And now for something completely different: a post not on London!

Today, Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander called upon the SNP to hold their referendum on independence ealier than the promised 2010. The political logic behind this seems clear. Scottish Labour feel threatened by the steady dominance of the SNP, especially since they haven’t done badly in government. The SNP would only truly face destruction if they lost a referendum convincingly. Alexander’s bill thus aims to catch the SNP - who might find it difficult to reject any referendum on independence - before it’s really ready, and so deal it a heavy blow.

And, perhaps, Alexander carving out a seperate identity for Scottish Labour. Senior Labour sources have already called the plan “harebrained.” Given how badly the party is polling at the moment, such a distancing may be exactly what Alexander wants…

Such reasoning sounds sound (hah…). But is it? There’s no evidence to suggest that the SNP will find it difficult to reject the bill. Perhaps, if they’d set no solid date for the referendum, as they’d have little excuse then. But they’ve said 2010, and they’ve said that consistently. They (say they?) want to show Scotland can govern itself before moving towars full independence.

Regardless of your views on the SNP, this is more convinving than the current line offered by Alexander, for its consistency alone. The SNP are clearly committed to Scottish independence, and will have a referendum - in 2010.

Contrast this with Alexander’s own behavior here - which can only be described as a complete U-turn.

Previously, her party has opposed such a referendum outright. They do not want Scottish independence, or any chance of it. How she can then turn round an accuse her opponents of wanting, “to be unionists for two years,” and even think she looks convincing is beyond me. If the SNP had broken their timetable for independence, her points might look valid - but as it is, opportunistic is a better word.

Of course, this is all speculation based on a swift reading up on the last couple of years of BBC articles on Scottish politics, and may be wildly wrong. If someone more familiar than I notices, please do correct me…

Firstly the “Bad” news: apparently some Serbs are a bit upset.

 I love the smell of angry impotent reactionaries kicking up a ferocious fuss about something and getting nothing at all save some destruction done to show for it. It smells like progress.

Apparently it is not getting a UN State and “only” a core of European states and the United American ones are going to recognise and deem it a protectorate but, as Benedict Anderson illustrated in his masterpiece Imagined Communities what is important above all in the creation of a nation is not official recognition by international bodies of dubious reputation but instead the sense of cohesion that exists even with those you have not met, the sense of belonging as a member of a whole which is distinct and unique in some way from the rest of the world. Whether this is benign or otherwise is another argument entirely.  Indeed as an internationalist I would argue against it, but in this context it can be safely said that here an imagined community is now unquestionably present and, judging from the historical state of the region, entirely benign. Let the petty imperialists adapt to it, that is the only path open to the Serbs now.

Meanwhile the Indie also reports this:

“It’s the biggest day for a million years!” declared an ecstatic Kosovar, celebrating his country’s independence along with tens of thousands of other ethnic Albanians in Pristina last night.

 How delightful.