She wants "Scotland in the Yookye, and the Yookye in the Eeyowe": now that the female Fraser Nelson is Lib Dem leader, what's next for Scottish politics?

So, as I feared, East Dunbartonshire MP Jo Swinson has been elected leader of the Liberal Democrats at federal level (but rest assured that Willie Rennie of "Winning With Willie" fame is still very much leader of the Scottish branch).  The reason I say "as I feared" is partly because I'm not Swinson's greatest fan, and we'll now be subjected to her dripping-with-insincerity musings even more frequently, but it's also partly because there's some evidence from past history that having a Scottish leader can help the fortunes of a London party in this part of the world.  For example...

* In the only general election Gordon Brown fought as leader in 2010, Labour took a hammering south of the border, but in Scotland held all its seats and actually increased its share of the vote.

* The 1974 Liberal surge under Jeremy Thorpe wasn't fully replicated in Scotland, but the Alliance surge in 1983 was, and by that point the Liberals were led by a Scot (David Steel).  In 1992, the first election after Steel stepped down, the drop in the Lib Dem vote was greater in Scotland than it was elsewhere.

* In 2005, the Lib Dems under Charles Kennedy unexpectedly overtook the SNP to finish second in the Scottish popular vote.

The Kennedy example is interesting, though, because he was also leader during the 2001 election, when the Scottish Lib Dem vote increased but there wasn't the same scale of breakthrough.  He was also federal leader during the 2003 Holyrood election, when the Lib Dem vote more or less flatlined.  So that suggests any Swinson effect might be limited to Westminster elections, and might also depend to some extent on the platform she's given by the media.  The reason that Kennedy did better in 2005 than in 2001 is that in the intervening period he had emerged as the leading voice in opposition to the Iraq War.  If Jo Swinson similarly comes to be seen as the leader of the anti-Brexit resistance, that could be mildly worrying for the SNP.  The good news is that she's running out of time to reap that potential benefit - what does she do if Britain leaves the EU before the next election?  She may be able to get away for the moment with "wanting Scotland in the Yookye, and the Yookye in the Eeyowe", but unless she's going to argue for the Yookye to rejoin the Eeyowe (which nobody would believe anyway), she'll run out of road with that line after October.  Pro-Eeyowe Scots will have to start looking towards independence as the only realistic way forward.

In my forthcoming article for next month's iScot, I'll also be making the point that even if there's a Lib Dem surge in a pre-Brexit election, that could actually benefit the SNP if it falls short of a certain threshold.  For example, if pro-EU unionist voters in a seat like Gordon abandon the Tories and return to the Lib Dem fold, but not in sufficient numbers to actually take the seat, the obvious beneficiary would be the SNP. 

That said, I'd suggest the SNP should keep a close lookout for any indication that the broadcasters are going to stitch them up by running three-way Johnson-Corbyn-Swinson debates during the election campaign.  That would be almost impossible to defend, both on the basis of past precedent and the current state of the parties in the Commons, but you can guarantee that they'd try it if they thought they could get away with it.

Winning With Willie (again)

Much of the mainstream media breathlessly and uncritically reported Willie Rennie's claim at the weekend that the Scottish Liberal Democrats were "winning again".  For those with short memories, here is how the Lib Dems actually fared at the Holyrood election in May...

* SLIPPED from fourth place to fifth, after being overtaken by the Greens for the first time.  To put that in historical perspective, in 1999, 2003 and 2007 they were within just one seat of tying the Tories for third place.

* FAILED to make any seat gains, remaining on the miserable 5-seat tally they've held since 2011.  For comparison, they won 17 seats in both 1999 and 2003, and 16 in 2007.

* SLUMPED to their lowest-ever share of the vote on the constituency ballot - just 7.8%.  For comparison, they took 14.2% in 1999, 15.3% in 2003, and 16.2% in 2007.

If all of that amounts to "winning again", the mind boggles as to what a humiliating defeat would look like.  Apparently on Planet Willie, they can tell that they're winning from the "howling" of "Cybernats".  But back in the real world, we can tell that they're losing simply by checking the results of the election.

The losing streak continued today in the Scottish Parliament as the Lib Dems grotesquely joined forces with the Tories to vote against continued Scottish membership of the single market, but mercifully were defeated by the combined forces of the SNP and Greens, with the pro-European motion being comfortably passed by 65 votes to 32.  This means that an absolute majority of Scottish parliamentarians have now explicitly backed continued single market membership, and the taking of any steps necessary to ensure that.

Labour are taking a lot of flak for abstaining on the motion, but for my money it's the Lib Dems who deserve the opprobrium on this occasion.  You can make an arguable case for abstaining on an elaborate motion that contains several different points, some of which you agree with, and some of which you don't think are ideally worded.  But for a party that was once the most passionately pro-European outfit in Scotland to actually vote against single market membership is nothing short of extraordinary.  They have abandoned all pretence of being anything other than British nationalist zealots - for them, as for the other unionist parties, it's now Brexit or Bust.

Questions for Tim Farron on Devo Max

Putting to one side the Lib Dem leadership contender's cretinous implication in the Herald that the SNP are turning Scotland into some sort of ultra-nationalist police state, Farron has actually said something today that's quite interesting.  He's unambiguously stated that a Devo Max option should have been on the ballot paper last September, although regrettably he doesn't seem to have been asked the obvious follow-up question - ie. does he condemn his Lib Dem colleagues in government for directly ensuring that didn't happen?

He was, however, asked whether there should be a Devo Max option in any future independence referendum.  This was his reply -

"Yes, I guess that would make sense.  The Scottish party would make that choice and I would respect that choice. But I am sure they would consider that."

Which again begs an obvious question - WHY are you so sure they would do anything as sensible as consider the matter with an open mind, given that they dismissed the idea out of hand last time?  In reality, of course, the distinction between the Scottish party and the UK party is as much of a fiction in the Lib Dems as it is in any of the other London-based parties, so unless he changes his mind, Farron's views on a Devo Max option should indeed move things in a very different direction.  In the light of that, it would be useful to have clarity from him on the following points -

1) If you have conceded the principle that Devo Max is something the people have a right to decide on, that implies it is a legitimate and feasible option (regardless of whether the Lib Dems support it themselves).  Will the Lib Dems therefore stop pretending that the Smith package more or less represents the end point of what is possible for Scotland within the UK, and that the choice is a binary one between Smith and independence?

