NAKED Wines, the mail-order drinks company launched by one of Sir Richard Branson’s former right-hand men, is considering opening its own vineyard in Australia following the success of its site in the United States.

Chief executive Rowan Gormley, who helped launch Virgin Money and Virgin Wines before setting up his own company in 2008, opened a “wine-making” studio last year in Sonoma County, one of the most-acclaimed grape-growing areas of California.

Chief operating officer Eamon FitzGerald, who has taken over the day-to-day running of the company to allow Gormley to focus on America, said the firm is now mulling the opening of its second studio – where visitors can make and learn about wine – this time in Australia.

FitzGerald said: “We’re not just a customer-funded wine business, we’re now a customer-funded winery too.

“It’s really exciting. I was in California last week meeting the winemakers and tasting the tanks and barrels. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t do that in Australia too.”

FitzGerald has spent the past fortnight touring around ten cities, including Glasgow on Thursday and Edinburgh on Friday, introducing 5,000 customers to 40 of the company’s producers. Venues for the tour, which is now in its third year, are selected by customers, with about 800 Scottish connoisseurs turning out for the events.

Globally, Naked Wines now has more than 150,000 “angels” – customers who subscribe for £20 each month to fund small winemakers and receive discounts on their wares.

About 15,000 of the UK’s 125,000 are based in Scotland, and FitzGerald said the winemakers who came on tour with him had said its clients north of the Border were “knowledgeable and well travelled”.

Naked Wines also expanded its retail presence into Australia and the US last year but FitzGerald doesn’t expect to start selling wines in other markets soon. “We’ll concentrate on getting those two countries right first,” he said. “Part of the challenge is to recreate what we’ve done here in terms of changing the way people think about buying wines.”

In April, Naked Wines posted a maiden operating profit, swinging to a £1 million surplus for 2012 compared with a loss of £1.8m in 2011, on the back of a 57 per cent jump in turnover to £34.9m. Sales are expected to hit £50m in 2013.

The profit allowed the company to buy back shares worth £1.2m from 34 staff, including 17 who had bought stock when the company was launched, with the average pay-out standing at £35,000.

FitzGerald, a 28-year-old Irishman who gave up a career in financial services with Accenture to join Naked Wines two years ago, said the profit would also help silence some of the company’s doubters.

“They said we would never be able to take on the supermarkets, and we have. They said we would never be able to recruit great winemakers, and we have. And they said we would never be able to make money from it, and we have.”

He said that between 40 and 60 per cent of the price of a standard bottle of wine was “untasteable” – such as money spent on marketing and fees for intermediaries.

Naked Wines removes those costs by bringing customers and winemakers together, he said, allowing the firm to sell higher-quality wine at supermarket prices.

The company invests about £36m a year in 105 winemakers across 13 countries and claims to have secured discounts worth £35m for its angels. About 50 per cent of its sales come from angels, with the remainder consisting of single case sales.

Figures released last year by wine wholesaler Bibendum revealed that only 11p from a £5 bottle of wine is spent on the grapes, with the rest going towards excise duty, logistics, packaging, the retailer’s margin and VAT. In a £10 bottle, the amount spent on the grapes rises to £2.82 – an increase of more than 25 times.

THE new boss of N Brown will face investors for the first time on Tuesday as the home shopping group’s customer recruitment drive begins to pay off.

Sales are rising among customers of N Brown’s younger brands, such as Fashion World, Jacamo and Simply Be. This is helping to offset slower trading among brands such as Fifty Plus, JD Williams, Julipa and Marisota, where older customers are watching their spending.

It recently posted growing full-year revenues and profits as sales to new shoppers surged by 24 per cent.

New chief executive Angela Spindler, the former managing director of Debenhams who joins from discount chain The Original Factory Shop, replaces long-standing boss Alan White tomorrow.

She will face investors at the company’s annual general meeting (AGM) in Manchester as it updates on trading since the start of March.

The group – which also owns lingerie label Figleaves, tall customer specialist High & Mighty and homeware catalogue supplier House of Bath – is boosting investment in customer recruitment, particularly online through pay-per-click advertising, while cutting back on catalogue mailings.

As a result, online sales are expanding strongly and now account for more than half its revenues.

Analysts at Jeffries said Spindler is coming to a business in “rude health”.

They added: “With momentum returned to the sales lines, Angela Spindler will join an operation performing strongly.

“As a consequence, we expect the change in management to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.”

Analysts at Oriel Securities added: “N Brown’s strategy to increase spending on customer recruitment will continue to bear fruit. Better retail practices from the new management team will only help further.”

TOMORROW’S meeting between ministers, consumer groups and payday lenders could be an awkward affair.

The summit, coming just days after the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) referred the payday lending sector to the Competition Commission, helps create the illusion of a concerted crackdown on payday lenders.

But payday lenders may turn up wondering who will be on whose side. Because in recent times they have been able to count on the government as a useful ally.

Groups present will include the likes of Citizens Advice and the StepChange debt advice charity, both inundated by demand from payday loan debtors.

They’re also among the critics to have rightly pointed to the government’s role in helping create the payday loan boom. If payday lenders turn up laden with presents for the government, it’ll be in return for the latest policy measure they might as well have drawn up themselves. Given the cosy links between certain payday loan firms and several Tory MPs it’s a possibility that can’t be ruled out.

George Osborne’s Spending Review announcement that the unemployed will have to wait seven days before claiming benefits is a gift for payday lenders. If a single policy could drive up payday loan demand even further, this may be it.

Like the welfare reforms introduced in April it’s a measure that will force yet more Scottish households into financial hardship and into the arms of the waiting payday lenders. The industry has been growing for years, but it’s the government’s targeting of the vulnerable in society that has propelled the most rapid growth.

The OFT has stepped up its actions in recent months and the Competition Commission referral could have an impact if it looks at the right areas. Regulation of the sector passes next April to the Financial Conduct Authority, and its chief executive has pledged to crack down on abusive practices. It has the tools to address many excesses of the industry, and hopefully it also has the will.

But payday loan companies know that time is on their side. So too, thanks to the government gift that keeps on giving, are market conditions.

The sun may (slowly) be setting on the worst excesses of the payday lending industry but they’ll be making plenty of hay whilst it shines.

TENANTS are being left in the dark about Scotland’s deposit protection system a year after the landmark plan came into force, it has emerged.

The first tenancy deposit schemes (TDS) were launched on 2 July 2012 with the aim of preventing disputes between tenants and landlords over withheld deposits.

But 12 months on, doubts have been raised over the effectiveness of the new system. Fewer than 130,000 of nearly 300,000 eligible deposits had been transferred into a scheme by mid-May, the final deadline for landlords to comply. And experts warn that many tenants remain unaware of their rights under the system, with landlords accused of failing to communicate the arrangements.

The legislation requires landlords and letting agents to place tenant deposits with an approved third-party scheme. They’re also obliged to give tenants confirmation of the amount paid and details of the scheme holding their deposit, which remains there during the tenancy in a designated account.

Any dispute over the deposit at the end of the tenancy can be ruled on by a free independent mediation service.

Scottish tenants are losing up to £3.6 million a year in unfairly withheld deposits, the Letting Protection Service Scotland has estimated. But just two-thirds of tenants in Scotland know about the TDS, according to research by one scheme, My Deposits Scotland, while fewer than one in ten tenants have discussed the protection of their deposit with their landlords.

It also found that three in ten landlords who have paid deposits into a scheme haven’t told their tenants about it.

Eddie Hooker, chief executive of My Deposits Scotland, said: “The fines for non-compliance are substantial, so landlords and agents must ensure they both protect the deposit and pass the information to their tenants in order to fully comply with the law.”

Colette Murphy, business development director at Lomond Lettings, warned that more work is needed in raising awareness among landlords of deposit scheme requirements.

“Letting companies know, but private landlords who might work in a different sector may be entirely unaware of it, and if they don’t know it’s unlikely the tenant will know.”

The Scottish Government launched tenant information packs in May in a bid to boost understanding of the legislation relating to both tenants and landlords.

“It’s a step forward, but if landlords don’t provide the packs then tenants won’t know about them,” Murphy said.

Some letting agents and landlords have found ways of getting around the scheme. Several of the biggest letting agents in Edinburgh and Glasgow last year introduced non-refundable “cleaning fees” in lieu of a deposit.

By agreeing to that arrangement, tenants are losing their deposit protection as agents don’t need to register the upfront payment.

Some also require the final month’s rent to be paid at the beginning of the tenancy – an illegal move aimed at circumventing the demands of the TDS.

