Would the First Minister please grow-up?

The purpose of First Minister's Questions is to allow the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the policy decisions and implementation of the Scottish Government. This is vital in representative democracy. Governments, even those with the support of the majority of members of Parliament or even, dare I say it, the majority of the electorate, still are not perfect, and their judgment and their competence has to be kept under constant scrutiny. That is why a Parliament exists at all, rather than that we just let the government pass legislation uninhibited for a five-year term.

Just because you've won one, or two, or three elections, does not mean that you can or should just do whatever you like. Nor does it mean that everyone who voted for you agrees with everything, or even most, of what your platform for government entailed. Of course you are entitled to attempt to implement as much of that as possible, but popular support is not, in and of itself, a justification for making any policy decision whatsoever. Being popular does not mean that your judgment is good, or that your ideas are good, or that the way you put them into practice is good. And it is no defence to the accusation that your record or decisions are bad to say "but your decisions are worse".

To this end, the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has continued into this Parliament one of the most nauseating and childish tendencies of Scottish politics. Whenever she was questioned about her record in the last Parliament, her response was often to boast "we won the election" or "your party is a mess as we beat you". As several commentators observed in the election itself, she said she was happy to be judged on her record in government precisely because she knew that those planning to vote for her mostly would do so regardless or in spite of it.

"My manifesto" is not an answer

Today in Parliament, Patrick Harvie drew attention to a report on poverty, the findings of which the First Minister had agreed to implement. It stated, in relation to local taxation, that the council tax was "no longer fit for purpose" and was hugely regressive. This was a position the SNP had actually held for some time, and in the past Nicola Sturgeon herself had said that the council tax should be replaced with something fairer. However, the SNP government, after 9 years in charge, chose only marginally to tinker with council tax, making it slightly less unfair instead of replacing it outright.

He asked her why she wouldn't take the opportunity to be bolder, in light of that report, and abolish council tax in favour of a more radical alternative. This was Nicola Sturgeon's response:

"We put forward our plans, plans that I believe were bold. Patrick Harvie put forward his plans, and the electorate cast their votes. I'm standing here as First Minister with a mandate to take forward the proposals that we were elected on."

This is not an answer to Patrick Harvie's question. She provided no substantive argument as to why a more radical alternative would be a worse policy. There is no point in First Ministers Questions if the response we are going to get to substantive criticisms of her government's platform is "I was elected to implement my government's platform and we won." Just because you have an electoral mandate to do something, doesn't mean you should do it. Bad ideas are bad ideas regardless of how many people support them. The mantra of Keynes that when the facts change so should your mind is important.

Governments are supposed to be responsive to evidence and criticism and to explain why they are doing what they are doing and just as importantly why they are not doing what they are not doing. No one is questioning Nicola Sturgeon's authority simply to tinker with council tax. Harvie was questioning why that's what she wants to do. Just because she won the election doesn't mean that Parliament, and the people, are not entitled to an answer to that question. And she has, or at least gave, no answer.

"Your point is invalid because I have more votes than you"

Similarly, Willie Rennie asked the First Minister about a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between Nicola Sturgeon and two Chinese companies for £10 billion of unspecified infrastructure projects in Scotland. Those companies were SinoFortone group and the China Railway No 3 Engineering Group. The parent company of the latter has been implicated in corruption charges and human rights abuses in various projects, including a number in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Rennie sought assurances that no government contracts would be awarded to this company, which has been heavily criticised by other countries, and was in fact blacklisted by the Norwegian state oil fund. He also drew attention to Amnesty International's criticisms of the company and the reasons they gave why economic cooperation with CRG was bad for human rights.

Sturgeon's response?

"Hold the front page. First Minister of Scotland seeks to explore opportunities for investment and jobs into Scotland. SHOCK HORROR. That is part of the job of First Minister of this country and the fact that Willie Rennie doesn't recognise that is a core responsibility of the First Minister is probably part of the reason why he will never stand here as First Minister of this country."