2) If Devo Max was a legitimate option to put to the people last September, will the Lib Dems now acknowledge that their failure to do so means that it is a nonsense for anyone to claim that the referendum result established that a package of powers far short of Devo Max was somehow the will of the electorate?

3) The public have already been consulted on independence, but they haven't yet been consulted on Devo Max.  If you think there should have been a multi-option referendum last year, it would surely be logical to now hold a single-question referendum on Devo Max as a remedial step.  If, for the sake of argument, the SNP were to propose that, would they be able to look forward to Lib Dem backing?

Charles Kennedy's two major legacies - and the third he was denied

When I did the Scottish Politics module at Glasgow University, one of my perennial sources of amusement was Professor James Kellas' attempts to name-check his 'celebrity' former students. He'd say : "You just never know what will happen to you when you take this course. We've had Charles Kennedy, and...er, Alan Clements, he's the husband of Kirsty Wark..." And then he'd tail off, because he couldn't actually think of anyone else!

Still, Charles Kennedy wasn't too shabby an example to be getting on with. There aren't many people who can claim to have reshaped the British political party system before the age of thirty, but that's a feat Kennedy pulled off. He was one of just five MPs that the SDP were left with after the Alliance's disappointing showing at the 1987 election, and initially all five seemed to be implacably opposed to David Steel's proposal for a merger with the Liberals.  Regardless of the state of opinion among the rank-and-file membership, it's hard to see how the merger could have gone ahead if the parliamentary party had maintained a united front - but it was Kennedy that eventually broke ranks, possibly due to his closeness to Roy Jenkins.

So his biggest single legacy is simply the existence of the Liberal Democrats.  Given what happened last month, it would perhaps be unwise to call that a "lasting" legacy, but any degree of uncertainty on that front is scarcely his fault.  Not only did he help to found the party, he gave it a clear and popular centre-left identity when he was leader, delivered two record-breaking election successes in a row, and in general just left the place in a better state than he found it.  What occurred afterwards is entirely the responsibility of the ambitious men who squandered a golden inheritance after taking to the airwaves in a coordinated and determined effort to depose him in early 2006.

His other major legacy, of course, is to conclusively prove that British leaders and parties can survive unscathed (and can indeed thrive) after taking a stand against Anglo-American military adventurism.  Although he failed to prevent the war in Iraq, he arguably paved the way for the thwarting of military action in Syria.

And was he denied a third legacy that he should have been destined for?  You'd think he was the obvious choice to lead the anti-independence campaign during last year's referendum - there was simply no-one else on the unionist side that could have gone toe-to-toe with Alex Salmond in the popularity stakes.  In the end, he barely even had a role.  Salmond is quite right to point out today that Kennedy's heart wasn't in the campaign, but that's not because he wasn't passionate about staying within the UK - it was entirely because of the way the campaign was fought.  He was much more passionate about Home Rule than he was about doom-mongering.  If you can imagine an entirely different No campaign, fronted by an on-song Kennedy, making a positive and authentic-sounding case for Scotland to take on sweeping new powers within the UK...well, that could have been more like a 65-35 result, and then it really would have been over for the fabled "generation".  All of us on the other side of the argument can count ourselves very fortunate that he was so foolishly sidelined.

Do former SDP members really not care about Tim Farron's attempts to rewrite history?

Twenty-seven years ago, the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party merged in acrimonious circumstances.  It was a genuine merger, rather than a takeover of one party by the other, and for an interim period the former leaders of each predecessor party served as joint leaders of the new Social and Liberal Democrats.  Even that name had been carefully chosen to ensure there could be no appearance of a takeover - the thinking was that putting the word 'Liberal' in the middle ensured the name couldn't be lazily shortened in common usage.  To some extent that proved to be a spectacular  delusion, because within just eighteen months the name had been officially changed to 'Liberal Democrats'.  But at least the retention of the word 'Democrats' was a symbolic reminder of the merger, and of the party's SDP heritage.

But now, for some bizarre reason, the likely new Lib Dem leader Tim Farron seems to want to "change the name back" to the Liberal Party.  If I was a former SDP member (like Vince Cable, Shirley Williams or Charles Kennedy), I'd be thinking : "How can you change 'back' to a name that has never previously been used?  You're talking about an entirely different party.  If I'd wanted to join the Liberal Party, I would have done so, but that's not what the merger was about."

Perhaps after the best part of three decades, such people are used to having their social democratic roots trashed, and are unlikely to walk off in a huff now.  But at the very least, Farron seems to be gratuitously going out of his way to alienate a significant number of his own members at a time when you'd think he'd be desperate to maintain as broad a church as possible (if you can call a party with eight MPs a 'broad church').  The idea that he's going to gain anything by way of brand identity is risible - does anyone seriously believe that the word "Democrat" is deterring people who would otherwise be gagging to vote for "the party of Gladstone and Lloyd George"?

One thing that has always irritated me about both Gordon Brown and Alex Salmond (and even Nicola Sturgeon) is their habit of referring to the Liberal Democrats as "the Liberals". It's like a calculated act of disrespect : "You're so insignificant that I can't be bothered remembering what you're calling yourselves this week."  But I may have to withdraw that complaint now, because if even the party's own leader has no respect for the official name and what it symbolises, why should anyone else?

Clegg In Seventh Heaven As Libs Lick Lousy Loony

The future of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party was called into question tonight, as it sensationally found itself pipped for seventh place in the South Shields by-election by (and I'm not making this up) the Liberal Democrats.

Chastened Loony candidate Alan "Howling Laud" Hope commented : "I must admit I just didn't see that one coming. Finishing in eighth place is one thing, but to lose to Clegg's mob has always seemed unthinkable - until now. If something like this can happen, then no Loony stronghold can be considered safe at the next general election. Our long-cherished dream of compulsory tracking devices in hairgrips could be fading fast."

Election expert John Curtice went even further, suggesting that the party's humiliating defeat at the hands of a "comedy" candidate marked the final confirmation that "the strange death of Loony England" is well underway.

Meanwhile, the Lib Dems' unexpected seventh place raised hopes that Nick Clegg's party might even save a deposit or two at the general election, possibly somewhere in Cornwall.