Alyson Macdonald, of the Edinburgh Private Tenants Action Group, expressed concern at the number of landlords and letting agents that had not yet signed up to a scheme.

She called on the Scottish Government to support tenants by enforcing the laws it had passed.

“The low level of compliance with the deposit protection requirement shows how much contempt many landlords and letting agents hold for their legal obligations towards tenants,” said Macdonald.

“The fact that it is not just a few independent ‘rogue landlords’ who are breaking the law but also some large, well-established letting agencies is further evidence of the disgraceful attitudes towards tenants’ rights that can be found across the sector.”

Margaret Lynch, chief executive of Citizens Advice Scotland, said: “The scheme is well intentioned, but it’s clear that it’s not working in practice.

“A year since its introduction, only half of deposits are actually being registered.”

WHEN the No campaign was searching for a campaign HQ before they launched a year ago I don’t think they could find a suitably named street for their campaign. I simply couldn’t locate Fear Street on the Glasgow map.

By way of contrast, neatly settled into their Hope Street premises 13 months into their existence, Yes Scotland’s address matches the rhetoric. And long may it continue.

But after hearing last week that No campaign staffers refer to their work as “Project Fear” I literally felt nauseous. Are they seriously going to argue the case for the Union on the basis of scaring the bejesus out of the public? It’s not a new tactic but one I’m sad to see repeated so vigorously.

The infamous memo from the 1999 Holy­rood campaign, thought to be penned by Douglas Alexander, MP, instructed Lab­our’s rank and file to “engender fear in the SNP” after they were winning ground on the economic case for independence. You would think, looking at the political results in Scotland in recent years, they would know it doesn’t work. Even the communications theorists state that positive election messages are more accepted than negative ones. The ever-wise commentator Joyce McMillan said in The Scotsman on Friday, “when it comes to building a society worth living in… fear-based politics is worse than useless”.

Don’t the people of Scotland expect and deserve more from their political leaders? Independence is a big issue and a big decision. The case should be made with care and consideration not scare.

One year into the campaign, with both teams firmly established, the battle lines are drawn with the strategies clear for all to see. On one side of the ring we have the No campaign under the banner of Project Fear defending the status quo, and on the other side of the ring Yes, championing Project Hope with a big task on their hands.

Project Hope’s core task is to inspire each individual in Scotland that with one tick of the ballot box, they are taking pro-active action to nation-build a better Scotland and stake a claim in deciding what kind of society we want to be. Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands, some might say.

Project Fear want to stop us imagining a new Scotland, to think we can’t do it because it’s too complicated or too costly and it’s too much. Apparently we are better off together.

The facts are Scotland can well afford it; we are capable and yes, it may be difficult at times, but for me and for many others, the positives far outweigh any negatives. With responsibility comes opportunity.

Project Fear’s Sunday name, Better Together, bills itself on the basis that we are better off together. But there in lies the rub. The current set-up isn’t actually equal, so how are we actually together when Westminster politicians we didn’t vote for hold all the cards?

It just doesn’t make sense.

Is it fair that 91% of Scottish MPs voted against the bedroom tax but it’s now costing thousands of families in Scotland an average of £11 a week?

Is it equal that in each and every one of the past 30 years we’ve generated more tax revenues per person than elsewhere in the UK but not seen the benefit under a fixed Barnett formula?

Is it equal that Scotland has approximately just half of the BBC license fee raised in Scotland spent in Scotland?

Or that Scottish farmers receive the fourth lowest farm payments in the EU, yet in the EU the UK is arguing to end direct support for Scottish farmers who have 85% Less Favoured Area?

I think you can catch my drift.

The case that we are currently together doesn’t stack up. We are not together as we are not partners in this relationship, we are playing second fiddle.

It’s Project Hope that provides the platform for Scotland’s equal relationship in the British Isles. A new relationship where Scotland stands as an equal partner with the rest of the UK. Where we have a government in Scotland responsible for Scotland voted in by the people of Scotland.

I had the privilege of working with the late Professor Sir Neil MacCormick as a special adviser in the SNP’s first term. We are a lesser nation without his great brain and spirit, but thankfully he has left us with lots to remember him by. He said: “The goal of a ‘free Scotland’ in the fav­oured sense must be taken as prescribing the freedom and equality of all citizens regardless of creed, class or ethnic origins, and the free participation of them all as equals in the process of self-government. In a word, democracy.”

The equality of all citizens is a democratic journey that we are on in Scotland. A normal nation taking our place in the world, and together as equal partners in the British Isles as friends and allies.

Now that’s the kind of together I am interested in.

• Jennifer Dempsie is a PR adviser for the Yes campaign and a former special adviser to the First Minister

ALEX Salmond’s decision not to go to Muirfield for the Open because of its strict men-only policy has rather landed enterprise minister Fergus Ewing in it.

Keen to keep both sides sweet, the Scottish Government confirmed that the Inverness MSP would still be heading along to the links to represent the Scottish Government. Is Fergus’s mum, aka Winnie Ewing, happy that her offspring is supporting this women-free zone? Is his sister, MSP Annabelle Ewing? Perhaps their combined pressure will soon see the conservative Ewing become, after Alex Salmond, the next great feminist of his age. We await with eagerness.

In good company with the Iron Lady

The sad passing of Lord Fraser of Carmyllie has sparked an affectionate stream of reminiscences. A Miss Garrow, who was the schoolmistress of Carmyllie Primary has always been grateful for a wonderful speech that he gave for her retirement. The then Tory MP turned up for the event and was spotted by the jannie polishing his shoes on the back of his calves. Before he knocked on her study door, he confided: “I only do that for Mrs Thatcher and Miss Garrow.”

Thatcher, Thatcher the pencil monitor snatcher

Miss Garrow taught Lord Fraser’s son Jamie. Pencils were given out at the beginning of the lesson and then collected at the end by a pupil, given the title of pencil monitor. At the end of one lesson a five-year-old Master Fraser was still practising his writing when the wee girl who was pencil monitor arrived. Jamie insisted on finishing the task in hand as the monitor repeatedly demanded his pencil. In exasperation, he eventually threw the pencil on the desk exclaiming: “There you are Maggie Thatcher!”

Carlaw is no butt of the late-night joke

The final week of the parliamentary term saw a lot of business crushed into the last few days. So much so that MSPs (the poor dears) were in danger of breaching standing orders by sitting past 7pm. As the clock ticked into the evening, the Tory Jackson Carlaw remarked that the session had developed into “what constitutes an all-night sitting of this parliament”. Then he expressed his gratitude at being able to contribute to a debate on the dangers of smoking “at the fag end of the day”.

IN AMERICA “We the People” are now “They the Disfranchised”. Official notice of this reversal of constitutional precedent was served by the US Supreme Court in the second of two judgements handed down last week.

By a 5-4 decision the justices ruled that those who had sued to reverse a Californian district judge’s ruling that Proposition 8 – outlawing homosexual marriage – was unconstitutional “had no standing”.

The presumed effect of this ruling is that Proposition 8 has been overturned and California can resume marrying homosexuals. However, this case is complex and is likely to attract many more legal challenges. What sharply differentiates it from the innumerable other conflicts in the culture wars raging in America is that it involves a basic issue of democracy. More than 7 million Californians voted in favour of the proposition that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California”; it was then endorsed by the California Supreme Court, but struck down by a Federal District judge.

The issue eventually reached the US Supreme Court but, since the government of the state of California had refused to support it, the justices ruled that the proponents of Proposition 8 did not have standing to pursue the case. Consider the implications of that sequence of events. A majority of voters pass Proposition 8: it is their democratic will. Yet, because a liberal state administration declines to support the verdict of its own electorate, the voters’ decision cannot be vindicated in the highest court in the land. You could not ask for a better example of the complicity between politicians and judges to frustrate the will of electorates. Behind the weasel legalities, in crude reality it is the voters of California who have no standing.

The US Supreme Court is a travesty. Because its nine members are appointed by the president, it is a given that “conservative” justices are nominated by Republican presidents and “liberals” by Democrat presidents. Its composition at any given time reflects the incumbency of the White House over recent years. Decisions related to moral or social issues can comfortably be predicted according to the current make-up of the bench. In recent years, the nearest thing to a wild card has been the relative unpredictability of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a “swing” voter.

What has such blatant partisanship to do with justice? What was the point of rejecting George III and awarding the US president the right of appointment to the highest court? Where is the separation of powers between executive and judiciary? Americans make a fetish of the Constitution but the fact is that so outdated a document can easily be subjectively interpreted by liberals or conservatives. How can the US Constitution be used to strike down “discrimination” when it was written by slave-owners for a slave-based society? The Supreme Court, today so self-consciously liberal, upheld slavery in its Dred Scott decision of 1857. Today, a recent New York Times/CBS poll showed only 44 per cent of Americans approve of the job the court is doing.