The only people impressed with a response like that must be those that unthinkingly clap their seal-like flippers for hands to absolutely anything she says. Literally no one that criticises a trade deal on the grounds of its human rights implications doesn't think it's the responsibility of a government to attract inward investment. What the question asked was about was the kind of compromises the First Minister was prepared to make in order to procure that investment, or the lack of due diligence undertaken before signing the Memorandum of Understanding. Instead, we get a response that basically amounts to "I got more votes than you so you can't criticise me ne-ne-ne ne-ne-ne". It's risible.

Just not good enough

This represents a hubristic tendency in the SNP leadership that basically thinks it does not need to accept or respond to the substance of criticism because 41.7% of the electorate voted for them.

One could just about understand the logic of "I hear what you're saying but I don't care, we have a mandate and we will implement it anyway" when the SNP held a majority of the seats at Holyrood. It's a crap argument, but at least in a technical sense, they could do what they liked under the terms of our representative democracy. It is easy to forget that if you're playing the top-trumps "the people agree" card, more than 50% of those who voted did not support an SNP candidate. The people do not completely and unconditionally agree with them.

But especially now that they have lost their majority, the SNP do not have a mandate to implement all of their proposals. They have a mandate to try, but a minority government has not just a functional, but a moral imperative to listen to criticism on the substance of what they are doing and why they are doing it, and not simply to waive away criticism with "we won you lost".

The Scottish Parliament was supposed to herald a new politics. A break from the yah-booh childishness of Westminster. Yet our First Minister approaches her responsibility to account for her policies and decisions in Parliament with the mentality of a four-year-old child in the playground. For the sake of Scotland, it's time she grew up and dealt with criticisms of her government maturely instead of adopting an unwarranted indignance at the audacity of opposition parties to criticise decisions taken under her watch.

Conference is about Democracy - let Yes Scotland in

The Liberal Democrat tradition is a proud one when it comes to democracy. We don't just value it as a system in the wider political arena, whether in response to Scotland's democratic deficit in the 1980s and 90s, or to reform of the Westminster institutions and electoral systems. We do genuine internal party democracy too. Just look back at our week in Brighton, where journalists and commentators alike continue to be perplexed by just how intensely relaxed our leadership are about us openly discussing things from assisted death, to the government's troubled civil liberties agenda and even the economy. We are a party who believe that disagreement, debate and deliberation creates a more open politics generally produces better outcomes.

Herald article (online, retrieved 3rd October 2012)

That's why it annoyed and saddened me to see an article in yesterday's Herald online edition (and presumably the main paper too) reporting a story that the Scottish Lib Dems had rejected an application from Yes Scotland to have a stall at our conference, on the same commercial terms as other organisations who frequently pitch up at Dunfermline once a year. The public statement from the Lib Dems was to the effect that as a party we don't support independence, and the article in question had overtures that we had suggested insufficient spaces were available to accommodate them.

At the basic level, I doubt there was ever a serious issue with capacity. Having been at the Vine Centre for last year's Autumn conference, I see no reason why a solitary additional stall could not be worked into a floor plan. The reason, therefore, seems to be a question of political messaging.

I can understand a political party wanting to be able to push its own policy platform. We have the Home Rule Commission reporting to Scottish conference, and Scottish Lib Dem HQ will no doubt be keen to push that, firstly as an alternative to independence, but secondly to differentiate us from those on the No side who have little to offer Scotland other than more of the status quo. But rejecting Yes Scotland's approach to be involved in our internal debate (and their money!) strikes me as evasive towards the democratic principle and not a particularly liberal way of engaging with the debate either.

Even if this perception that Yes Scotland was trying to trip us up were true, they are more likely to get favourable press attention complaining of a shut-out just outside the Vine Centre with a handful of activists than they are with a pretty mundane stall at a party conference where, if I'm honest, most attendees will be voting No no matter what. In truth if the Yes Scotland campaign wanted to distract the press from the Home Rule Commission, not giving them a formal platform inside the centre, with clear rules and terms of use to abide by, actually creates the media story in the first place. The negative implications of Yes Scotland pulling off a stunt having been given the opportunity to turn up at Conference would fall squarely on them, as they could not accuse us of shutting them out from debate. The media attention such a stunt would attract would lead to more cameras on Willie Rennie, and more opportunity to publicise the Home Rule Commission and show him and the party to be the standard bearers of a popular middle-ground.

