SALMOND RESIGNS JUST IN TIME.

Alex Salmond's resignation as leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party was a little unexpected, at least in terms of its timing. However, it may be that this crafty old politician could have been very clever in getting out while the going is still relatively good.

His successor, be it Nicola Sturgeon or anyone else, will have the unenviable task of negotiating the promised devolution of more powers to the Scottish government and, worse, implementing them. Those at Westminster will know only too well that, whatever Cameron, Clegg and Miliband might have said, this is going to be a massive issue with some huge hurdles to get over before it's completed. Indeed, it's quite probable that the eventual result will be a mish-mash, a mess that causes mayhem for decades to come, and Salmond will have had nothing to do with it. He will remain a Scottish hero while his successor will become a pariah; he might even find himself recalled to duty as an 'elder-statesman', tasked with creating order out of chaos.

Salmond has shown himself, once again, to be a very crafty old fox; don't write-off the prospect of a return.

SWINNEY ISSUES STERLING THREAT.

John Swinney, the man who sees himself as Scotland's 'Chancellor of the Exchequer' is in a real panic, so much so that he's now issuing threats against the UK government.

All 3 main UK political parties have made clear that, should the Scots vote for independence in September, they will not enter into a currency union with the newly independent nation. While they acknowledge that Scotland could continue to make use of sterling as its currency, there would be no formal agreement and the pound would continue to be managed from London as now. Swinney and his pals in the SNP don't like this and so are now threatening that no currency union would mean Scotland refusing to accept its share of the UK's national debt, currently estimated to be about £100bn.

Exactly what planet Swinney is living on is a bit of a mystery though it clearly isn't the same one inhabited by the rest of us. Why does he think that Scotland, having rejected its place in the United Kingdom, should be entitled to continue to enjoy the benefits of its old currency in a formal currency union ? Why does he think there is a link between using the currency and national debt ? Why does he think that the government of the rest of the UK doesn't have plenty of routes by which it could take back the £100bn if it chooses to ?

The SNP wants Scotland to be independent and yet is madly trying to reassure its troubled population that nothing will change if it achieves its goal EXCEPT that everything will be much better than now. Poppycock.

If an independent country does not control its own currency it has no financial freedom whatsoever. As a minor partner in a currency union it would have little power and would almost certainly have to submit its budget to the UK Treasury; in an informal arrangement it would have no control whatsoever over the value of the currency and exchange rates as well as interest rates, little control over tax rates and would be entirely at the mercy of the economy of the remaining, and much larger, part of the UK. It would not have its own 'central bank' and would not be able to borrow independently; it would be no more than a vassal state.

With all of these restrictions, why on earth does Swinney want to keep the pound ? The simple answer is that he has no choice as the only alternative for Scotland if it wants to be a member of the EU is the Euro. An independent Scotland would almost certainly have to apply to become a member of the EU and the rules of that egregious organisation require new members to adopt their benighted currency and all the restrictions that go with it. Swinney and his mates in the SNP see sterling as their way out, giving them a degree of bargaining power when it comes to EU membership.

For Scottish voters it's a case of 'the devil you know or the devil you don't'. Swinney, Salmond and the rest know that their people would shy away in their millions if the Euro was the currency of choice, so they've gone for the pound. Sadly for them, the people who represent the nations they want to reject don't like the idea one jot and have issued a resounding 'NO WAY !'. Whether any of this matters will become clear with September's vote, though any Scot with financial sense will surely say 'No' also.

ENGLISH DEVOLUTION A STEP NEARER.

The "Curly, Larry and Moe" of British politics have set themselves up for another right constitutional mess with their latest self-serving pronouncement about Scotland. All 3 of these stooges have committed to devolving more power to the Scottish parliament in the event of a 'No' vote in next month's independence referendum while giving no apparent thought to the implications for the Westminster parliament or, indeed, for England.

It's now being proposed that the Scottish mob will be granted extensive tax raising powers plus some serious autonomy with regard to social security provision. It won't be long before all of the major issues, except for defence and some of the Treasury's higher responsibilities, have been devolved, leaving one wondering what on earth a raft of Scottish MPs will be doing in the House of Commons. It also raises, yet again, the infamous 'West Lothian' question - if Scotland has a large dollop of autonomy, why should their representatives have any say at all over devolved matters when it comes to discussion in the House of Commons ?

Whether or not the Scots vote for independence, it is surely time for this issue to be resolved. It is ludicrous to allow Scottish MPs at Westminster to vote on matters which do not concern Scotland while denying English MPs a similar say on Scottish matters. For that matter, the same applies, though currently to a lesser degree, to the Welsh. In all of this, the English are in danger of being ruled by the votes of Scottish and Welsh socialist MPs at Westminster, while themselves being largely excluded from the government of Scotland and Wales.

This is not right and must be resolved.

SALMOND'S PLANS UNRAVEL.

As the debate over Scottish independence gathers pace, it's clear that the plans of megalomaniac Alex Salmond are unravelling.

Last week, George Osborne made it clear that an independent Scotland would be just that - independent. He ruled out Salmond's plan for a sterling currency union and was backed up in this stance by the principle financial representatives of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties as well as by the top civil servant in the Treasury.

Next, the current president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, appeared on television on Sunday and stated fairly categorically that an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership of the EU but could well be disappointed. Oh, Lordy, Lordy !

A cornerstone of Salmond's attempt to become Prime Minister, President or even King, of Scotland has been his constant claim that independence would change very little; the only real change would be to free it from the unwanted and hated attentions of the government in Westminster. According to Salmond, an independent Scotland would retain the Queen as head of state (though no mention of what would happen once she is gone), would retain sterling as its currency in a currency union with the remains of the UK, and would still be a member of the EU. It is now clear that at least 2 of these claims have 'feet of clay'.

Whatever the people who live in Scotland, for they are the only ones with a vote, decide in September there'll be ructions. If it's a vote for independence, expect a lot of whingeing and whining from the people once they realise the true implications of their choice; if it's a vote to remain in the UK, expect Salmond and his mates to be back arguing for the so-called 'Devo-max', in other words, effective independence within the UK. The second of these would undoubtedly lead to considerable unhappiness in England as Scottish members of the Westminster parliament would continue to tell the English what to do while Scotland was not affected by their decisions.

Ho-hum ! Exciting times ahead.

CYCLISTS MUST WEAR HELMETS, SAYS ASA.

It isn't only the Labour Party that loves to ban things "for our own good".

The organisation 'Cycling Scotland' (a ridiculous name, I might add) has produced a television advertisement designed to promote driver awareness of cyclists; apparently it shows a cyclist and encourages drivers to give such road users the same amount of space as they would a horse. Pretty simple and pretty obvious, one might think, but not to the autocrats at the Advertising Standards Authority.

The problem seems to be that the cyclist in the film is not wearing a helmet. Although wearing a helmet is not a legal requirement, the ASA has ruled that that not wearing one is, in their words, "socially irresponsible" and they've ruled that the advertisement must not be shown again.

I have no idea who are the members of the ASA but it's clear that they are another bunch of left-leaning liberals who are determined to impose their social standards on the rest of us. Their role is to ensure that advertising is fair, honest and legal, not to rule as to its "social responsibility". Given the nature of many of the advertisements which pass scrutiny with no problem - I think particularly of the many highly irresponsible ones for 'Pay day Loans', not to mention the utterly corrupt 'Insurance for the over-50s market' - one has to wonder, in any case, how the ASA determines what is and what is not "socially responsible".

Of all of the reasons for Scots to vote for independence in September, removing themselves from the ambit of this interfering organisation must be one of the most compelling.