Judicial activism is by no means an American phenomenon. British judges have systematically eroded citizens’ rights and enhanced those of criminals in servile deference to Europe. At least the courts dismantling US democracy are American: we are in thrall to Europe and, through the same complicity of politicians and judges, subjected to the same agenda as Americans. Most notoriously, on 27 March 2012, the Council of Europe held its first ever closed conference, excluding the public, while the then UK “equalities minister” Lynne Featherstone pledged the implementation of same-sex marriage in Britain by June this year, after which Sir Nicolas Bratza, at that time President of the European Court of Human Rights, agreed the court would declare homosexual marriage a “human right” as soon as states such as Britain and France enacted it. Lord Stoddart, in the House of Lords, challenged the government to deny a newspaper report of this “conspiracy”, without rebuttal.

Transparency? Democracy? They are having a laugh. The EU equivalent of the US Supreme Court’s disdain for ballot-box decisions is the routine practice of ­requiring countries that have voted against any Eurofederalist encroachment to vote again until they come to the “right” decision.

Democracy was always a flawed concept: it inevitably leads to totalitarianism. While, however, the liberal elite’s contempt for democracy is increasingly shared by a public that recognises what a sham it is, it does not automatically follow that the public will acquiesce in the programme being imposed on it. What is wanted is a government that will dismantle the entire apparatus of politically correct laws and institutions, restoring independence to judiciary and citizens alike. That requires a determined exercise of political will by the populace, in Britain and abroad.

Twitter: @GeraldWarner1

JUST as it seems to come as a surprise to transport authorities that winter brings ice and snow, so it seems to come as a surprise to the NHS that midwinter and midsummer are pinch points for our health services.

Every winter, hospitals and GPs struggle to cope with the increased number of patients – especially among the elderly and those suffering from flu and winter vomiting – and every summer they struggle to deal with the simple fact that NHS staff might want to take summer holidays. This year, as we report today, the annual summer strain is approaching crisis point.

This is unacceptable. We have, since the foundation of the NHS, come to expect a given standard of care. Perhaps we have taken this too much for granted, underestimating just what an extraordinary amount of organisation and money goes into producing a truly national and truly universal health service free at the point of need. But we expect, nevertheless, to be able to turn up at an A&E department and be seen within a certain period of time, or to place a frantic call to a GP in the middle of the night about a desperately sick child, and have that call answered. If it cannot meet these two key needs, the NHS is no longer a functioning national health service as we have come to understand it.

One of the root causes of the summer shortage is a GP contract that allows doctors to opt out of evening and weekend work. Viewed from the vantage point of other professions – and even other branches of medicine within the health service – this seems curious. Our GPs do an increasingly difficult job with great professionalism and vast reservoirs of caring concern, and they deserve our appreciation. But healthcare –even at local GP level – is not a nine-to-five service. Even with the growth of telephone healthcare services such as NHS 24, there is still going to be a need for a trained professional to come to the bedside of an ailing child or an infirm pensioner and give an in-
person assessment of their condition and the required course of remedial action. It is curious why this is not regarded as one of the core functions of being a fully-renumerated GP.

Amid the concern, there is one heartening aspect of the Scottish health authorities’ response to this crisis. That is the decision to use what the Scottish Government is calling “all necessary mechanisms” to fill the gaps, apparently including private medical providers. This, of course, contravenes the Scottish Government’s self-imposed ban on exploring the role that private specialist firms can play in healthcare provision in Scotland, both in primary care and in particular surgical areas. Nicola Sturgeon famously refused to renew an NHS contract with a private firm that had led to cuts in waiting times and improvement in outcomes for Scottish patients requiring knee transplants. This was done for purely ideological reasons.

Patients putting their trust in the NHS do not particularly care about the accounting method by which their surgeon, their nurse or their GP gets paid by the government, as long as the treatment is expeditious, is delivered with kindness and is a clinical success. With the summer and winter crises likely to continue as the NHS comes under increasing strain, perhaps it is time for Scottish Government ministers to look again at how it procures healthcare, and to see specialist private providers as people with a role to play in making the NHS function properly, and not just as a last-minute emergency measure in a desperate bid to stave off a calamitous collapse.

Cell children scandal

ONE of the benefits of bringing Scotland’s police forces under the umbrella of one organisation, Police Scotland, must be that operational policing across the country will become more consistent. The way offenders, or suspects, are treated should not depend on location. Yet, as our report on page five today shows, prior to reorganisation, some force areas had a much poorer record than others when it came to detaining young people under 16 in cells overnight. Legislation passed almost 20 years ago made it clear that young people - unless their crime was of extraordinary magnitude - should not be detained in police custody. Even if circumstances are exceptional - a murder for example - the suspect should be kept in another “place of safety.” Yet children as young as 12 have been detained for lengths of time that are also in breach of the UN Convention on Human Rights. Children’s rights campaigners are correct to claim this should not be happening and that Police Scotland should ensure the legislation is complied with at all times. Children’s Commissioner Tam Baillie makes a crucial point that there is a major disparity between the numbers of children held in overnight custody compared to appearances in Sheriff’s courts, suggesting the offences they were suspected of do not fit the extraordinary circumstances category. This practice should end now.

A WEIGHTY report, Defending An Independent Scotland, published last week and publicised in Scotland on Sunday, represents a powerful lens through which we can view the security challenges faced in the event of a Yes vote.

But, though the Scotland Institute report is a worthwhile contribution to the independence debate, its focus is unduly negative. Yes, there are challenges. But there are opportunities too – opportunities to craft a Scottish Defence Policy (SDP) and a Scottish Defence Force (SDF) that match the aspirations and priorities of a small independent nation.

Too often the report falls into warnings over what might go wrong: a cyber-security weak spot, a haven for terrorist organisations, a weak link in the security of the British Isles. These kinds of risk are not Scotland-specific. Indeed there is a higher incidence of terrorist activity in other parts of the UK than in Scotland.

And there are experts, Professor William Walker of St Andrews University among them, who believe Scotland would become more – not less - secure under independence.

Challenges such as the removal of Trident from the Clyde, cyber-crime and the transition from the UK military structure to a newly formed SDF can be overcome. But the report notes correctly that there must be more openness from Westminster about Scotland’s share of defence assets.

Scotland has a strong negotiating hand. It will want fast jets and frigates, not nuclear submarines and destroyers. If London wishes to keep these assets then Scotland will have billions to spend on new equipment.

The suggestion that “separating” the current UK forces is illogical misunderstands that an SDF would play a different role to current UK forces. And the idea that it is too difficult to decouple Scottish from rUK forces is undermined by the MoD, which frequently cuts large sections from the UK’s defence architecture without much problem.

The theory that Scotland is protected from a dangerous world through the high-tech and efficient capabilities of the UK armed forces neglects the fact that the British military establishment does not have anything near the capacity it had in the past. This is further undermined by the financial mismanagement of the MoD, ranging from the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier and the Typhoon project to the current debacle surrounding the acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighter – all of which have come at extraordinary cost to taxpayers.

These programmes have been used to highlight the dependency on the Scottish defence industry, but the argument lacks credibility. First, the suggestion that Scottish jobs will be lost on the Clyde is destroyed by the MoD’s own agreement with BAE Systems, which will see the 5,000 workforce slashed to 1,500. Second, Scotland will be required to build her own vessels for the Scottish Navy.

So what can Scotland offer? The report insists that Scotland needs the UK to guarantee full Nato security. But again this misses the point. Until independence is achieved, Scotland does not have a full international voice and has no control over whether the country goes to war.

And Scotland can build on specific strengths attractive to potential partners. This is what other small states such as Norway and Denmark have done.

An independent Scotland represents an exciting opportunity to build niche capabilities, unburdened by armed forces that were structured during the Cold War. There is no reason why Scotland cannot contribute to Nato’s maritime patrol, anti-piracy or border security, for example.

Scotland’s key advantage would be its ability to fill capability gaps in the North-East Atlantic and High North – capacities that were lost in the Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2010.

It is unfortunate that last week’s report didn’t address Scotland’s geo-strategic location in more depth. This makes Scotland the lynchpin of Nato’s near-neighbourhood operations – something that will play a key role in our membership. As the US pivots its strategic interests away from Europe, the ability to interface with regional allies would be a very strong bargaining chip.

The Scotland Institute report is a platform on which to start the debate on the defence policy of an independent Scotland. But the Scottish public needs a balanced and critical assessment of an independent defence policy. It must be taken seriously.