The result in full -

Labour 50.4% (-1.6)
UKIP 24.2%% (+24.2)
Conservatives 11.5% (-10.1)
Independent - Khan 5.4% (+5.4)
Independent Socialists 3.0% (+3.0)
BNP 2.9% (-3.6)
Liberal Democrats 1.4% (-12.8%)
Official Monster Raving Loonies 0.8% (+0.8)
Independent - Darwood 0.2% (+0.2)

Swing from Conservatives to UKIP - 17%
Swing from Labour to UKIP - 13%
Swing from Conservatives to Labour - 4%
Swing from Liberal Democrats to UKIP - 19%
Swing from Liberal Democrats to Official Monster Raving Loonies - 7%

Tavish didn't "save our p'lice" - but did he save Rennie's skin?

This seems almost uncannily topical on the day that the merger of Scotland's police forces finally takes effect, but a YouGov survey of leading political strategists and advertising executives has found that Tavish 'Two Hoots' Scott's famous "save our p'lice" TV ad from the 2011 Holyrood election is held in higher regard than most of us realise -

Top five most effective UK Party Political Broadcasts since 1970 (in reverse order) :

5. "Crisis? What crisis?", Conservatives, 1979

4. "24 hours to save the NHS", Labour, 1997

3. "John Cleese explains proportional representation", SDP, 1987

2. "Labour's Tax Bombshell", Conservatives, 1992

1. "Save our p'lice", Scottish Liberal Democrats, 2011

Yes, I'm way ahead of you here. It does appear, to say the least, somewhat bizarre that a component part of a campaign that saw the Lib Dems' representation slashed by more than two-thirds could be considered the greatest party political broadcast of the last four decades. But in his commentary on the poll findings, our old friend Peter Kellner has an explanation (of sorts) -

"The test of the effectiveness of this broadcast is not how many seats the Scottish Liberal Democrats lost, but how many more seats they would have lost without the brilliance of the "save our p'lice" strategy. Former aides to Mr Scott have privately told me that the party had braced itself for the possibility of being left with only two or three seats after the May 2011 election. It's quite probable that Mr Scott's visionary successor would not have been among the successful candidates in that scenario. The broadcast may not have succeeded in saving Scotland's p'lice, it may not even have saved Mr Scott's own leadership, but by saving the skin of the charismatic Willie Rennie, it might just have helped safeguard the Liberal Democrats' long-term future as one of Scotland's top seven political parties.

Anyone who stumbles upon the broadcast on YouTube today might be slightly bemused to discover the awe in which it is still held by experts. But it has to be seen as very much "of its time". The techniques pioneered by the ad have since been copied so extensively by rivals that, two years on, it's all too easy to forget the extraordinary impact they originally had. The unconvincing siren noises at the beginning and the end, Mr Scott's endless pacing up and down in front of a stationary Lothian and Borders police car, his struggle with the wind as he attempts to keep his dome-shaped Lib Dem "save our p'lice" postcard in an upright position, his sing-song voice as he outlines all the things that he doesn't want to happen to his p'lice (counterpointed by the shocking force with which he delivers the instruction "AND NOR SHOULD YOU"), his determined failure to pronounce the letter 'o' in the word "p'lice" - these are all things of genius. But, if anything, the broadcast is even greater than the sum of its parts. If there was such a thing as an 'X Factor' for party political broadcasts, I suspect Tavish Scott and "save our p'lice" would have been 2011's Christmas No. 1, and deservedly so."

What would an authentically 'non-unionist' Liberal Democrat party look like?

The Liberal Democrat blogger Caron Lindsay left a comment on the previous thread, and I thought I'd respond properly in a fresh post -

"Well, of course, if Alex Salmond chose to have the referendum earlier, then there would be more time to work with the SNP.

That's hardly likely before the referendum, when the two parties are on different sides, is it?"

That evades the central issue straight away, because it leaves us no clearer as to why the two parties are on different sides prior to the referendum. I'm not talking about the fact that one is supporting a 'Yes' to independence, and the other is supporting a 'No'. I'm talking about the Liberal Democrats setting their face against the possibility of a second referendum question on their own (supposedly) preferred constitutional model, which is clearly the best tactical hope of achieving the objective of 'Home Rule'. If there was a second question, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP would be on the same side on one question, but opposite sides on the other question. Precisely the middle 'non-unionist' way you might expect Caron to favour.

"And what do you think the Ming Campbell Commission is all about if it's not developing a strategy for home rule - and devolving power from Holyrood to councils and communities? We're not hanging about developing our strategy on home rule."

Frankly I think the purpose is to give the appearance of activity, and to provide some kind of cover for the otherwise inexplicable spectacle of a 'Home Rule party' undermining the cause of Home Rule at every turn. As others have pointed out, a sincere Home Rule party would have had their blueprint worked out long before now.

"I want to see more actual detail on how we get to more powers after a no vote in the referendum, but I'm sure it'll come. I don't want the reactionary forces in Tory and Labour to think this is a good excuse for no further change, so we need to get signed up to something ahead of time."

It's difficult to know whether to laugh or cry at this point. Could I gently suggest that the best way to prevent the reactionary forces having such an excuse is not to sign up lock, stock and barrel to the worldview and strategy of those forces, which goes like this : "first the Scottish people must be forced to make a binary Yes/No choice on independence, then they must be coaxed into voting No by any means necessary, then that vote will be used to legitimise the idea that remaining within the UK means that Scotland's future constitutional arrangements are no longer a matter for the Scottish people, but are instead entirely at the discretion of the UK government". Where precisely do the Lib Dems depart from that worldview? If they do think that Scotland's constitutional future within the UK is a matter for the Scottish people as well as for the UK government, why are they moving heaven and earth to ensure that the people will never have any say on enhanced devolution? What more excuse do you think the reactionary forces need to do nothing after a No vote?

"The mistake the SNP makes is to define us as a unionist party when we aren't and never have been. We are a federalist party, a party that believes in decentralising power, having decisions made at the lowest practical level."

As I've pointed out a number of times, federalists are unionists. It's simply a fact - a federation is a political union. However, let's be generous for a moment and accept that there can be a middle way between unionism and nationalism. The more radical Liberal Democrats have articulated it down the years, by suggesting we should free ourselves from the absolutism of the nation state, and instead look at the level of government where each individual lever of power is most appropriately exercised. Therefore, some powers would be transferred from Westminster to Holyrood, some from Westminster to Brussels, some from both Westminster and Holyrood to local government. Crucially, the new dispensation would be constitutionally entrenched. Westminster rule wouldn't exactly wither away, but it would be no more or less important than any other tier of government, meaning that the one-dimensional notion of "London sovereignty over Scotland" would certainly be at an end.