If we wanted to give the Home Rule Commission a bit of space to get its own media attention, we could have said to Yes Scotland that we'd be happy to accommodate them at our Spring Conference instead, perhaps even involving them in a fringe event on whether independence was better or worse than home rule or a federal settlement. We could have shown ourselves to be an open and inclusive party not afraid to fight our case, but equally not combative for the sake of it.

That is why I signed a letter to the Herald newspaper urging the Scottish Liberal Democrats to reverse this decision. This was not about trying to undermine the party or the leadership, but about asserting our liberal values of speaking up when we feel people are being shut out of the democratic process of debate and deliberation. Not all of us who signed the letter are even in favour of Scottish independence, and among those of us who are, some are a lot more reluctantly in favour than others. Some of us are in favour of the Westminster coalition, and others are against. This is principally about changing a mindset within the Scottish Party that everything coming from the Yes Campaign or the SNP is a trap. It's harmful towards attempts to develop our own distinctive policies and actually it's harmful for getting those ideas out into the public domain.

We are not rebels. We are not grumbling for the sake of it. We want strong liberal and democratic voices in Scotland. We don't think the other parties are capable of offering it. We don't want the Lib Dems to go the same way.

No is not enough; why the Scottish Lib Dems must embrace the Independence referendum

This post is a reproduction of my Op-Ed on Lib Dem Voice.

Alex Salmond’s SNP have a political mandate to hold a referendum on Scottish Independence. With an unprecedented majority in the Scottish Parliament and a manifesto pledge, the question is not if we have to confront this issue, but how.

Leaving aside arguments about the Scottish Parliament’s legal authority to legislate on an independence referendum (this can be resolved amicably through Westminster legislation) the Scottish Liberal Democrats must engage with the merits, not just of independence, but also “devo-max”.

Although Liberal Democrats generally support the Union, not all members are so-minded. Some (myself included) are ambivalent or notionally support Scottish independence, on distinctly liberal rather than “nationalist” grounds. Much of the SNP’s success resulted from attracting our former voters. Many in that party share our liberal instincts. On several issues we should be natural allies: wrestling power away from a London-centric Westminster; seeking reform of the EU’s CFP; and reforming social policy.

Alas the relationship has been fractious and dysfunctional. The tipping point was the last Parliament. Scottish Lib Dems inadequately co-operated with Salmond’s minority administration, in general and specifically on the Referendum Bill.

As democrats, we should have supported that referendum. As liberals we should have grasped that opportunity to articulate a federalist-inspired alternative. Call it “devo max”, “independence lite”; whatever you like. What mattered was it had to give the Scottish Parliament real power, not simply allocate resources from a Westminster hand-out.

The Steel Commission (2006) recognised this. Seeking full devolution of most taxes and the Crown Estate, it offered a real framework from which to articulate our vision for Home Rule. Parliaments responsible for raising every penny they spend have greater power, but greater accountability too.

Instead, we shunned the SNP’s “National Conversation” and referendum, turning to Scotland’s conservative forces: Labour and the Tories. The result? The Calman Commission, itself a damp squib, further diluted by the Scotland Bill. It marginally changes a tax-varying power Scotland has never sought to use and gave the Parliament modest borrowing powers. It ignored corporation tax, alcohol, tobacco and fuel duty and failed to overhaul the arbitrary and universally resented Barnett spending formula. We squandered a chance to shape Scotland’s future in our federal image. The electorate punished our cautious incrementalism. Our disastrous performance in 2011 wasn’t just a Coalition backlash; our unremitting negativity towards a relatively liberal and pragmatic SNP administration compounded it.

We must not throw-away this opportunity again. Our entire conduct towards the referendum has been in lockstep with the so-called “Unionist Bloc”.