• Colin Fleming is a research fellow at the Department of Politics and International Relations, Edinburgh University

A GREAT contemporary myth is that Scots are peculiarly outraged by the cuts to welfare being implemented by the United Kingdom government.

SNP and Labour politicians alike have sought to make capital out of coalition austerity measures with the suggestion – explicit in the case of the nationalists – that Scots are too compassionate to entertain such cruelty.

The flaw with this approach, so far, has been defiant Scottish support for the action taken by Chancellor George Osborne.

The Tory-Lib Dem coalition may have been under relentless opposition attack over the cap on benefits but they’ve been able to take comfort from YouGov polling showing voters both north and south of the Border are in favour – by a comfortable margin of three to one – of a £26,000-a-year limit on what individual households receive. If Scots are unusually compassionate, we haven’t shown it by feeling the pain of those who’ve been hardest hit.

But that was when government action affected others (the feckless and the indolent who are clearly at it while the rest of us slog away). Last week, Osborne changed things with a decision that doesn’t just impact on “scroungers” but adds up to a threat against the “hard-working folk” of cliché, on whom politicians are dependent.

The Chancellor’s announcement during his spending review that those who lose their jobs will have to wait for a full week before claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance was as politically reckless as it was callous. I believe he’ll come to regret it.

Osborne’s position is that the first few days after redundancy should be spent looking for work rather than looking to sign on. This seven-day delay – increased from the previous three – is about helping, he said. It’s about getting people back into work faster.

It seems to me to be primarily about saving money (Osborne’s looking for another £365 million of cuts) while punishing, even humiliating, the desperately unlucky.

Where previously his message on benefits came with the reassurance that it was all about closing loopholes and making efficiencies, this new rule reminds those in work that their status will be downgraded to second-class citizen as soon as their P45 appears in their pigeonhole.

In order for any government to successfully drive through cuts to benefits and live to win another election, it is necessary for it to persuade us that those affected are in some way deserving of their fate.

The tale of the feckless unemployed is a cheap and nasty one, which may account for its success. While bogeymen help generate support for some frequently unpalatable acts, they also divert attention from the reality of a cuts agenda which impacts on many of those who work, just as it does on those who don’t.

But who’s going to want to play Osborne’s game of them and us (them being the feckless, us being the decent) when he’s just told us we’ll be on Team Them the moment our employers make another, gut-churning sweep of redundancies?

The Spare Room Subsidy – the Bedroom Tax – has generated myriad negative headlines, but Coalition ministers have taken comfort from those polls showing public support for a benefit cap.

Protests, they have reasoned, are – by and large – engineered by established left-wing groups and, as such, don’t necessarily represent wider public opinion. Ministers don’t believe voter anger has much depth.

Just say we are this dreadful, self-interested bunch, and just say that Osborne has managed to get this far by understanding that and exploiting it with his narrative on welfare. That would make this seven-day delay – something that may have to be endured by almost any of us – doubly foolish.

A great many of Osborne’s critics point to his background as evidence for his unsuitability. It’s a line that’s always seemed too cheap and easy to me. So what if his first name’s Gideon? So what if he went to St Paul’s? So what if he was a member of a positively loathsome university dining club, comprising young men displaying the very worst of braying, boorish privilege? None of us is perfect. We can’t agree that background should be no barrier to the poorest while deciding it should be for the wealthiest.

But Osborne didn’t do much to persuade us he has any idea about how people live. The sudden loss of a salary impacts instantly. More than a fifth of us have no savings and a third of us have less than £500 put aside. Redundancy can be financially and emotionally catastrophic. Not everyone walks away with a tax free lump sum and use of the car for six months. For many the reality is unexpected, sudden unemployment.

Governments fail to recognise the self-interest of voters at their peril. Remember the then Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown’s decision to abolish the 10p tax rate in 2007? It was a disaster because it impacted, to some degree, on everyone. Not only did the decision further impoverish people on low earnings, it cost everyone a few quid. It was a bad policy – in electoral terms, anyway – because it impacted, negatively, on everyone in work.

Osborne’s decision to prolong the period before which anyone can claim the dole, potentially does the same. It says we’re all in this together only until you have an unlucky break. Then you’re out. See you later.

Fortunately for Osborne, somebody spotted that the burger he was eating, in a photograph tweeted from his office on the evening before his speech, may have cost as much as £9.75 and debate sensibly moved on to whether he was a bad Chancellor because he didn’t eat McDonald’s.

But those who want to find evidence of Osborne’s political flaws are wasting their time analysing his choice of takeaway. The Chancellor’s dreadful week-in-the-wilderness scheme makes a far stronger case in support of the charge that he’s out of touch.

Twitter: @euanmccolm

Is it a clear choice between independence and austerity? Or will greater devolution let Scotland take a more humane approach to welfare than Osborne’s kill or cure prescription?

GEORGE Osborne looked a little sickly – and it was nothing to do with the burger he had eaten the night before. Standing at the despatch box on Thursday afternoon as he delivered his much-awaited spending round statement, the Chancellor appeared – in the words of Labour frontbencher Jim Murphy – like “he has the wrong colour of foundation on”. Osborne does not appear to enjoy these big set-piece occasions. Perhaps it is because he always has to give such bad news. If that is the case, he is going to look even worse if he is still Chancellor after the 2015 General Election.

Last week’s statement, setting out the cutbacks for departments in 2015-16, spelt bad news for many. And yet, with that election in mind, Osborne succeeded in keeping the full stomach-churning picture from view. To ensure Britain’s bust model of public services can once again wash its face, the Chancellor’s plans now involve slicing total spending by just over 18% by April 2018. Last week’s eye-watering measures lopped off less than 3%. He has already managed to hack off around 9%. But a further 7.5% is still to be found.

It was only on the Breakfast TV sofa the following morning that Osborne was finally pressed on this bigger picture. “This will be an issue, I suspect, eventually when people come to choose their next government, because my political opponents would probably want to put taxes up. My instinct is let’s try and control welfare bills, let’s try and control the cost of what we’re doing.” He backtracked a little later, but the signal could not have been greater. Britain’s benefits bill makes up the largest single chunk of government spending. And, in the hope he can put Labour on the side of high taxes and ballooning benefits, the Chancellor has his eye on it.

The rest of the UK, if it elects a Conservative administration in 2015, may just have to lump yet more reductions to welfare. But in Scotland, there are options. With the referendum little more than a year away, the SNP were quick last week to argue that independence may offer a way out. Meanwhile, on the other side of the constitutional debate, academics and politicians are examining whether aspects of the welfare state could be devolved to a Scotland that opts to remain within the UK next autumn. Both propositions have as a bedrock the belief that left-of-centre Scotland would like to put its money where its mouth is and stump up to ensure that the cuts to Britain’s 60-year-old Welfare State are not brought in here. So might there be a way out of Westminster’s cutbacks in Scotland? And is there really the political will behind it?

For the pro-independence campaign, the case is relatively simple. Responding last week to the Chancellor’s statement, SNP Finance Secretary John Swinney declared there was “a choice next year between a UK future of continued Westminster austerity and ideological attacks on the welfare system or the better and brighter prospect of an independent Scotland.” A report earlier this month by a Scottish Government commissioned panel noted that there would have to be a period of transition lasting up to five years before an independent social security system could be fully operational in Scotland. Debate will rage over exactly how affordable it would be, given the higher per head spending on welfare north of the Border. But no-one can dispute that, in the longer-term, the system would be under the control of ministers in Edinburgh – and entirely paid for by Scottish taxpayers.

With Osborne’s diet of austerity stretching on for the rest of the decade, there is therefore an opportunity for the Yes camp to show whether a different way is possible. And so there is a need for those on the No side to respond. Is independence the only way to get a different welfare state? While the referendum debate is likely to suck up all attention until September 2014, that has not stopped thought being given to the possible options of devolving welfare short of independence. A clear picture is beginning to emerge of the possibilities – and boundaries.

Those boundaries have already been drawn clearly by both Labour and the Liberal Democrats – for a combination of reasons stretching from principle and paternalism to self-interest and paternalism.

The principle relates to the idea that it is the United Kingdom, not Scotland, that is the welfare “community”. It may be that Scots disagree with the way the system is being run at present but – in the words of a report chaired last year by Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Lib Dem leader: “People expect to be able to retire to any part of the UK and receive the same guarantee of the state pension… People looking for work, or caring for relatives, expect to receive equal treatment wherever they live in the United Kingdom.”