That's what an authentic 'non-unionist', 'non-nationalist' Home Rule party would look like. But does that bear any actual resemblance to the modern-day Liberal Democrats? Er, no. Their pro-Europeanism lies in tatters as they prop up the most isolationist British Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher. The Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Scotland makes a mockery of the commitment to a stronger Scottish Parliament by using the stock excuse of "we need more evidence" to justify powers that his own party supposedly want transferred to Holyrood remaining exactly where they are. A 'non-unionist' would not take the default view that "Westminster knows best, unless overwhelmingly proved otherwise". And above all else, they legitimise the one-dimensional notion of the sovereignty of the British state by supporting the view that any changes to Scotland's constitutional position short of independence are none of the Scottish people's business. In a nutshell, the Lib Dems look suspiciously like bog-standard British nationalists at the moment.

How might we expect a 'non-unionist', 'non-nationalist' Home Rule party to act in the run-up to the referendum? Broadly, by saying "a plague on both your houses" to unionism and nationalism, and using this unique opportunity to fight for their own preferred constitutional model. What we would not expect them to do is declare their absolute loyalty to the forces of unionism in a 'winner-takes-all' fight to the death with the forces of nationalism. But that's exactly what the Liberal Democrats have chosen to do.

I fear we must draw the obvious conclusion.

Willie Rennie and the art of timing

Let's see if I can get this straight -

1) Willie Rennie reminds us that the Liberal Democrats have been passionate Home Rulers for 100 years.

2) The Liberal Democrats are now in power at Westminster for the first time in 65 years, and in all probability for the last time for another few decades, given that electoral reform was defeated last year. Presumably, therefore, this is the golden moment for a passionate Home Rule party to actually do something about their passion.

3) It is universally accepted that an independence referendum is on the way, giving a passionate Home Rule party a unique opportunity to use the London establishment's fear of a Yes vote to secure some long-dreamt-of concessions.

4) Willie Rennie tells us that the Liberal Democrats will in fact wait until the bargaining chip of the referendum is gone, and until they no longer have any influence at Westminster, and only then "work with the SNP" to increase the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Great plan, guys. Someone who wasn't in the know would almost be forgiven for thinking that this whole "passionate Home Ruler" business was a bit of an affectation.

The Lib Dem message to Scotland : stop being so 'difficult'

I really should know better by now, but given the special occasion, I thought I might as well pop round to PB yesterday to put up some kind of defence of the nationalist position against the inevitable onslaught. It turned into yet another four-hour epic. It's hard to choose the 'highlight', but perhaps I'd marginally give the nod to this exchange with Liberal Democrat poster MrsB, who innocently claims that she supports votes at 16, but that it's simply impossible to implement (yes, really!).

MrsB : James I have said this before and I will say it again now. The legal age for voting in the UK (which Scotland is still part of) is 18.

I support voting at 16. Currently it is not legally possible.

It might be possible to get votes at 16 through at Westminster before the referendum but I really really doubt it.

Therefore the issue of whether 16 or 17 year olds should get a vote in the referendum is a non-starter.

Without that change to the legislation actually running such a referendum which had any credibility would be impossible. There would be no electoral roll for the 16 year olds, though some 17 year olds would be on it because their 18th birthday would fall during the year. How would you ensure that all 16 year olds got the vote fairly? And don't say "use the school rolls" because I am pretty sure that would not be allowed under Data Protection legislation. It wouldn't be comprehensive anyway.

Like I say, I am in favour of the principle of voting at 16. However, when it comes to the referendum I don't see how it is possible to make it happen.

Me : MrsB, a simple question : do you support or oppose Michael Moore's proposal to ban 16 and 17 year olds from voting in the referendum? If you support it, please don't insult our intelligence by pretending that your support for votes at 16 is meaningful.

I'm reminded of Mo Mowlam's wry reply to her Tory counterpart : "I welcome his support for the Good Friday Agreement. I now look forward to that support extending to the actual contents of the Agreement."

MrsB : Under current UK law 16 and 17 year olds cannot vote in ANY elections. Why should they be entitled to vote in just the one referendum in one part of the UK? That is not correct.

Were there to be a piece of legislation lowering the voting age to 16 it would apply to all elections and referenda and would be fair. But we are not going to get that.

So yes, I do support Michael Moore's position. But it would be better if he made more of the point about the legal voting age and so that it would be more difficult for Nats to depict him as someone trying to find an excuse for stopping people voting for independence.

Me : "Why should they be entitled to vote in just the one referendum in one part of the UK?"

MrsB, as has been pointed out to you several times, the SNP are in favour of giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote for ALL elections - just as the Lib Dems are supposed to be. The difference is that they are trying to implement their own policy, whereas the Lib Dems are moving heaven and earth to block theirs - just as they are doing on enhanced powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Bizarre. Just bizarre.

"But it would be better if he made more of the point about the legal voting age and so that it would be more difficult for Nats to depict him as someone trying to find an excuse for stopping people voting for independence."

It would never be difficult for us to make that 'depiction', because that's exactly what he's doing, and even the dogs on the street know it.

MrsB : FFS James, stop distorting things.

This is very simple.

If there was a way to get the voting age changed to 16 for all elections before the referendum is held then 16 year olds could vote in it.

There isn't. So they won't be able to.

Answer this for me: if the voting age is not lowered from 18 before the referendum, do you think 16 year olds would be able to vote in the referendum?

And stop being silly about who is trying to manipulate what. The unionists are indeed pushing it - but they are amateurs beside Salmond. Both sides are at it, so stop pretending the SNP are whiter than white.

Me : Oh, come off it, Mrs B. This is the argument of mock-liberals down the centuries - of course we want Africans to govern themselves (or whatever), but it's too soon, they're not ready, there are immense practical difficulties...come to think of it, you're sounding just like Sir Humphrey.

Time to make up your mind whether you really believe in all those radical Lib Dem policies, or if it's just words.

"if the voting age is not lowered from 18 before the referendum, do you think 16 year olds would be able to vote in the referendum?"

If the Scottish Parliament legislates to lower the voting age for the referendum, then your question is a nonsense. Get out of the "Westminster is God" mindset.

MrsB : Dear James

Being this difficult even with people who basically agree with you but just take account of inconvenient reality, suggests that you are not going to be able to win many people over to the same side of the argument as you.

