I knew there was something that didn't quite add up about the latest Times column from Kenny "Devo or Death" Farquharson, and it's suddenly dawned on me what it is. Back during the election campaign, he claimed with his customary perversity that the SNP's success was damaging the case for independence, because it proved the party had previously been wrong to say that Scotland could not have influence at Westminster. But now, he's suddenly saying that the Tory victory was all the SNP's fault. He wants us to believe that the English electorate were so scared of Scottish influence that they voted Tory to freeze us out.
According to Farquharson logic, Nicola Sturgeon presumably should have done one of two things if she wanted to escape "blame" for Tory rule - either a) withdraw the SNP from the election altogether, or b) commit the SNP to backing every decision made by the government elected in England, without any conditions whatever.
If the prospect of Scottish influence at Westminster damaged the case for independence, I can only assume that the necessity of voluntarily abandoning any prospect of Scottish influence must make the case for independence unanswerable?