That belief is theological for Labour, for whom the creation of the UK-wide Welfare State by the post-war Attlee government is a tablet of stone. The Scottish party’s Devolution Commission, which reported back earlier this summer, noted that “the creation of the Welfare State after the Second World War bound the UK – social classes rather than nations – together”. A separate Welfare State would damage the “loyalties which already bind the British people together” it declared.

The self-interest – at least for Labour – is the damage such a move would do to its representation at Westminster. Full devolution of welfare would inevitably lead to a massive shift of tax powers to Edinburgh – to ensure that Scotland was made responsible for paying for it. So why would the country need all those MPs at Westminster? “They [Labour] are terrified that the more you devolve to Scotland the more you weaken Labour’s voting weight at Westminster,” notes one non-aligned figure who has worked closely with the party.

And the paternalism is the feeling within both Labour and other pro-UK parties that – while they may say they want more powers – people in Scotland perhaps don’t really know what’s best for them. Even with all the oil money, notes Labour, Scotland’s finances would be “vulnerable”, pointing to the high levels of spending here, and a more rapidly ageing population. Better to have the security of a bigger pot – ie, the whole UK – on which to rely.

The party believes firmly in what academic circles have begun to term the “devolution paradox” – the evidence that while Scots say they want more powers for Holyrood, they don’t really want those powers to be used to create a two-tier nation, with different pension arrangements, and different rates of benefit depending on where in the UK you live. Yes, they’d prefer Alex Salmond to set the rules over David Cameron. But they also believe that if someone in Southend moves to Stirling in search of work, their JobSeeker’s Allowance should stay the same. And so Labour’s Devolution Commission concluded: “People need to have the opportunity to see all the arguments to inform themselves of the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’. Welfare devolution is an issue on which public opinion has to be informed, not simply followed.”

Fundamentally, sceptics of welfare devolution point out that in a contest between satisfying the country’s sense of itself and guaranteeing a benefit payment at the end of the week, the latter is always going to win. Or, as authors of a new book on Scottish independence, Scotland’s Choices puts it: “It will be of little comfort to Scots, if welfare provision fails, to be told that it nevertheless reflects their Scottish identity.”

So is that it then? Independence or George? Or is there a magical third way out there that might provide a distinctly Scottish solution? The view among “Devo-Plus” supporters is that while the big contributory and non-contributory benefits such as pensions and the soon-to-be-introduced Universal Credit will always have to stay UK-wide, there is still room for a Scottish “tweak”. There is, it is argued, a disconnect between a Scottish Government which has responsibility for skills and training, and a UK government which runs back-to-work programmes. Thus, the Lib Dems have declared, the Scottish Government should become the “agent” for much of the work of JobCentre Plus and the Work Programme, all the better to align the two.

Westminster could also easily hand over elderly benefits, such as the Attendance Allowance and the Winter Fuel Payment, which overlap with devolved policies on free personal care, other devolution campaigners add. And more radical were proposals floated earlier this year by the former head of the UK Civil Service, Lord O’Donnell, who has suggested that UK wide Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) could agree to operate “service-led agreements” with Edinburgh “to provide services for Scotland which were different from those in the UK”.

In the case of the much-maligned “bedroom tax” such an agreement would involve the DWP agreeing to waive the extra charge for housing benefit claimants in Scotland in exchange for a payment from the Scottish Government’s own kitty. Or, alternatively, such an agreement might even allow Scottish ministers to slash welfare benefits and receive a payment back to spend on something else.

While “discretionary payments” by the Scottish Government to the UK Government could be made to alter some elements of welfare, more extensive devolution of welfare is less likely due to the introduction of the Universal Credit which will subsume Housing Benefit and child tax credit.

Such ideas are likely to receive a further airing in forthcoming think-tank papers, and may well find their way into party manifestos prior to the referendum next year. They will not be nearly enough to satisfy pro-independence voters. The question is whether they will satisfy those people in the middle who may have looked on at Osborne’s performance last week and wished desperately for some kind of alternative. Twelve years on from devolution, Labour’s claim that the UK is the natural “welfare community” is open to dispute. No-one would declare, as Tony Blair told Paddy Ashdown in the 1990s, that “you can’t have Scotland doing something different from the rest of Britain” on tuition fees. And as Scotland gets used to talking and discussing whether or not it should be independent, so claims on the uniformity of Britain’s welfare state may feel outdated too.

As the biggest pro-UK party in Scotland, that task of sorting through this complex web will fall primarily to Labour. Its own internal deliberations on the matter are still on-going. A Vote-No-Get-George is not the kind of message they will want to send to people in September next year.

Twitter: @EddieBarnes23

IT’S been a funny old week for women in international politics.

On the one hand, there’s Texas senator Wendy Davis, who has caused a run on hot pink Mizuno Wave Rider 16 running shoes after wearing them for the 10 hours and 45 minutes she spoke (without taking a break or leaning on furniture for support) in order to filibuster the Republican abortion legislation in her state. I think the appropriate term is shero. And on another continent, a few thousand miles further round the globe, having been ridiculed for knitting, served up as a dish on the most repugnantly misogynistic fund­raising dinner menu ever thought into existence (“Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail – small breasts, huge thighs & a big red box”) and repeatedly called “bitch” by her political opponents, Julia Gillard has finally been deposed as prime minister of Australia.

Gillard, don’t forget, was the woman who back in October of 2012 was hailed for creating a watershed moment in global feminism with her straightforward demolition of the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, whom she told across the dispatch box that if he wanted to know what misogyny looked like all he needed to do was pick up a mirror. Brava.

She was also, however, the woman who unseated her Labour colleague and then prime minister Kevin Rudd during his first term of office back in 2010. Rudd has now kindly repaid the favour, beating Gillard in a ballot of MPs by a margin of 57 to 45.

Gillard was not deposed because she is a woman. There have been too many political failures – on refugees, welfare, equal marriage – for that, as well as gaffes and a promised budget surplus that never appeared. But there’s no doubt that her gender played a part in what has happened. As she said herself, “The reaction to being the first female PM does not explain everything about my prime ministership, nor does it explain nothing about my prime ministership.” I find it hard to agree with such a hideous double negative, but I know what Gillard means.

Gillard was pilloried for not being married (“Is your boyfriend gay?” she was asked on live radio, presumably because he is a hairdresser), and for not having children (“deliberately barren” was the phrase one opponent used). Not long after her father died, radio presenter Alan Jones quipped that he had “died of shame”.

On the national and international stages, women are still scandalously under-represented in politics. The fall of Gillard only makes that clearer. When asked what her term as prime minister might mean for other women leaders, Gillard remained indefatigable: “What I am absolutely confident of is it will be easier for the next woman, and the woman after that, and the woman after that, and I’m proud of that.” I just hope she’s right.

IF YOU don’t recognise the name Edith Windsor, get thee to Google. Windsor, 84, is the woman who prompted the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last week to overturn DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) by suing the US government. Windsor’s partner of 40 years, Thea Spyer, died in 2009 after a long ­battle with multiple sclerosis. Spyer left her estate to Windsor, but because their marriage was not legally recognised, Windsor was charged $363,053 in taxes. She’ll now get this money back, with interest. Behind the hyperbole and hatred that often accompanies discussion of equal marriage, there are people like Windsor and Spyer. As the Scottish Parliament launches its equal marriage bill, it’s a fact worth remembering.

IF YOU were using the increasing number of carbon fibre road machines, hipster fixies and full-suspension mountain bikes on the road to judge the health of cycling in Scotland you’d be seriously misinformed. Yes, bikes appear to be everywhere. Yes, there are brilliant grassroots organisations such as Pedal on Parliament. But look at the Scottish Government and you’ll see the wheels on support for cycling in Scotland are wobbling. Latest data reveals that casualties amongst cyclists have increased by 9 per cent and nine cyclists were killed last year. Meanwhile, East Dunbartonshire Council is turning its back on 20mph zones while the Scottish Government argues that councils must take the lead. It’s all very well having a Cycling Action Plan for ­Scotland but is it worth the paper it’s written on? «

Twitter: @scottiesays

WHETHER you’re a royalist or a republican, there will be no escaping the baby frenzy over the coming weeks. Dani Garavelli offers 20 things you’ll need to know – perhaps despite yourself – about the royal birth

1 WHEN IS IT DUE? The new third in line to the throne was expected to arrive around 13 July. That’s what journalists had been banking on (some of us had booked the week off especially). But now there are rumours Kate may have “done a Princess Di”. Prince William, right, was born well before his due date – unusual for a first baby – giving rise to suspicions the media might have been deliberately misled (surely not). Closer examination suggests the 13 July date is pure speculation, based on a royalist wish that the birth happen in the middle of the four-day Coronation Festival (two celebrations involving crownings in the same week – how apposite). So the short answer is no-one has the foggiest, but the latest gossip suggests it could be as early as this week.