Can I suggest you make sure you are not involved in the independence campaign?

Love Mrs B

Me : MrsB, if you "basically agree" with me, stop supporting Michael Moore's plan to ban young adults from voting. If you do support that plan (and you've already confirmed that you do) then you do not "basically agree" with me - you in fact disagree with me.

Can I respectfully suggest that you do not take part in Lib Dem campaigning at the next GE? After all, not all voters (of any age) are looking for a passive-aggressive mother figure who tells them that by disagreeing with her they are simply being "difficult". We don't want your party's poll ratings going down any further, now, do we?

Love,

James

* * *

Nobody does comedy quite like Malcolm Rifkind. Not content with claiming that the proposed referendum question (which even Ruth Davidson accepted was fair and clear) is somehow biased, he then suggested that his own preferred wording of "do you want to leave the United Kingdom after 300 years?" was not remotely "emotive". Tell you what, Malcolm, why not chuck in "cast adrift without food, warmth or shelter" to make it even less emotive?

* * *

If you're looking for a soothing time-out from the nationalist v unionist War of the Worlds, I can highly recommend a listen to Darcy DaSilva's performance at Celtic Connections on Saturday. I particularly liked her rendition of Blackbird, the middle song of the three.

Cut the Lib Dems, and they bleed unionist red, not the federalist rainbow

On Radio 4 the other night, Professor James Mitchell summed up his view of how events are likely to unfold rather succinctly - if devo max is on the ballot paper in pretty much any form it will win, but if not it's anyone's guess at this stage as to whether independence or the status quo will prevail in a forced choice. We might quibble about his near-certainty that devo max would defeat independence in a three-way choice, but there's no denying there's more than a grain of truth in his assessment, and all the parties will surely have made a similar calculation. Which makes the battle over whether there should be a devo max question essentially one founded on games theory. The SNP seemingly believe that it's rational to seize the overwhelming likelihood of substantial new powers for Holyrood, even if it means lessening their chances of securing the ultimate prize in the near future - because it would also dramatically reduce their risk of coming away with nothing. The Tories and Labour have reached the opposite view - the thought of genuine Scottish self-government is plainly so horrific to them that they believe it's rational to risk everything in order to have a chance of maintaining their precious line in the sand.

But the Lib Dems? Unlike the Tories and Labour, Devo Max is indistinguishable from what they claim to believe in. So how on earth are we to explain their seemingly irrational decision to turn down the golden chance to use the referendum to fight for the very constitutional settlement they supposedly want, instead infinitely preferring to join a united front with the Tories and Labour to save a status quo they're supposedly opposed to? Remember - just a few days ago, Nick Clegg informed us that he is "not a unionist", and that supporters of both the status quo and independence are "extremists". And yet how quick he is to want to reduce the choice to one only between those two "extremes", and equally quick to decide which one of those extremes he passionately wants to win. Curious.

Perhaps the response from the Lib Dems might be that if independence is defeated in a straight yes/no vote, they can then go on to argue the case for substantial new powers. Don't make me laugh. A No vote would be hungrily seized upon by the London establishment as an excuse to close down all movement on the constitution for a generation, just as happened after 1979. We know it, and the Lib Dems know it as well. No, there's only one explanation for the way in which they are moving heaven and earth to sabotage their own constitutional policy - namely that the Lib Dems (or more specifically the party leadership) are, in spite of Clegg and Moore's protestations, every bit as much an instinctive, "gut" unionist party as the Tories and Labour are. Cut them, and they bleed unionist red, not the federalist rainbow.

* * *

Is Ruth Davidson channelling Martin Kettle, or is it the other way round? She made this extraordinary claim in the Scottish Parliament yesterday -

"Every opinion poll ever published shows the people of Scotland agree with me - Scotland is better off in Britain."

Every opinion poll ever published? The only question that needs to be asked here is whether she knows she's lying or just hasn't bothered to do even the most basic homework (ie. whether she's making the schoolgirl error of taking the London media mythology as read). Forget the poll from just last September showing a plurality in favour of independence - how about the legendary multi-option poll in the run-up to the 1992 election, that showed support for independence at 50%, with devolution and the (then) status quo trailing way behind in the twenties? And there have been umpteen polls showing a pro-independence plurality since then.

But if by any chance she knows all this, then clearly we're in for the 'Big Lie' school of political campaigning over the next couple of years.

Careful, Nick : automatic recourse to 'moderation' might just lead you to Calamity

I just happened to stumble across an excellent blogpost the other day detailing the most common logical fallacies. The examples used to illustrate each fallacy all relate to the bogus arguments deployed by proponents of a legal ban on sex work and/or pornography, but it was a very timely find given Nick Clegg's bizarre attempt to paint the huge number of people who believe in either independence or the status quo as 'extremists' -

"Mr Clegg said the Lib Dems vision of Home Rule represented the views of the Scottish people and argued that those who were for independence, or keeping the current constitutional settlement, were extremists.

“All the evidence suggests that is the mainstream of opinion and the extremists are those who either think that we need to yank Scotland out of the United Kingdom tomorrow, or those who say there should be no further change at all,” Mr Clegg said."

One of the fallacies explained in the blogpost is "Middle ground: the belief that the truth must be somewhere in the middle". Off the top of my head, here's an example...

Proposition 1 - Nick Clegg should be sentenced to thirty years' hard labour for fraudulently securing votes on the promise that the Liberal Democrats would vote against an increase in tuition fees.

Proposition 2 - Nick Clegg should be spared jail for fraudulently securing votes on the promise that the Liberal Democrats would vote against an increase in tuition fees, but should certainly be expected to resign forthwith.

Proposition 3 - Nick Clegg should be forgiven for fradulently securing votes on the promise that the Liberal Democrats would vote against an increase in tuition fees, and allowed to remain as Lib Dem leader for now.

In this instance, hard labour and forgiveness are clearly the 'extreme' options, which leaves resignation as the only moderate, reasonable, sensible course of action. And as Clegg is apparently keen to pray in aid the relative popularity of each constitutional option, it should also be noted that calls for his resignation represent 'mainstream opinion' in Scotland. Open and shut case, methinks - anyone who doesn't think Nick Clegg should resign immediately is clearly an extremist on a par with Nick Griffin.