Firstly, we’ve had this argument about the “economic uncertainty” businesses feel about the future constitutional set-up. Sure, CBI Scotland sought clarity on some issues, but most of this information is already in the public domain. In a globally integrated economy the notion that this causes mass uncertainty for Scottish business is unfounded.

Boyd Tunnock, prominent confectionery tycoon, wanted clarity on the currency and whether Anglo-Scot trade barriers would exist. These questions have been answered several times! The SNP would keep Sterling (we would be joint-stakeholders of the BOE) in the interim before putting any change (Euro or otherwise) to the people in a referendum. Further, Scotland wouldn’t have trade tariffs with England provided it was an EU/EFTA member, the first being almost certain. Absolutely there are questions that remain to be answered, for example how to separate assets and the national debt and structural EU issues, but they don’t give cause for scaremongering.

These are, anyhow, issues of process not principle. The raison-d’être of self-determination is being able to choose our currency and which international treaties to sign. Certainly the SNP should clarify their preferred and likely transitional arrangements, but advocating independence isn’t a perpetual manifesto of specifics. Trust the Scottish people to make these choices as and when the time comes.

Secondly, sending mixed-signals about the “devo-max” question, harms only us. Willie Rennie has made some positive signals but we need more. By challenging its place on the ballot we again throw away the chance to engage with the SNP and define the woolly term as our own vision. We could argue for: devolving taxes instead of tax rates; devolving powers to deal with Scotland’s drug problem; and devolving localised work visas to attract more people to Scotland and relieve pressure on the densely populated English South-East. We could seek guaranteed Holyrood representation on UK international delegations, particularly CFP negotiations, so Scotland’s fishermen’s concerns are voiced by the politicians closer to them.

That list isn’t exhaustive. More importantly, devo-max presents a chance to re-establish ourselves as an independent liberal-minded voice on the constitutional debate and in Scottish politics. Laying claim to the consensus option distinguishes us from Labour and the Tories, articulating a vision distinct from independence without attacking it for its own sake. If we do this we should achieve more working with the SNP administration. Moreover, we might just find the Scottish people willing to listen and engage with our ideas again.

Home Rule and Booze - Just a normal Scottish Lib Dem Conference!

A speech or a suicide note... you decide

The day started at about 7am. After a raucous and alcohol assisted Parliamentary Debate at the GUU, and just three and a half hours sleep, I hauled myself out of bed in time to catch my lift to the Scottish Lib Dem Conference in Dunfermline. My total lack of organisation meant I had to get registration for Conference sorted out, including having a mugshot taken for my voting card that reflected quite accurately my lack of sleep. A brief bacon sandwich properly restored semi-consciousness and it was straight into the hall to begin proceedings.

Shortly before the first debate, I decided to submit a speaker slip on the off-chance I would get selected. I'd written a broadly supportive speech on the first motion (affirming the work to be done by the Home Rule Community Rule Commission) on the back of a Scottish Women Lib Dems leaflet (don't tell them!) in the canteen shortly before. I have to confess to being a little nervous, but what I had to say seemed to be well received, even if I did deviate a little from my script in the middle! I've enclosed what I intended to say, but it's not quite verbatim:

"Conference. This is my first speech at a Lib Dem Party Conference so I'll do my best not to disappoint! Our party is often perceived as constitutionally eccentric. Whilst our views on particulars are invariably well founded, be it on electoral systems or the dispersal of power to different levels of government, there is an increasing problem with showing people why it matters. The success of the SNP in the last 4 years has been predicated on an over-arching message to the electorate in Scotland, however misguided, that they are fighting their corner. In the mean time, we've lost our own liberal narrative for Scotland and have come to be seen as "tinkerers" and strained defendants of an extension of the status quo.

This Commission is the first significantly positive step we've taken in recent years to rectify this situation. Pulling down more powers, be it from Westminster or from Holyrood, means that people should have more control over the things that matter to them. It is more transparent, accountable and democratic when a body is responsible for raising what it spends as the custodians of local services.

