to "ensure that the SNP will not be able to split up the UK". It's the Union at all costs: "Better an imperfect Union than a broken one".

Unionists will continue to fawn over Cameron's imperfect Unionism (see 3000 Versts) for want of anything better, but the imperfection is such that it's only sustainable with a workable Tory majority, and even then only with the caveat of the Tories having a least one Scottish MP of the calibre required to be an effective Sectretary of State for Scotland against Alex Salmond (and looking at Mundell that's going to be a big ask). In Massie's world, and Cameron's too, the governance of England could legitimately rest on cutting deals with the SNP and Ulster unionists.

In England we've noticed that a few recent HoC's votes have been won for the Government when the majority of English MPs voted against (Heathrow Third Runway, Theresa May's amendment on English regional committees and 42-days detention) but these transgressions have been largely overlooked, even when they are the work of an unlikable Scotsman leading a detested government. The question is: Will the Scottish public be so forgiving of an English Etonian toff leading an English Tory Party with an almost entirely English cabinet?

Cameron is correct, he won't have a mandate for Scotland. It's best for him to acknowledge this openly, to crave the indulgence of the Scottish people to buy himself some time. This is no risky strategy, just common sense.