WHO DOES SCOTLAND WANT TO BE PRIME MINISTER IN 2015?

There’s an interesting and thought provoking post from Andrew Page at Scottish Liberal. It is his analysis of Nick Clegg’s speech to what they somewhat strangely call the Federal Conference.

When it comes to matter Libdem, I think Andrew presents the most balanced views, praising what is praiseworthy, and debunking that which is not (although I also have huge admiration for George Potter and his uphill struggle to make sure that the Liberals, as a party, do the right thing by the sick and disabled, so big shout out to George here too).  Anyway, if you want to know what ACTUALLY happened in Brighton, this is the article for the  leader’s speech and there is another one on the SOS's and Willie Rennie's.

Coming back to this post, I was a bit concerned about Andrew’s observation that:

"Clegg hopes to convince voters that, with slow but sure signs of improvement, it would be wrong to trust Labour with the economy in 2015."

Because, from what I can see at the moment, that would probably mean a Tory government in 2015, and for all my criticism of what the Liberals have contributed to the current Westminster set up, I have to say that, rather like the Labour-Liberal coalitions of the Scottish parliament, the best stuff has been Liberal sourced (excepting Danny Alexander’s scheme to tax North Sea exploration).

But I cannot help but think that the Liberals will emerge as a very much reduced force in 2015, (unless Clegg can pull a rabbit out of his hat) and even if they were needed to provide a coalition partner for the Tories, whether under Cameron or Boris, their influence could only be very slight, much less than today.

The only thing that could possibly reverse the Liberals' fortune would be a real turn around in economic conditions and a consequent real and measurable improvement in people's standards of living. (Even at that I’m sure that Osborne would try to take any credit going for that to re-launch his campaign to replace Cameron.)

I don't see that happening in the next two years, and in any case, Cameron has made it clear that even when(if) things get better there will be no return to higher levels of public spending (suggesting that the cuts are more ideologically than economically driven). So, although things may get better, the likes of you and I won’t feel it.

Of course, my response to all of this is that with some luck and a lot of hard work, none of this will be our problem, and what we should be thinking about is which one(s) of the party leaders would be best to deal with when it comes to negotiations with the Scottish government.

If it is a Tory only government I suspect that they might not even have one MP here, and I’m not sure who will be left from the Liberals, but perhaps they would not feel it necessary in these cases to have a Scottish Secretary.

I guess Boris, just because he’s a prickly sort of person, would be the most difficult to negotiate with (although, given that he has told people often enough that Scotland is such a drain on the UK, he would surely be pleased to see the back of us).

Anyone else any thoughts on that? 

LESSON: WHEN YOU ARE A BIG CHEESE, CHOOSE YOU WORDS CAREFULLY

I commend to you an interesting and well written article by Liberal blogger Andrew Page. I enjoy reading Andrew's stuff. I certainly don't always agree with what he's saying, but he has an easy style of writing and a moderate and thought-out approach to his subject. He is as likely to criticise his own party, as he is another. In short he thinks for himself, makes his arguments accordingly and is nobody's yes man.


This article stems from a speech made by Nick Clegg, or rather a part of that speech where he seems to call nationalists (and those who favour total unionism [presumably Forsyth supporters]), "extremists".


What it appears Clegg actually said, although I have not heard the speech myself, was that both the above categories of Scots are at the extreme ends of opinion. Well, that's a bit obvious, if overstated, isn't it? The middle is the status quo, the other two are at the extremes, or ends...


But it's not a word I would have used, and I don't have years of political training, nor am I the leader of a UK party, much less the Britain's deputy prime minister. So maybe it wasn't the brightest thing for a person who has, and is, all that to have said, but The Scotsman, well known for being a chip wrapper first and journal second, appears to have made of it something which it was not.


So of course nationalists are on one side of the argument but I'm not in the least an extremist. That takes far too much fire and passion. 


I want Scotland to be independent not because I think our mountains are nicer than their hills, our burns nicer than their brooks, our lochs more lovely than their lakes, or indeed our fowk nicer than their people. 


Some people do have that misty eyed, bagpipeish, Brigadoonian vignette notion of what Scotland is. Not me. For scenery, beautiful though Scotland is, there are plenty of other places just as lovely, and for the folk, I've found that they are much the same the world over, good and bad.

I'm a nationalist because I believe we are badly served being ruled from London, and frequently by a political party for which we didn't vote. 


I doubt our people are any nicer than the English, but we do seem to have some sort of "common weel" as Alex Salmond would have it. Maybe the English have that too under another name (Noblesse Oblige??), and maybe it's because we have always been poorer than the English, and have felt the need to band together for protection, that we have preferred a more centre left government. When we say our government is based on 'society', we don't mean Royal Ascot and Wimbledon


And there's financial motivation for me too. I look across the sea to Norway unencumbered by a large "world power" status, with all the spending commitment that that incurs. 


I see what they have done with their share of North Sea Oil, and I despair of poverty of our lives here, and of a British future, while our soldiers put the world to rights, according to the needs of American Presidents to whom all UK prime ministers seem in thrall.


I don't blame the English for our plight. The greatest needs of the UK are where the bulk of the population lives. And that is in the South East of England. I blame the Scots. It is in our hands to do something about our plight.

Even the devolution that was wished upon us by Labour was so very badly done: 'a parish council', said Tony Blair, before it had starter plotting how to control, at least the mainland countries. 'A wee pretendy parliament', said Billy Connelly sneeringly. Leaving the Westminster parliament to serve as English and UK parliament, simply reinforced the fact (previously demonstrated by the Celtic secretaries of state), that England was central and the small nations, mere satellites, or counties.


But for all that I don't want to "rip up" or "tear apart" up anything. And opposition parties' use of emotive language is not helpful to a grown up debate. Separation is inaccurate. Independence instead of dependence is what we seek.


Scotland could easily have good neighbourly relations with the rest of the UK and share many facilities and friendly co-operative relations. and even at the heights of the troubles there were no border guards in Ireland, so why would we want them now? 

That's more or less that. There's nothing in the least extreme about any of it, is there?