Incidentally, I was intrigued to see in the Scotsman article that Clegg defines himself (rather like Ken Macintosh) as a 'devolutionist, not a unionist'. But at the Political Innovation conference just over a year ago, I clearly remember Caron Lindsay repeatedly insisting that the Lib Dems are a 'federalist, not a unionist' party. Whatever happened to that? Federalism and devolution are qualitatively very different concepts - albeit both very much unionist ones in the literal sense of the word.

Will Clegg go for the full house?

I was just having a think about the reasons why the average Liberal Democrat probably went into politics...

Sky high university tuition fees? Check.

The retention of a majoritarian voting system? Check.

Saying "no, no, no" to Europe? Check.

All Clegg needs to do now is back the reintroduction of capital punishment, and he'll have the full house. There's nothing like a politician who really makes a difference...

* * *

Thanks to Marcia for alerting me to this rather extraordinary Ipsos-Mori poll of Scottish Parliament constituency voting intentions -

SNP 51% (+2)
Labour 26% (-2)
Conservatives 12% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 8% (+1)

Intriguingly, Willie Rennie now has a richly-deserved negative personal rating, with 20% of respondents satisfied with his leadership, and 28% dissatisfied. However, I would imagine that has more to do with perceptions of his party, as I very much doubt that 28% (let alone 48%) of the adult population of Scotland actually know who Willie Rennie is.

Another spurious claim of 'anti-Englishness'

Loosely following on from my previous post, a Twitter exchange between Tory Hoose's very own version of "Admin" and Lib Dem blogger Gavin Hamilton drew my attention to a post by Gavin in which he ponders the way forward for the Tories, but also gives a special mention to left-leaning Nats -

"Finally, I have noticed that some Nationalists argue they want to defeat poverty and bring about social justice in the modern Scotland - but the only way this can be done is in an Independent Scotland. How can this be so? The reason it can be so is that England keeps on imposing alien Conservative regimes on Scotland who are against such left of centre agendas. Indeed, making sure we do not have a Conservative regime enforced on us period, is a key driver for having Independence.

This strikes me as most unhealthy reasoning. There is absolutely no reason why we should not achieve these laudable aims as part of the UK. This reasoning is getting dangerously close to a basic anti-English sentiment which never lies far beneath the surface with some nationalists."

I wouldn't describe Gavin's own logic here as "unhealthy" so much as utterly baffling and in dire need of elucidation. There is "absolutely no reason" for thinking that we can't pursue a left-of-centre agenda as part of UK - except, of course, for the excellent reason Gavin has just given himself, namely that the UK electorate keep on electing right-of-centre governments (of both the Tory and Labour varieties) and that there is absolutely nothing Scots can do to change that within the context of the United Kingdom, due to our having less than a tenth of the population. For Gavin to demonstrate that he understands this reasoning so thoroughly, but then to wildly assert that anyone who adheres to it is "dangerously close" to being anti-English, simply isn't good enough. We need to know why.

Let me try a counter-example here. Suppose there was a serious proposal for the UK to withdraw from the EU, the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights, and instead become the 51st state of the USA. One of the consequences of that would be the instant reintroduction of the death penalty - because even citizens in US states that have abolished capital punishment are still subject to the federal and military death penalties. Now I could easily argue that there is "absolutely no reason" why the UK can't be just as free of the death penalty as part of the US as it currently is as part of the EU. It's simply a matter of "winning the argument" at US-wide level, I could say. And every single person would know that is a fundamentally deceitful claim, because the argument is essentially unwinnable in the US, at least for the foreseeable future. By choosing to join the US, we'd be aligning ourselves to a completely different political culture, one that would render absolutely inevitable the return of judicial murder to these shores.

I trust that, as a good Lib Dem, Gavin would think that in itself was a good enough reason to argue against taking such a step. But would that make him "anti-American"? And if not, why not?

Tavish : the bitterness lives on

I genuinely expected to come away with a more favourable impression of Tavish Scott after reading his candid confessional about the Lib Dems' catastrophic election campaign in Scotland on Sunday, but...I didn't. His legendary irrational bitterness towards the SNP leaks out again and again -

"Money was an enormous problem. Business either backed the SNP or was frightened to back anyone else publicly. The Nationalists' approach of public charm and private threats - the intimation (sic) of anyone who is against them - had paid off."

And how exactly was this supposed "intimidation" so effective when everyone and his granny (including me, if I'm honest) thought Labour were highly likely to win just a matter of weeks before polling day? A party seemingly heading into opposition is hardly in a position to "threaten" anyone.

"The BBC's leaders' debate in Perth went fine. Iain Gray looked like the world was about to fall in and Salmond who, as usual, knew the audience was stacked with Nationalists, was himself."

The audience stacked with nationalists? Nonsense. I vividly recall the Daily Record's authoritative account of that debate, and there can be no doubt that Iain Gray was cheered to the rafters, while Salmond was left a broken man.

And the SNP aren't the only targets for Scott's bitterness. Unsurprisingly, the man who had the temerity to put up a stiff challenge in Fortress Tavish itself comes in for a special mention -

"But what told me how bad it might be was a late March afternoon campaigning in Shetland. Having won 67 per cent of the vote in the 2007 election the only way was backwards. I faced an unpleasant local campaign led by an anti-wind farm campaigner masquerading as an independent, egged on by the local media."

Ah, is that a bit like Jo Swinson masquerading as "Deputy Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats", but magically turning into an English Lib Dem when she votes on tuition fees just to get Tavish off the hook? Oooh, for heaven's sake, Gordon, go and ask her about that.

Two contrasting Lib Dem views on David Steel's resignation

It's encouraging to discover that the Lib Dems remain a very broad church. To prove it, here are two somewhat contrasting views from members of the party on the significance of David Steel's resignation as an adviser to the Scottish government. This from Caron Lindsay -

"David Steel slams Salmond on Supreme Court as he quits government advisory role

Former Liberal leader and Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament David Steel has sensationally quit his role as an independent advisor to the Scottish Government on the Ministerial Code, citing Alex Salmond's and Kenny MacAskill's "appalling" criticisms of the Supreme Court...

David Steel is not what you would call the biggest radical in the party - I mean, he's spoken out against electing the Lords, for goodness sake. If he thinks the First Minister and his cabinet are taking a dangerous approach to Government, then they really must be. Those of us who embrace liberal values will have to be very vigilant in the years to come."

And this from Craig Murray -

"David Steel can F*** Off

The money-grubbing motives of senior British politicians are now understood by most people. David Steel has made spectacular cash from his career – so much he could acquire, luxury renovate and then give away to his younger son a castle, while acquiring a new ultra-luxury home for himself...