I don't think the Commission is perfect, and we need to show that it's part of a wider federal approach, be that encouraging further devolution of power to other regions of the UK or indeed forming a proposal for an English Parliament. That is not to say that we should dictate to our neighbours how to run their affairs (perish the thought!). However we need to recognise that it is the asymmetry of the current system and the ad hoc approach we have taken to it, which has harmed the stability and credibility of the constitutional settlement. We need instead to incorporate this into a truly federal structure under a codified constitution. If we dwell on Calman for too long we risk accepting something with which, when it comes down to it, we consider insufficient.

I worry that this Commission will serve to delay what many of us already want to advocate: the Steel Commission with a lick of paint. In the interim, we must continue to push the political case beyond Calman and avoid finding ourselves on the small 'c' conservative side of this debate. Let's make sure that the people of Scotland see us for the real localists and federalists we are and not the Damascan converts to be found among other parties. With all this in mind I urge you to support this proposal."

There were a handful of other motions throughout the day, dealing with fuel poverty in rented accommodation, affirming support for the Human Rights Act and ethical trade, none of which threw up anything especially controversial. Tim Farron addressed the Conference with a clear message of empathy for our difficult predicament, but with a morale-boosting, positive message for Scotland's role in furthering liberal values across the UK. Michael Moore delivered a speech in which he emphasised Calman as a "stepping stone to Home Rule". I have criticised us overplaying the substance of the Calman Commission in the past and was never especially comfortable with rhetoric of Scotland's "settled will" or Moore's public incongruent approach to SNP demands for more powers. His message was, however, much more promising and I hope he and other Lib Dems at Westminster make it clear that Calman is not our end-game.

Willie Rennie's first conference speech as party leader was a rousing one. Opening with the story of the family of a young girl who needed alterations made to their home to deal with her medical condition, and the cumbersome response of the local authorities when a little flexibility was all they craved. Going on to expose the illiberal and centralising deceit of the SNP with respect to the police and other issues, and confronting the Catholic church about the issue of equal marriage, I really felt as though we have the makings of a persuasive alternative vision to put to Scotland in the absence of just about anything from Labour or the Tories. I was left feeling much more optimistic about our prospects going forward.

I do, however, have one regret about this year's Conference, and it pertains to the passing of the motion put forward in relation to adopting a minimum price per unit for alcohol. The party has, in the past, felt a degree of inertia towards what is an illiberal and ineffectual response to the problem of excessive alcohol consumption in our society. It disappointed me in particular, that Willie appears to be a strong advocate of this policy as well. He spoke with great passion about sending a clear message that we're serious about solving this problem. Other speakers expressed with considerable strength of conviction that the external harm alcohol causes and the correlation with cheap booze justified this intervention.

Lamentably I think this majority miss the point. Certainly many who consume large amounts of alcohol consume cheap, strong beverages in high volumes. But we have to ask ourselves what is it that motivates dangerous levels of consumption.

My contention is that a minimum price simply serves to make the poor pay more for alcohol, does not change attitudes, and only benefits supermarkets who currently sell alcohol more cheaply. High consumption of alcohol happens not because drink is cheap and readily available, but because of cultural attitudes towards drink ("binge" drinking) and because of alcoholism. The predetermined motivation is driven by reaching a certain level of intoxication and not a question of "how many units of alcohol can I acquire for £x". The desire for alcohol in large amounts is not simply a rational economic calculation; indeed if anything such considerations are overridden by social and psychological factors.

The reason that excessive alcohol consumption is linked to cheap booze is because it is after the above premise that the market operates. The cheapest and strongest booze is preferred because it's the cheapest available. This would still be true with a minimum price. The idea that increasing the price makes someone decide just to buy enough alcohol to become tipsy instead of legless has no real basis. People will still buy approximately the same amount of alcohol. The difference is they'll cut back on other things and spend more in doing so.

If you want to mitigate the impact of alcohol, there are two responses. The first is the amendment which was rejected. It was better than the motion, advocating use of higher duty levels to cover the cost to society of excess drink. This at least puts money into rehabilitation schemes instead of helping Tesco's shareholders.

