'Scotsman with a grievance.....'

'It is never difficult to tell the difference between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine'.

Back in La-la land, Dave is now getting open dissent in the Cabinet over his aid policy. He is now proposing to make it law that 0.7% of GDP is reserved for aid; in other words, it is not merely ring-fenced, as if that were not bad enough, but inflation-proofed. Foreign aid seems to be his Holy Grail, which is incomprehensible when you think about the dire state of the economy and just about everything else. He said it is because it was an election manifesto commitment. Well, so was a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. We are still waiting.

And on the referendum reference, what will we make of proposed independence of Scotland?

‘Canny’ is a Scots word. The OED defines it as ‘shrewd, worldly-wise, circumspect, sly, drily humorous’. That just about sums up the Scots; I have worked with many over my long career and they are all of these things and great to know (except the morning after).

Alex Salmond, now the undisputed ‘PM’ of Scotland, is the canniest politician in Britain. So anybody who imagines that he is going to rush into a referendum to make Scotland independent at the earliest opportunity needs his head read. Some hacks are already suggesting that Cameron should make a pre-emptive strike and call an early referendum to kill the dragon.

That is not going to happen either; Dave has had enough of referenda for the time being. He would be nuts to get in Salmond’s light and then take the flak if the gamble didn’t come off, or to risk an ‘up yours’ reaction from the Jocks who would be very inclined to vote for independence just to screw the Tories (the Scots can be a bit chippy that way) when, being canny, they are most likely to vote against full-blown independence. Dave has a few more important priorities right now, such as the Royal succession in about 50 years time, reform of the House of Lords, fixed term Parliaments. He might even get round to the dire state of the nation one day.

It is unthinkable that they would want to go it alone. Scotland’s only real resource is the rapidly diminishing asset of North Sea oil. I have done my best over the years to assist them with their most famous and delectable export, but economically there is not that much going for them. Remember that the Act of Union was sought by the Scots, not the English, because in 1707 the Scots were skint. Had the Scots got full independence already they would have gone bankrupt on the collapse of RBS.

The other implications are that they would have to set up the full panoply of statehood, including a diplomatic service with Embassies all over (including London!), a defence service, customs and immigration – the full Monty. It is highly unlikely that the Scots would prefer to pay for all of these themselves whereas today it is mostly paid for by the English.

And the cruellest cut of all would be the loss of the £28 billion the English taxpayer sends to Scotland every year to help them with their free University education, free prescriptions and all the other goodies.

My take is that Scotland will go in the opposite direction to the EU; instead of ‘closer and closer union’ it will be ‘looser and looser union’. Scotland will take over most powers over a period of years, leaving a customs union, defence and some other functions that would be better managed jointly. Crucially the Scots would have their own budgetary and taxation powers. Joint services expenditure might be met through a ‘common purse’ arrangement.

Mention of the EU raises another complication; Scotland as an independent nation would have to apply for EU membership, so some kind of transitional arrangement would need to be negotiated.

At last we might get an answer to the West Lothian Question! And an English Parliament.