2 IS IT A BOY OR A GIRL? William and Kate don’t know if their bump has two X chromosomes or an X and a Y. Though 70 per cent of parents-to-be now choose to find out the gender of their baby, royal sources have been at pains to stress they’re bucking the trend. But that hasn’t stopped journalists from scrutinising every unguarded utterance for clues. After a “well-wisher” claimed Kate had accepted a gift of a teddy with the words: “Is that for my daught…”, it appeared a girl was on the way (it turned out she’d actually said: “Is that for me? Awww.”). The latest frenzy of speculation was provoked by Charles, who said a model bus he was given might double as an emergency toy. This was taken as proof they were expecting a boy as, obviously, girls would never play with anything on wheels.

3 THIS CALLS FOR A TOAST: While for most new mothers the highlight of their long labour is the tea and toast offered at the end of it, at the Lindo Wing of St Mary’s Hospital, Kate and her guests will be able to choose from an extensive wine list and may choose to wet the baby’s head with a glass of champagne. Private suites at the maternity unit where William and Harry were born boast all the facilities of a top hotel: satellite TV, safe and fridge and, of course, a dedicated kitchen staff to cater for every royal dietary whim. A straightforward delivery at the Lindo Wing will set a couple back around £10,000.

4 TOO POSH TO PUSH? Having eschewed the Portland Clinic – beloved of celebrities such as Victoria Beckham, left, and Anna Friel – Kate seems determined to go her own way when it comes to delivery too. Not for her the elective Caesareans favoured by the London glitterati; she hopes to give birth naturally. The Duchess, who was hospitalised early in her pregnancy with severe morning sickness, is also rumoured to be considering hypnobirthing. Then again, since royal birthing plans are rarely worth the crested notepaper they’re written on, she may be screaming for an epidural at the first contraction.

5 THE ROYAL DOCS: The doctors charged with delivering the royal baby are Marcus Setchell and Alan Farthing. Setchell, right, the Queen’s current surgeon gynaecologist, has already delivered several royal progeny, including the Countess of Wessex’s two babies, Lady Louise Windsor and Viscount Severn. Sophie was close to death when Lady Louise was born early in 2003 after the placenta ruptured the lining of the womb. Setchell also cared for the Countess of Wessex after an ectopic pregnancy in 2001 and performed Camilla’s hysterectomy. Farthing, surgeon-gynaecologist to the royal household, is the former fiancé of murdered TV presenter Jill Dando.

6 WILL WILLIAM MAKE IT ON TIME? Like all dads, Wills is a bit worried he might be at work when Kate goes into labour – so he’s got a contingency plan. The minute her contractions start, he will be whisked from Anglesey, where he is a search and rescue pilot, to London by helicopter – a journey of around two hours. With an aircraft at your disposal, you’ve no real excuse for turning up late clutching a bunch of flowers from a garage forecourt as an apology. After the birth, William is taking the standard fortnight’s paternity leave for which he will be paid £136.78 a week.

7 BATTLE OF THE GRANNIES/GREAT GRANNIES: There’s always a bit of tension after the birth, with rival families jostling to get first dibs on the newborn. You’d think, in this case, the hierarchy would be established given the baby’s great granny is the Queen, but the Middletons have played a blinder, opting to set up camp at the hospital itself, with Carole and Pippa expected to stay with Kate in the Lindo Wing throughout her labour. Not only that, but the baby is spending its first weeks not in a royal palace but in the Middletons’ Berkshire home. Imagine that: the future king or queen in a commoners’ £5 million hovel. It’s like something out of a Brothers Grimm fairytale.

8 MERCHANDISE: A British royal event without a barrel-load of tat would lack any sense of occasion. If dunking beautifully iced biscuits in the shape of prams, booties and teddies (£40 a tin from Biscuiteers) into a “Hooray for Wills and Kate” Emma Bridgewater mug of tea doesn’t seem like a fitting way to celebrate, then how about investing in an iPhone cover which shows the sprog with a crown on its head waving regally from its pram. If you have a sprog of your own and hope some of the royal sparkle will rub off, you could buy it a Union flag dummy courtesy of Zazzle. Alternatively, if the thought of all this turns your stomach, you could invest in a royal baby sick bag from Lydia Leith.

9 ALL A-FLUTTER: A betting frenzy is also under way as the royal birth approaches, with gamblers taking a punt on everything from the colour of the baby’s hair to its future occupation. According to William Hill, takings have trebled in the past week, with £50,000 wagered, while Paddy Power said it expected takings to top £300,000 overall. One of the oddest bets so far has been on the baby’s name being Hashtag, at odds of 500/1.

10 THE REAL ROYAL MONIKER: The bookies’ favourites are all a bit boring, really. They include George (the name of six British kings, including the Queen’s father) for a boy and Alexandra or Charlotte for a girl. At one time, odds of 6/1 were being offered on Diana, but it’s difficult to believe the royal couple would give their baby a name that comes with so much baggage (it’s more likely to be a middle name). Apparently Mary has made a late surge thanks to a mystery man in a top hat who placed a £100 bet on his way home from Royal Ascot. James (Kate’s brother’s name) is also in the mix, although this choice, synonymous with a succession of Scottish kings, might be read as a gambit in the independence referendum.

11 GLOBAL FANFARE: Knitting a kangaroo for the royal baby may have sounded the death knell for Australian PM Julia Gillard’s career, but all over the world people are gearing up to celebrate the royal birth. It is not clear if requests to light the Niagara Falls in blue or pink, depending on the sex of the baby, have been granted, but street parties are planned as far away as Cape Town, Ottawa and Mexico City. US TV show Good Morning America recently gave “royal makeovers” to three women due to give birth at the same time as Kate, while US show Today invited an animal behaviour expert on to give the new royal mum tips on how to introduce her newborn to Lupo, her dog.

12 THE ROYAL ANNOUNCEMENT: This baby may be part of the Twitter generation, but its birth is unlikely to be proclaimed with the words: “Mountbatten-Windsor Jnr is here. Has dad’s bald head. Peed on the midwife. LOL!” No, the arrival of the royal baby will invoke an age-old royal protocol. First, a press officer will emerge from the hospital clutching the announcement, signed by the doctors, on a sheet of headed palace notepaper. This sheet of paper will be chauffeured across London, escorted by a team of police outriders, before being put in a frame and displayed on an easel outside Buckingham Palace. To be fair, details of the birth may also be sent out on the @BritishMonarchy Twitter account.

13 TO BREASTFEED OR NOT TO BREASTFEED? You may think this is a private matter, but Kate has already been urged to get her royal orbs out by broadcaster Beverley Turner and, as Princess Diana breastfed, she’ll probably follow suit. Less is known about where Kate stands on the Gina Ford/ Penelope Leach controlled crying versus attachment parenting philosophies, but since a royal “insider” apparently told a celebrity website William was a fan of Supernanny they will doubtless be well versed in the concept of time out on the naughty step.

14 PIPPATIPS: Then again, who needs Jo Frost when you’ve got little sister Pippa, right, on hand to give parenting advice? The spoof Twitter account @Pippatips, has given Scotland on Sunday exclusive access to the kind of information she might pass on to Kate. “If your baby is crying, it might be hungry”; “Nappies need changing several times a day – this can be messy sometimes” and, most profoundly, “Dipping baby’s dummy in gin is frowned upon – try knocking it out with phenergan instead.”

15 FIT FOR A FUTURE KING (OR QUEEN): As previously mentioned, after their stint at the Lindo Wing, mother and baby will move to the Middletons’ home, while builders finish work on apartment 1A at Kensington Palace. When I say apartment, I do, of course, mean 21-room mega-home, complete with staff quarters and a nursery. The couple are said to have spent £1m doing up the property, which was formerly used by Princess Margaret.

16 ONLY THE BEST: When Kate buys a dress, it sells out in hours, so it’s little wonder the designers and manufacturers of baby accessories have been waiting with bated breath to see which brands she favours. So far, the country’s most famous mum-to-be has bought a white Moses basket from Blue Almonds baby boutique in London and a blue (did you hear that – blue?) Bugaboo stroller, left.

17 THIS IS YOUR SONG: Obviously a royal baby requires a royal lullaby, and Paul Mealor, the Welsh composer who wrote Ubi Caritas for Kate and Wills’ wedding, has risen to the occasion with a ditty called Sleep On recorded by classical superstar Hayley Westenra on a new album of lullabies which has already been sent to the couple.

