Leaders: Quite enough shadow boxing from our leaders

Since this is a behind-closed-doors two-step process, the progress of which can only be gleaned from partisan briefings by one or other of the partners, it is extremely hard to know whether they are really in step with each other or not.

There was, however, not much mistaking the bullish tone of Prime Minister Cameron’s remarks yesterday. Agreement on what is to be put to the people is “close” he said, adding that it was right that the referendum should be held and indeed that it should be “the people’s referendum” that the people of Scotland “deserve”.

This, it may strike some people, sounds a bit rich coming from the leader of the Conservative Party which has consistently both denied and argued against the devolution which the Scottish people had been demanding long before the Tories lost power in 1997. But, to give him the benefit of historic doubt, what he said yesterday may be the mark of a Tory politician who has  accepted modern democratic realities. The people of Scotland, in particular, by giving majority power in Holyrood to the SNP and its manifesto commitment to a referendum on independence, have also asserted their view that there should be such a plebiscite in which they are the decision-makers.

Indeed, Mr Cameron’s arguments against the proposals of Mr Salmond that there should be a second question on some form of maximum devolution of tax powers within the UK can only be founded on that argument. If what was in the SNP manifesto – a referendum on independence with no mention of anything short of that – is indeed the argument which has boxed Mr Salmond into the single-question corner, then Mr Cameron also has to accept that on these constitutional matters the Scottish people are sovereign.

This, we rather think, is also the basis on which Mr Salmond should be able to claim some sort of victory which overshadows the fact that he has not managed to win a two-question referendum. If Britain’s Prime Minister, and a Conservative one at that, has accepted the Scottish people’s right to demand, via Scottish parliamentary elections, plebiscites on constitutional matters, then that is a significant step forward.

Moreover, Mr Cameron’s praise for Labour’s Alistair Darling, whose record as chancellor the Tories otherwise scorn, speaks of a man who thinks that he is getting the campaign to preserve the union in order. His listing, albeit in generalities, of what he thinks are the winning arguments also spoke of someone who thinks he is getting to grips with the  debate.

If so, fine. Scotland has had enough of this shadow dancing. Time for the real substance of this debate.

Fairness? That’s not our bag

RYANAIR boss Michael O’Leary must be fuming. The Irishman, who runs Europe’s biggest budget airline and is famed for thinking up revenue-raising wheezes such as charging passengers for using aircraft loos, has been beaten to the latest money-making punch by Hungarian rival Wizz Air.

Wizz passengers who take standard-sized hand baggage on board will now be charged £9 on top of their fare, which, says the airline, will be cut by a compensating £4.50. Only bags smaller than a laptop case will go free. The airline claims this is about solving the problem of flights being over-crowded with hand luggage. Nonsense, aircraft are designed with one hand luggage per passenger in mind.

This is about being able to advertise fares which are ostensibly lower than rivals’, but, since the airline’s recent experiments showed that only 20 per cent took a charge-free bag, getting the punters to cough up more.

On that percentage of non-

baggage carrying passengers, it works out at £270 extra revenue per 100 passengers. And following one of Mr O’Leary’s adages – “give customers a big price advantage and they’ll fly with you” – Wizz should also sell more seats.

Where Wizz leads, others, especially the loquacious Mr O’Leary, are bound to follow. Some problems may ensue once passengers wise up. How will the budget carriers cope with dozens of bulky passengers, stiff-legging it slowly through check-in because they are wearing five pairs of trousers, six shirts and three jerseys?

Will they be charged extra if, in order to avoid expiration through perspiration, they disrobe on board and stuff the extra clothes into the otherwise empty overhead baggage bins?