“Lord” Steel has now resigned as an adviser to the Scottish government, because he disapproves of the SNP’s criticism of the UK Supreme Court’s overturning of Scottish Law decisions.

Presumably the diminutive little creep will now have more time to count his money and to sit round making unionist guffaws with his mercenary pals."

I do have a view on this topic myself, but I wouldn't want to influence you in any way...

The moment the Labour candidate for Inverclyde was made to look two feet smaller

The Politics Now debate between the four main Inverclyde by-election candidates was considerably more entertaining than expected, albeit mostly for the wrong reasons. At least three of the four candidates had mildly excruciating "I really wish you hadn't asked me that question" moments, and for all that she won the debate hands down, it has to be said that the SNP's Anne McLaughlin was one of them. Yes, it was monumentally pointless for Bernard Ponsonby to persevere with the questions on defence policy when she'd more less put her hands up and admitted she didn't know the answers (Andrew Neil is similarly petty in asking his guests complex economic questions he knows perfectly well they can't answer), but all the same this sort of thing has happened so often that you'd think the SNP high command would by now have got everyone together and made sure they know the detailed proposals for an independent Scotland's defence capabilities off by heart.

The undoubted highlight of the evening (and a rare case of me finding myself cheering on one of Clegg's mob) was 20-year-old Lib Dem candidate Sophie Bridger's hugely satisfying slap-down of Labour's Iain McKenzie. He'd been quite simply refusing to let her complete her answer to his question about why she didn't support mandatory prison sentences for carrying knives (that old favourite), repeatedly interrupting her with the moronic and faintly patronising line "don't take that on the doors of Inverclyde, Sophie". Eventually she paused, fixed him with an icy glare, and asked him : "are you going to lecture me or are you going to let me answer your question?". The effect was extraordinary - McKenzie fell completely silent and instantly looked about two feet smaller.

That masterstroke couldn't, however, disguise the fact that it was otherwise a very patchy performance by Bridger, who herself looked utterly panic-stricken when the Tory candidate David Wilson asked her a question she didn't have a scooby about. Understandably, he decided against letting her off the hook at that point - she'll clearly have to brush up on the indispensable art of the non-answer as a matter of urgency. And when the tables were turned and she had the chance to grill Wilson, her efforts to get him to admit that the Lib Dem contribution had made the coalition government "fairer" were swatted away with ease, as he on four separate occasions gave her precisely the opposite answer to the one she was clearly anticipating!

As if that wasn't enough, Bridger was also skewered by Ponsonby when he asked her what the coalition's biggest mistake had been. Wouldn't he rather hear about all the good things the government had done, she implored? "No" was the rather foreseeable answer to that one. Then the subject turned to Lib Dem MPs voting in favour of higher tuition fees. Now, if you thought Tavish Scott's stock line during the Holyrood election of "for heaven's sake go and ask them about that" had been weak, Bridger surpassed it with ease with her astounding "I...wasn't...an...MP, I...can't...comment". So let's get this straight - we're not allowed to ask the Scottish Lib Dem leader about the way Scottish Lib Dem MPs vote (including his own deputy) and we're not allowed to ask a prospective Scottish Lib Dem MP either. Is there anyone who actually is available to comment? It's starting to remind me of the old joke about Gerry Adams, when he makes a series of detailed demands of the British government, the Irish government and unionist politicians, but when asked if the IRA should disarm he indignantly replies "well, it's not for me to tell the IRA what to do"!

It wasn't just Bridger who had repeated dodgy moments. Iain McKenzie tied himself up in knots when pressed about Iain Davidson's charge that the SNP are "neo-fascists". McKenzie stressed that he wouldn't have used such language himself because he didn't want to drag politics down to "that level", but when asked if it had been gutter politics he replied : "it's not gutter politics, it's Iain's type of politics". OK, so Iain Davidson is not a gutter politician, but he is, it seems, very much at "that level" of politics. Not to worry, Mr McKenzie - I'm sure no-one will have spotted the implication, let alone found it side-splittingly funny.

Anyway, here is how I scored the debate -

Anne McLaughlin (SNP) 8/10
David Wilson (Conservative) 6/10
Sophie Bridger (Liberal Democrat) 5/10
Iain McKenzie (Labour) 4/10

For "eminently sensible" read "weird"

Willie Rennie had a Red Riding Hood moment on Newsnight Scotland tonight as he embarked on the impossible task of defending Michael Moore's plan for a constitutional "neverendum". Sporting the most innocent, wide-eyed facial expression he could muster, he informed us that Moore's wheeze was "eminently sensible" and that quite frankly he couldn't "understand what the fuss is about". Willie, mate, if you seriously can't see what the fuss is about, I can introduce you to approximately five million people who can. Let me put it this way - if an opinion pollster asked the public whether the issue of independence should be decided by one referendum or two, what do you think the answer would be? I think I'm on reasonably safe ground when I suggest that most people would regard the idea of having two referendums not so much as "eminently sensible" as...well, bizarre. And peculiar. And weird. And if it was pointed out to them that there would only be a second referendum if the unionist side lost the first one, the word would then be "anti-democratic".

But if Rennie is still confused about what the problem is, a couple of examples may be of some assistance...

Exhibit A : In the mid-1990s, the Labour party performed an astonishing u-turn by declaring that devolution could only happen if approved by a referendum. Menzies Campbell later spoke publicly about Labour's "betrayal" of his party - so not only did the Lib Dems categorically reject the notion that two referendums were necessary for that major constitutional upheaval, they didn't even think it was appropriate to hold one. But it gets better. One of the major complaints about Labour's referendum plan was that it separated out the taxation powers of the parliament in an additional question - there was a feeling in some quarters that this was a Blairite plot to sabotage the tax powers and thus neuter the parliament. But George Robertson had a cunning plan (billed, hilariously, as a "compromise") to reassure those who made this complaint. He proposed that even if Scots voted Yes to a parliament and Yes to tax powers, there would have to be yet another referendum before the tax powers could actually be used - the theory being that this would make a Yes-Yes vote much more likely first time round. This crackpot idea went down, unsurprisingly, like a lead balloon, and I'll give you three guesses as to which party was at the forefront of those ridiculing it. I vividly recall being in stitches as Andy Myles (then chief executive of the Scottish Lib Dems) turned to the TV cameras to "plead" directly with George Robertson to return to the path of sanity : "Think again, George. Drop this strange plan to hold a referendum with two questions - and then another referendum."