18 THE NEXT BIG ROYAL HOOLIE: The minute the fanfare associated with the royal birth subsides, thoughts will turn to the baptism, which will probably be held in the Music Room at Buckingham Palace. We already know the baby will wear a replica of the original Honiton lace and white satin robe made for Queen Victoria’s eldest daughter. The godmother and godfather are likely to be Pippa and Harry, thus providing another opportunity for baseless speculation about a burgeoning relationship

19 NANNIES: Kate and William say they’re going to be hands-on, and don’t appear to have hired a nanny yet. However, given William’s work and their royal schedules, they won’t get away without help forever. So it’s likely they’ll turn to the elite Norland agency, which has provided nannies for the Royal Family and A-list celebrities since 1892. Norland nannies are taught how to cook, sew, hold a newborn and push a Silver Cross pram.

20 WHAT THE ROYAL BABY DID NEXT: And so to school. Those in the know think the new addition will have a very similar education to his/her parents. William attended Mrs Mynors Nursery School. William and Kate might choose the uber-fashionable Acorn Nursery (which famously turned down an application for Madonna’s son Rocco). A son might follow in his father’s footsteps, going to Wetherby Pre-Prep School, Ludgrove Boarding School and finally Eton, below. A girl might attend Wetherby’s sister school Pembridge Hall or Upton House Hall before going on to Marlborough College.

Twitter: @DaniGaravelli1

SCOTTISH scientists have made a breakthrough in combating holiday jet lag after developing a revolutionary new treatment made from an exotic cactus fruit.

The £2.50 tablet, derived from the extracts of prickly pear skin, has had “remarkable” success in tackling the often debilitating effects of the common travel woe.

Originally manufactured to help prevent fatigue in commercial scuba divers in the Mediterranean, trials on air passengers were so successful it is now being marketed primarily as a jet lag cure.

The Protex-H tablet has been developed by Argyll-based Bradan Limited, which specialises in aqua-culture and scientific research for the fishing industry.

Professor Ronald Roberts, the company’s director, said tests had produced “remarkable” results.

He said: “As an international scientist, over the past 40 years I have had to travel extensively by air. It had been my personal experience that the very debilitating jet lag that I suffered had, until recently, got worse rather than better with age.

“I heard about the use of prickly pear extract to reduce fatigue in commercial divers and that led us to carry out our own studies.

“The supplement was taken regularly by myself and many of my medical colleagues whenever travelling across five or more time zones. All were seasoned travellers and initially sceptical about the likely benefit of a cactus fruit extract. The results have belied all our preconceptions.”

Protex-H was tested on air passengers who made regular trips around the world. Almost all suffered some degree of fatigue without the pill, but it was all but eradicated with just one dose.

IT’S certainly one way to see the great British seaside. Endurance adventurer Sean Conway will this morning attempt to become the first person to swim from Land’s End to John o’ Groats.

The 32-year-old, who claims he is not a good swimmer, plans to swim 21 miles of the 900-mile trek every day – the equivalent of the English Channel crossing – and hopes to complete the voyage in eight weeks.

He will face difficulties from the cold, strong currents and illness through water getting into his ears, nose and lungs, as well as injury risk from sea creatures such as jellyfish.

His attempt is reminiscent of comedian David Walliams’ effort for Sport Relief in September 2011, when he swam the 140-mile length of the River Thames and raised more than £2 million for charity, despite falling ill with “Thames Tummy” – which caused a high temperature, sickness and diarrhoea – and damaging a disc in his back. Conway, who has so far raised £400 for the charity War Child, said he decided to attempt the epic swim because he wanted to come up with “a crazy challenge” that would inspire people to get fit and into swimming.

“When I found out swimming Britain had never been done it was a no-brainer,” he said. “It’s going to be the adventure of a lifetime and I’m going to get really fit too.”

Conway will start his challenge today, setting off from Land’s End at noon and swimming to Sennen Cove, a few miles up the coast – “where its easier to see me off”. At 2pm he will take to the water again to properly begin his journey.

He can only swim with the tide in his favour so will be in the water from 4am until 10am, resting until 4pm and then back in until 10pm. His meals will be liquid while he is swimming and he will sleep on the beach or a support yacht. He will also be GPS-tracked via a swimming website.

He said: “This will pinpoint the spot where I stop so I know where to carry on from the next day.”

After leaving Land’s End, Conway will swim up the west coast of the UK, around many Scottish islands. “I’ll work my way up the north coast of Devon and across to Wales. After going along the west coast of Wales, I will cut north to the Isle of Man and then on to Scotland,” he said.

“I will then make my way through and around the Hebrides before cutting east along the north coast of Scotland and finishing at John o’ Groats.”

He said he is looking forward to the Scottish leg of the journey most. “I’ll be at my fittest and the Hebrides are truly going to be spectacular. I can’t wait.”

Born in Zimbabwe, the author and photographer did his first endurance swim at the age of ten when he swam a mile across a lake. More recently, as well as having climbed Kilimanjaro dressed as a penguin, he completed the Three Peaks cycle challenge in a long weekend – cycling 140 miles a day and climbing Snowdon, Scafell and Ben Nevis – and rode his bike from London to the Alps.

Last year he set out to break the world record for cycling round the world, a 16,000-mile journey through 25 countries on six continents, but his dream was shattered when he was hit by a truck in the US.

Injury wasn’t enough to halt Conway in his tracks, however, and he pedalled the final 12,000 miles with a fractured spine to complete the trip in 116 days. But he reckons his latest challenge is going to be one of the toughest.

He said: “The hardest part will be dealing with my thoughts, looking into murky water and wondering what’s below.

“With many other endurance challenges, like running or cycling, you get to look at the scenery to keep your mind busy. I won’t have that. Who knows what I’ll do. I might go mad. Watch this space.”

Conway has not set a fundraising target but hopes to raise as much as possible for the African charity. He said: “No child deserves to be the victim of adults not getting along and creating war.”

He added: “I can’t wait to see Britain from an angle most people don’t get to see, from the sea. The landscape is going to be incredible.”

He is also extending an invitation for members of the public to join him on his travels, either in kayaks or swimming.

“I want this to be a big social adventure so come and get involved,” he said.

Twitter: @Ilonaamos

A TECHNOLOGY trail celebrating Scotland’s world- famous innovation and engineering is being created to attract tourists and students from around the world.

The trail will start at the iconic Falkirk Wheel, the world’s only rotating boatlift which links the Forth & Clyde and the Union canals and has attracted global acclaim as an iconic piece of 21st century engineering.

Visitors following the route will then take in the National Mining Museum Scotland in Midlothian to learn about the country’s historic industrial heritage.

The newest attraction on the trail is Scotland’s first solar meadow, a field of around 2,500 panels launched earlier this year to power Edinburgh College’s Midlothian campus at Dalkeith and allow researchers to study how nature affects cutting-edge renewables technology.

The college has invested £40,000, which is expected to be match-funded by Heriot-Watt University, to pay for a research post for a professor to produce a range of teaching materials for the trail and public information for a dedicated visitor centre, due to be built at Dunbar in East Lothian.

The regional council and other local authorities hope to attract new technology businesses to join the trail as it develops, with the aim of bringing both jobs and increasing the numbers of visitors. Supporters hope that the trail will also be expanded to include existing attractions across the Central Belt, with Glasgow’s Riverside Museum already expressing interest.

Professor Steve Tinsley, vice principal of corporate development at Edinburgh College, said: “We already have significant existing projects for the trail, which will start at the Falkirk Wheel and include the mining museum. It will also feature the solar meadow, which has been sparking a lot of interest locally and overseas where we anticipate hundreds of students coming to see it.

“It ends at Dunbar, where the local councils’ strategic plans aspire to develop renewable energy projects and tourism.”

Scottish Canals, which runs the Falkirk Wheel, said the new trail would build on growing interest in technology.

A spokesman said: “We believe there is a great opportunity to use Scotland’s canals creatively and are interested in exploring ways that they can help roll out cutting edge technology. The Falkirk Wheel already attracts around 500,000 visitors a year and, as the world’s only rotating boat lift, is very popular with students.”

The National Mining Museum Scotland is home to the historic Lady Victoria Colliery and a new attraction entitled the Energy Lab which features innovative engineering in energy including a model of Salter’s Duck, the pioneering wave-power device invented by Professor Stephen Salter.

Malcolm Roughead, chief executive of VisitScotland, said: “Recent visitor figures have shown that attractions that have a scientific element to them, such as the Falkirk Wheel, Riverside Museum and National Museum of Scotland continue to whet the appetite of visitors, and another initiative such as the Solar Meadow might offer visitors interested in this field a further opportunity to see science in action.”