But the second option is, for me, the truly liberal option. To tackle our drink problems we need not resort to what David Laws called "nanny state liberalism" in the Orange Book, but instead examine what it is about our society that makes drink so culturally attractive and by extension what makes our society susceptible to alcoholism. Why is it that alcohol is no less available or especially more expensive on the continent, yet the attitudes and behaviours in relation to it are not nearly so severe?

The liberal response is to better inform people of the risks, to enforce existing laws about serving minors and intoxicated persons more rigorously, and for local authorities to use more discretion as a licensing authority. Targeting the proceeds of alcohol duty to treatment and prevention is not incompatible with this approach, but arbitrary price pointers are. I am almost certain that this proposal shall not make any meaningful dent in alcohol consumption and health risks. It's a large mallet that cannot even crack the nut and I hope Conference finds an actual nutcracker by the next time we come to debate it.

Overall, Conference for this relatively new member was a principled, resilient and a friendly environment. I guess our task is to spread that goodwill across the rest of the country.

Nick Clegg's visit to Glasgow - Scottish Lib Dems as a newcomer

"Shame on you! You have mellowed.
Coalition's turning yellow!"
Er, aye right.

It got a lot more attention than it might have done. The media storm in a teacup over an incident involving some blue paint and a relapsed Lib Dem party member and a couple of politicians meant that this meeting of Liberal Democrats got noticed unlike the many others in recent days. Thankfully Nick Clegg and Willie Rennie took this infantile assault in relatively good spirit. I particularly liked Willie's response that he always wanted a blue streak in his hair but his mother wouldn't let him!

Having arrived in Woodside Hall about half an hour before the incident, I and many others were completely oblivious to what had happened until Clegg and Rennie arrived hastily if a couple of minutes late, to get the meeting under-way and explained their tardiness in good humour.

Having joined the Liberal Democrats in April or so, I've not really got myself involved that much in local campaigning or politics, and I didn't really know what to expect from this kind of meeting. I knew a couple of faces from other places, but the first thing I was struck by was the predominant sea of grey among the local party activists, with the occasional honourable exception. I don't know whether this is a sign of youth disaffection with the Lib Dems in particular or a general trend where parties are seen as less relevant to younger generations, but it was surprising nonetheless. The second thing that struck me was the despondent mood. This is a party that's lost the fire in its belly in Scotland. We run the risk of pointing the finger at each other for who's to blame for us getting tied up on the railway line while ignoring the oncoming train.

Nick set the ball rolling with a bit of narrative on how he felt we got to where we are just now, how he felt we got a lot of the big calls right in the first year or so of government, and with an attempt to paint a positive picture of our impact in government and why a comprehensive and full-term coalition was called for in the circumstances. It was perhaps a little sycophantic at the time, but in hindsight I can see it was a pre-emptive strike at what was about to thoroughly dominate the meeting. In the first block of questions, he's immediately asked, in not so many words, how to we prevent electoral oblivion next May in the Council Elections.

This was a common theme throughout. Clegg tried to appeal to memories of the past, when you could fit all the Liberal MPs in a London taxi. He built this narrative of the appeal of populism in times of strife, and how the politics of fear will always temporarily hammer our soft vote. He spoke at length about the need to portray the uniqueness of the liberal narrative instead of simply defining ourselves against the status quo conservative and state-reordering socialist traditions of right and left.

On a UK level, this made perfect sense. We've managed to protect the liberal traditions espoused in the European Convention on Human Rights, are implementing considerable slices of bread and butter constitutional reform, have made sure that changes to the NHS and the welfare system are done more thoughtfully and with end-users at the forefront and eventually these things will pay dividends. Maybe not to those who left us in the last 12 months, but certainly to the wider electorate when the economy settles. Even the tuition fees debacle should become less of an electoral hindrance when people see it in action. It's then that people will begin to realise that what we've been saying all along (that the new system is much fairer) is true. That the Tory right have been bleating on today about how the nasty Lib Dems are... wait for it... influencing policy in government (shock!) shows that it's not all a one-way street as some in the media portray. Clegg was strongest when he spoke of his anger at the way he's been vilified by the media, and if ever there were any doubts as to his profound belief in liberal values, the foremost being the sanctity of the individual and the protection of freedom, he definitely laid those to rest.

