There has been a distinct excess of megaphone politics in recent months on the supposed threat to the future of the United Kingdom as we approach the 300th anniversary of the Union of the Parliaments. Thank goodness for a dose of robust common sense from Alf Young on January 12.
Scotland's future is inextricably linked with that of the other nations and regions of the British Isles, and particularly with England. That is why a constitutional settlement that recognises and includes Scottish identity, British identity and more local and personal identities within the state is so necessary. It is not a choice between Scotland and the United Kingdom; we continue to need and to be of value to each other.
The establishment of the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom has put in place one of the main planks of such a settlement but we now need to look seriously at moving towards the sort of arrangement existing in most countries - Spain or the United States, for example - where there is a central government for the country as a whole and a national or provincial government for the constituent parts. Many of these countries have to accommodate far more substantial and divisive differences of language, culture and tradition than exist in Britain.
Reforming the United Kingdom in this way is of course the aim of the Liberal Democrats. It involves in particular substantial tax-raising powers for the Scottish Parliament related to its spending powers, but it would also modernise and improve many aspects of the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and government and the Westminster parliament and government.
This inclusive, modern and dynamic view of Scotland's future within the United Kingdom stands in stark contrast to the simple - not to say simplistic - choices which Alex Salmond and Gordon Brown would have us believe require people to vote only for one of their two parties.
Most polling evidence suggests that the Liberal Democrats are in the same territory on this as most opinion in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats were central to delivering the current Scottish Parliament scheme through the Constitutional Convention (at a time when the SNP under the same Alex Salmond were skulking in their tents).
Happily, and substantially due to the work of Liberal Democrats, neither Labour nor the SNP will "win" the elections in May. We have a proportional system which delivers a parliament representative of Scotland which means that no single party can ride roughshod over the best interests of Scotland. Given the unseemly noise and wacky financial figures coming from the SNP on the one hand, and the claims of imminent sundering of the Union which seem to be necessary to Gordon Brown's prime ministerial ambitions on the other, the growing strength of the Liberal Democrats evidenced in the Dunfermline by-election and numerous council elections is to the great and growing advantage of Scotland.
Robert Brown, MSP, Policy Convener, Scottish Liberal Democrats, 1 Douglas Avenue, Rutherglen.
I would like to think that the drop in the support for the LibDems in Scotland in the latest polls would indicate that they were eventually being found out by the electorate but it is more likely to be merely a squeeze on their soft vote caused by the furious SNP/Labour head-on. We probably face the paradox in May of the LibDems only doing well in seats where they are second to Labour and in which an "anybody but Labour" sentiment works to their advantage by putting out their Labour partners. There will be little point in voting for them in the rest of the Scottish seats.
The crumbling of the LibDems south of the Border, which is attracting very little comment in Scotland, may spread here over the next couple of months. Their English poll ratings have dropped to 20% (and lower). The stampede of candidates from the LibDems in England is in full flight. To date six who fought the last General Election have defected to the Tories.
David McEwan Hill, 1 Tom Nan Ragh, Dalinlongart, Sandbank.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article