LOCAL authorities in Scotland will be ordered to review charging policies for instrumental music tuition to ensure children who want to learn an instrument do not miss out.

The move is part of a wide-ranging report on instrumental music produced last week by a Scottish Parliament group in response to Scotland on Sunday’s Let The Children Play campaign, which has been campaigning for tuition fees for instrumental music tuition in schools to be scrapped.

Children across Scotland are charged between £95 and £340 to learn a musical instrument in school, which campaigners claim is preventing some from exploring their musical talents.

The report which calls for a “national vision statement” for instrumental music tuition, recommends that councils “review their charging policies and concessionary schemes to ensure that pupils in their area are not prevented from learning a musical instrument”. It states that there “should be a general principle that pupils’ individual circumstances should not be a barrier to their ability to access and benefit from instrumental music tuition”. It could mean that some councils will come under pressure to scrap fees altogether.

Last weekend, Scotland on Sunday revealed that the report has also brought an end to tuition fees for children sitting SQA music exams, which five local authorities had also been implementing. The fees meant that even though a student was sitting an exam in which playing an instrument counted for up to 60 per cent of their final mark, they would still be charged up to £340 for doing so. The practice has now been brought to an end.

Other recommendations in the report, which was launched on Thursday at Leith High School in Edinburgh, include more collaboration among local authorities’ instrumental music services; professional development for instrumental music teachers; the use of video-conferencing for instrumental music tuition to children in remote areas; research to be commissioned on the impact of playing an instrument on children’s development and learning abilities, as well as on the Scottish economy; school inspections which will comment on the quality of instrumental tuition; a national conference on music education, which will be held in September; and the setting up of an instrumental music implementation group by the Scottish Government to oversee the recommendations. The group will report back to learning minister Alasdair Allan by the end of next year.

The group was set up last December in response to Scotland on Sunday’s campaign and charged with “getting a grip” on instrumental music tuition in Scotland by education minister Mike Russell. The government also announced the creation of a 
£1 million instrument fund for schools. Last year, 24 councils out of 32 across Scotland charged between £95 and £340, while five charged children sitting SQA exams. Following the launch of our campaign, two councils – Dumfries and Galloway and Dundee City – have scrapped all charges, while Midlothian and Dumfries and Galloway got rid of SQA music fees.

The campaign, which launched last September, has received the support of a number of high-profile Scottish musicians, including Dame Evelyn Glennie, violinist Nicola Benedetti, and the rock band Frightened Rabbit. The band’s drummer, Grant Hutchison, said: “We were really pleased to be asked to get involved with the campaign and the result here is great for children wishing to learn an instrument in Scotland. I would not be doing what I am today without my tuition and it’s great that more children will have equal opportunity to do the same.”

However, Labour’s new shadow finance spokesman MSP, Iain Gray, who initiated a debate in the Scottish Parliament last November in support of the campaign, said the report could have gone further. “The news that no council now charges for tuition for students doing music exams is very welcome, although I would have liked this to be made mandatory. I also think the news that school inspections will comment on the quality of instrumental tuition is very important. This is a powerful idea which will make a real difference.

“But I am disappointed that the report makes no recommendation on free tuition. Asking councils to review charges is all well and good, but they will argue that means-testing ensures charges do not exclude anyone. I am not convinced, and I wish the report had been bolder.”

David Green, chair of the group, said: “Research has highlighted the wide variations between instrumental music policies in this discretionary service run by local authorities. I hope that our recommendations set the foundation for a national vision for music ­education based on clarity, transparency and fairness which maximises access and opportunities for all our youngsters”

Twitter: @emmacowing

EXTENDED leave for parents is to be considered by economic advisers looking at how to improve childcare in the event of an independent Scotland.

The proposal is one option the Scottish Government’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) will explore, Children and Young People Minister Aileen Campbell announced yesterday.

The CEA has been asked to examine the best models of delivery and funding for a system of childcare in an independent Scotland, informed by models in other countries.

Its work on the issue is due to begin shortly, Campbell confirmed.

She made the announcement at a celebration of the life of Mary Lily Walker, who established Scotland’s first infant health service, at Dundee University.

“There are a range of options that we could consider in an independent Scotland – for example, a fully integrated universal system of early learning and childcare, with a legal entitlement for all children from age one to school entry,” Campbell said.

“A strong early learning and childcare entitlement will benefit our children, by getting their learning journey off to the best start.

“It will also help ensure families have the support they need to return to work and allow more mums to take up jobs and boost our economic future.

“The CEA will consider the economic and social impacts of improving levels of childcare, which will guide our thinking on changes in policy that could provide the best system for children, for families and for our economy.”

SCOTLAND’S first community-run hydro-electric energy plant is set to be made a reality after its backers managed to raise the entire funding using an innovative new crowd-funding scheme.

Harlaw Hydro intends to build the device on the outskirts of Edinburgh, following in the footsteps of 19th century industrialists who harnessed the power of the Water of Leith to power their mills.

Local residents of Balerno have been working on the bid for two years and believe they can deliver the entire project for just over £300,000.

Construction will begin within months and is estimated for completion in March 2014.

The Balerno Village Trust - which established Harlaw Hydro - had intended to borrow much of the money from the banks, but said they were astonished at the level of interest from those who wanted to invest privately.

Energy Minister Fergus Ewing has backed the project and said the funding model paved the way for other schemes across Scotland.

The Community Share Offer used to raise the funds is similar to ‘crowdfunding’, which has been employed widely on the internet to fund full-length feature films and music albums.

The group arrived at the £313,000 mark on Wednesday - just 12 weeks after fundraising began.

Consultants hired to work on the project said such is the success of the model that two similar schemes on Skye and Mull are also now in development.

The Harlaw project will take advantage of government feed-in-tariffs, which pay families or community groups to generate renewable energy.

Lynn Molleson, a director at the firm, said investors had been attracted by the four per cent return on offer - higher than any ISA on the market due to low interest rates.

The electricity - which is fed into the National Grid in return for the tariffs - is only enough to power around 60 homes, but the group hope that the scheme will pave the way for other similar projects. in the future.

BROADCASTER Andrew Marr believes over-work and stresses in his personal life helped trigger a stroke that almost killed him.

The Glasgow-born BBC presenter admitted yesterday he had been “grossly overdoing things” in the run-up to being rushed to hospital hours after exercising on a rowing machine.

He also blamed self-inflicted problems in his personal life – including an extra-marital affair with a fellow journalist.

However Marr, who is due to make a public appearance at the Edinburgh International Book Festival in August, said he now owed his life to his wife, Jackie Ashley.

Marr, who started his journalistic career at The Scotsman, sister paper of Scotland on Sunday, was taken ill in January.

The 53-year-old, giving his first in-depth interview, refused to let his wife phone a doctor after suffering headaches – triggered by tearing his carotid artery, which supplies the head and neck with oxygenated blood.

Marr said: “I didn’t let her. I was still convinced it was a bad headache. The colours in my eyes had gone, although I was still exhausted, which I put down to the hard bout on the rowing machine. I felt ill, but not very ill, so I took two paracetamol and went to bed.

“It would have made a big difference, but I wouldn’t listen.” Marr fell out of bed in the night and could not get up in the morning as his left arm and leg “weren’t working”.

At the time Marr had weekly TV and radio shows, and had also been making a history of the world series.

He recalled forgetting his lines while filming in Macedonia as a possible warning sign that all was not right.

Marr said: “I was working too hard. No-one made me do it, that’s just the way I am.

“I’m a gulper, a gobbler-down of life. I wolf experiences down and, that year, I pushed my body and my mind too hard and far.

“No-one seems to know for certain what causes a stroke, but having had time to think, I can now see that I had been grossly overdoing things.

“It had also been easily the most stressful time of my personal life – and entirely my own fault.”

Recalling the aftermath of his collapse, Marr said he was given clot-busting drugs which he was warned could have “catastrophic side-effects”.

“There is no doubt they saved my life, but there was a second bleed into my brain. My condition seemed to be very much touch-and-go.

“I wouldn’t know this until later, but Jackie was twice given the clear impression that I was a goner. If I was very lucky, I would be a vegetable, unable to move, see, hear or speak.”

The stroke hit the left hand side of Marr’s brain and he is now undergoing physiotherapy and intensive rehab in the hope of returning to work

Marr added: “Jackie saved my life. Without her, I wouldn’t be here. She was very brave and very sensitive in not telling me everything until I was stronger. And then she really carried me…

”She has been completely calming and reassuring, as well as a great practical carer, and the whole experience has brought us more closely together.”