Well said that man. Think again, Michael.

Exhibit B : On Newsnight Scotland tonight, Gordon Brewer helpfully paraphrased the Lib Dems' position in a question to Stewart Maxwell. The SNP should be really happy about this proposal, he said, because after all they wanted a proper mandate for independence, and therefore the more votes that were held on the subject the better. Maxwell struggled to maintain a straight face. Oh absolutely, Gordon, the more the merrier. Perhaps seventeen referendums producing a Yes vote to independence won't quite settle the matter - how about holding another twenty-three? That sounds "eminently sensible" to me.

*

In their posts yesterday on the unionist "neverendum" plan, both Gerry Hassan and Lallands Peat Worrier made unflattering reference to Vernon Bogdanor, who in spite of being openly hostile to Scottish independence would have us believe that his personal view that two referendums are required (for which there is no international precedent whatsoever) is somehow an objective, indisputable fact drawn solely from his constitutional "expertise" (or perhaps from a tablet of stone passed down to him from the Almighty). What I find most curious about this is that you'd have thought the very first thing someone like Bogdanor would be pointing out is that referendums themselves are totally alien to the British constitutional tradition - there were none at all until the 1970s. There certainly wasn't one when Ireland was granted its de facto independence in 1922, for instance - the principle that applied there was that the sovereign parliament made the decision, and any suggestion that parliament had no business acting without a particular kind of 'permission' ought to leave a Westminster constitutional traditionalist like Bogdanor feeling distinctly nauseous. So this whole idea that a legally-binding, Westminster-conducted referendum is a "requirement" can be safely dismissed as the obstructionist red herring that it is. In the British system, a referendum is only ever held if parliament decides that it should be, and a referendum outcome is only binding if parliament passes a law specifically saying it will be - in other words, every referendum is an optional extra, regardless of whether it is "consultative" or "binding". By definition, therefore, if a second vote is held in this case it will be for nakedly political - rather than constitutional - reasons.

Unveiling the UK government's 'neverendum' on maintaining the union

One of the constant refrains of unionist politicians is that SNP rule will lead to a 'neverendum' - a carbon-copy of the Quebec experience whereby the 'separatists' (cue demonic music) keep losing independence referendums, but then keep calling a new one until they get the result they want. In truth, the jibe is well wide of the mark even in relation to Quebec, where so far there have only been two independence referendums, fifteen years apart, with the most recent one a full sixteen years ago. Indeed, the second one only came round so 'quickly' because of the total collapse of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords on constitutional reform (which, incidentally, ought to be a warning from history to unionists who think the way to see off independence is by being as intransigent as humanly possible). Even now, the Parti Québécois seem to have no plans for a third referendum if they win the next election. So the Quebec experience actually lends considerable weight to Alex Salmond's reassurance that a No vote in a Scottish independence referendum would resolve the issue for "a generation" - and at the very least that any attempt to call another referendum sooner than that would require a clear, fresh mandate at a Holyrood election.

But can unionists - and more specifically the UK government - say the same about a Yes vote? If we are to take Michael Moore's latest pronouncement seriously, it appears not. They seem to think that a No vote should kill the matter for all-time, but if there's a Yes vote, not to worry - we'll just hold a second referendum with a much more complicated question a couple of years later to see if we can get a result that is more to our taste.

I'd suggest they're playing a very dangerous game here. The whole reason that unionists have invoked the spectre of the 'neverendum' over the years is that they know full well that the public think there is no case for a quick second referendum on the same subject - that No should mean No, but by the same token Yes should mean Yes. And since the public are sensibly inclined to think that one side of the argument should not be given a second bite of the cherry if they lose the vote, the following question may well start to be posed of the UK government - if you really think that a consultative referendum wouldn't provide a sufficient mandate for independence and that there needs to be a referendum on the details of an independence settlement, shouldn't the latter vote be the sole referendum? In other words, isn't the logic of your own position that you should enter into full independence negotiations now with the Scottish government, and that there should only be a referendum once the settlement has been thrashed out?

The other danger of the game Moore is playing is that, if he gets his way, it may well make a defeat for the unionist side in the "first" referendum much more likely. After all, we know that many people not yet convinced by the case for independence were quite happy to back the SNP on May 5th, because the double-lock of the referendum pledge meant that it was safe to do so. Bizarrely, Moore seems to be hellbent on also making it 'safe' for these people to vote Yes to opening negotiations on independence - because the message will be going out loud and clear that such a vote won't finally settle matters. They can suck it and see, which may not be such an unattractive proposition after a few more years of Tory rule.

It was suggested on Newsnight Scotland that Moore's intervention may be just one part of a new strategy of 'muscular unionism', which also involves ripping up the 'respect agenda' (will this be the sixth time?) by refusing point blank to budge an inch on extra powers for the Scottish Parliament. Since Moore's party are supposed to favour many of the powers that are being requested, it seems this 'muscularity' is largely being used to punch the lights out of the Liberal Democrats' own beliefs.

I heard it said forcefully at the Political Innovation conference in November that it was quite wrong to call the Lib Dems a 'unionist' party - they are, in fact, 'federalist'. Did Muscle Man Moore get that memo? As a Lib Dem contributor to a later package on Newsnight hinted, perhaps the party's Scottish prospects would be a little brighter if they remembered that they are actually a Home Rule party by tradition. That means breaking out of the self-destructive, almost unthinking impulse to forever lump themselves in with the Tories and Labour as just one more part of the unionist mush, in opposition to the nationalist 'other'. Here's my advice to Michael - take a step back, stop talking to Tories for a little while and start talking to your own grass roots, and then consider whether the time isn't in fact ripe for some Muscular Federalism.

Andrew Reeves

Just a quick note to say how shocked and sad I was to discover via Caron's blog that Andrew Reeves has died.  In fact, I had to do a double-take when I saw the name, because I couldn't quite take in that it was the same Andrew Reeves I was thinking of - I knew that he was only in his early forties. 

I must admit I know absolutely nothing about Andrew's real-life political work for the Liberal Democrats other than his job title, but I discovered his blog about eighteen months ago after he left a comment here, and I've been a regular reader ever since.  He was undoubtedly one of the leading lights of both the Scottish and Lib Dem blogospheres, and he'll be greatly missed.