But what worries me is that Clegg really didn't seem to grasp the Scottish dimension in all of this. Across the UK we've maybe lost half the support we once had. But in Scotland we lost 2/3 of our seats in Parliament and almost 3/4 of our share in the popular vote in the Scottish Parliamentary Elections in May. We started losing deposits in a national election in places where we used to be fighting for constituency and list seats! And the common denominator in that is the SNP. They were like a footnote to his political strategy. That's not going to work in Scotland.

It's something much more fundamental up here. We've lost our liberal narrative. And this isn't something recent; it's something that's been happening over the last 3-4 years. The type of populism the SNP use to further their agenda is held together by the linchpin of their constitutional vision. Even if people don't buy into independence, they buy into the idea of the SNP fighting Scotland's corner. Our road to electoral recovery in Scotland isn't just about deficit reduction plans and civil liberties (important as they are). We need a linchipin: an end-game to fight for that shows the Scottish people we have their interests at heart.

One of the things Willie Rennie said was that he didn't believe the SNP won the election on the basis of their constitutional argument. In the strictest sense he's right. But in a Scotland where the political party policies on other matters are relative tweaks of one another for the most part the constitutional disagreements provide the framework onto which to paint a story, vision or narrative for the country's political direction. Whatever you may think of the substance or motive behind the SNP vision, it's mostly a positive one. Where has the radical edge of the liberal case for Home Rule, social reform and consensual political society gone?

We've thrown all our eggs into the Calman Commission, what one might call a "miserable little compromise" that leaves us politically indistinguishable on the constitutionals from Labour and the Tories and dull and gradualist to the sizeable portion of SNP support who disagree with independence. If the federal party cannot change tack in government then the Scottish party should anyway. It's time we made the positive case for full-fiscal autonomy. In our own way we need to show the Scottish people that Scotland can go it alone, but that it doesn't need to. Ask for control of illicit substances to be devolved to Scotland, so that we can find a less top-down approach to solving Glasgow's heroin problem. Ask for corporation tax and Crown Estate revenue to come under the control of the Scottish administration.

Articulate the localist narrative of our policies on policing, funding of public services and economic regeneration, but place it in a context of a consensual, open and free political society. Stress the need for us to break down political barriers and not just on this island. Embrace the global society and the global economy as a triumph for liberalism, free trade and the decline of tyranny. Lead the calls for a more region-sensitive immigration policy. Devolve and develop a regionally operated work permit scheme. Make it clear that even if immigration is a problem in England (it isn't) the doors of Scotland are firmly open for business.

These aren't even radical policy shifts. But they represent an emphasis that shows the Lib Dems have a vision for Scotland. We need to tie up the loose ends and mixed messages, stop worrying about what's happening at Westminster and articulate to what it is that we as a group of liberal individuals have to offer Scottish civil society. Love him or loathe him, we are not Nick Clegg. We are fighting a different battle on different territory in a different discourse. We need to stop grasping for excuses and people to blame because if we do it, everyone else will too. We need to become the consensus builders in Scotland but paradoxically that means breaking with a lot of voices whose vision doesn't extend beyond the status quo.

To come back fighting in Scotland, we have to embrace the good things in the SNP message (and there are a lot of good, liberal things in there) but articulate them through the prism of our transnational liberal narrative instead of focusing on just trashing the rest of it. We need to show people that devolution isn't just an idea for Scotland, but an idea for Glasgow, for Inverness, for Dumfries and Aberdeen. It's not about antiquated notions of identity politics, whether attachment to one national identity or another. It's about making representative democracy more direct: allowing local people to influence the things that matter most to them.

Our values are universal ones, but devolution is how we make them matter.