I’m quite enthusiastic about taking the arguments to Scottish voters but even I have to admit that after 3 years I might feel a bit of campaign fatigue. No doubt the average Scottish voter, possessing less in the way of political motivation, will tire even more quickly – especially if the campaigning amounts to little more than three years of intolerant namecalling, scaremongering and shallow debate.

Of course, while it will take some time for the campaigning groups to establish themselves, there can be little doubt on both sides that the campaign itself starts now. Already, Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie and former leader Tavish Scott have fired opening salvos: Rennie promised to “fight to protect Scotland’s future as part of the UK family” while Scott used twitter to predict “two and a half years of fighting over Scotland’s future”.

None of this is helpful. Fighting talk like this simply plays into the SNP’s hands. We don’t need a fight, but reasonable argument and to be a party that can both inspire and empower Scottish voters to make their voice heard. With this in mind, I’ve drawn up a list of what I’d like to see the Lib Dems do in coming months – while this is understandably an issue that arouses strong emotions, we must realise that responding to the SNP bait is counter-productive and often damaging.

The first thing I want to see is the Scottish Liberal Democrats getting a bit excited about this referendum campaign, and to be obviously so. After all, we’ve been asking for it (at least since the SNP’s Holyrood majority made it an inevitability). So we should embrace the opportunity to communicate our own vision for Scotland’s future – a liberal vision that gives increased freedom to the Scottish parliament and Scottish people.

The second thing I want is for the party not to forget its federalist principles. We are, constitutionally at least, a federal party. Admittedly we’ve not done a lot in recent years to further a federalist agenda or to achieve further devolution (and we had our chances when in government with Labour, not least with the Steel Commission which should form the basis of current Lib Dem thinking) but here’s a great opportunity to rectify that. We should ensure that we use every occasion possible to reiterate our distinctiveness from the Tories and Labour, neither of which have much of a vision for extending Holyrood’s powers. Instead of repeatedly the same tired, predictable arguments about why independence would be so bad for Scotland we should be trying to sell a positive, liberal, forward-looking vision for tomorrow’s Scotland – the kind that Scots might actually want to live in.

Which brings me to the third point – we need to be positive. Obvious one, isn’t it? Voters are not turned on by negative diatribe and relentless personal attacks. The same goes for our attitudes towards Scotland. We need to avoid pursuing the tactics of fear or focusing our energies on everything that we perceive as “bad” about independence.

Fourthly, we should be careful not to align ourselves too closely with what is politically toxic. I know that several commenters will now wish to draw my attention to the make-up of the Westminster coalition. Yes, I know. And if that experience has told us anything it’s that there are electoral implications for such alliances. We should also learn from the experience of the “No” campaign in 1997 – it was always likely to find the going tough, but being led by figures such as Michael Forsyth made it toxic in the eyes of most voters – including some Tory ones. If the Lib Dems are to ally themselves with the “No” campaign, which would be fraught with dangers in itself, then they must be aware that being identified with senior figureheads from the Conservative Party and elsewhere could have significant electoral consequences, whatever the outcome of the referendum.

Fifthly, let’s cut out the fighting talk. The kind of intervention from Willie Rennie and Tavish Scott was unhelpful. We don’t need a fight, but a liberal party championing good liberal principles. And the status quo isn’t a particularly liberal arrangement. Admittedly, if the referendum is only a single Yes/No question, then this will pose certain problems for us – we’re likely to be tempted towards encouraging people to vote for one of what Nick Clegg has already termed “extremes”. We can view this referendum as about defending the Union (as Rennie appears to) or how best to take Scotland forward. But however we see it, we’re going to achieve very little if we allow ourselves to be drawn into a “fight” with the SNP. We need to avoid all confrontational approaches if possible; not only do they not work given the SNP’s almost expert adversarial performances, they are a poor weapon and usually only serve to make us look petty and tribal. On the other hand, when we are sensible, dignified, sober and calm in dealing with our political opponents, the SNP can be made to appear shallow and more than a little condescending. No doubt the SNP will seek to draw us into the bear pit knowing that if they can they’ll invariably win, but the temptation must be resisted. This includes set pieces with Salmond in FMQs, in which we generally tend not to fare so well.

We have to remember that this referendum is about many things, but not the SNP. It has huge implications for the future of that party that Alex Salmond is only too aware of but ultimately it is about independence – and it is our role to be asking vital questions about the nature of an independent Scotland. And so my sixth recommendation is to choose our battles very carefully and, where possible, avoid addressing nationalism – instead concentrating our energies on the detail of what is being proposed, providing evidence-based concern to what will become a more complex political discussion. Ultimately the Lib Dems will be judged by their role in the referendum campaign, but also in how well they deal with more pertinent and pressing issues – not least on the economy and employment opportunities.

Seventhly, we must recognise that our principal challenge isn’t with the SNP. It’s with ourselves. We have to use this opportunity to recreate a distinct identity for Scottish Liberal Democracy. The SNP will have their own problems to deal with as the referendum date approaches: if it succeeds in achieving independence it will cease to be necessary; if it fails, the cause of independence will have been set back, perhaps irrevocably. Certainly if it is the former, this will present potential opportunity for the Liberal Democrats. However, in the immediate future our energies should be directed towards the kind of liberal renaissance the party so desperately needs and in ensuring that the Lib Dems can re-emerge from the referendum as a credible force in Scottish politics. This won’t be easy but it is far more necessary for the party to take steps towards revitalising itself than it is to provide opposition to independence (there are already two other parties doing that which, in fairness, don’t really need our help).

Finally, we need to put the interests of Scottish people first. In everything we do, we must never forget that we are a federal party, a liberal party, whose purpose is to serve those we represent while building the “free, fair and open society” we so passionately believe in. Basically, we need to be true to ourselves – not slavishly following the “leadership” of questionably useful allies in a “No” campaign but by finding our liberal voice once again and expressing the kind of proposals for Scotland’s future that I’m sure would resonate with Scottish people if only we could effectively articulate it.

I am a convinced liberal and I long for the Scottish Liberal Democrats to regain their political relevance and influence. I’m personally convinced that the best option for the Liberal Democrats in Scotland (at least if the referendum on offer does not include a “Devo Max” option) is not to formally join any of the two camps but rather champion a federal vision and ensure that instead of becoming constricted around personalities or parties the debate centres on how best to provide increased freedoms for Scottish people. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t involve ourselves in the campaign, but that such involvement should be on the basis of asking the necessarily tough and technical questions rather than allying ourselves with what Nick Clegg dismisses as “extremist” philosophies.

There will be opportunities arising in the next few years for a party that is not openly hostile to independence. Any form of alliance with the Conservative and Labour parties, especially one that exists purely to oppose an idea that is arguably more liberal than the status quo, to me seems frankly unpalatable. The Scottish Liberal Democrats could do worse than maintain a position of detachment, using the referendum campaign as a means of promoting their own federalist solutions while refusing to identify themselves with either “tribe”.

Will that happen? No, I fully expect that the party will fall in behind the Labour and Tory parties in arguing against independence, thereby tacitly supporting another arrangement we are ostensibly opposed to. But it doesn’t have to be like that. The “No” campaign doesn’t need us; likewise, we certainly don’t need it.

What Scotland, and the UK, has needed for many years is a Liberal Democrat party willing to advocate a real federal alternative to the status quo. If the party can’t seize the opportunity this time, why should Scottish voters be blamed for not believing we have the appetite to deliver?

This piece featured on my blog, A Scottish Liberal, on Tuesday 10th January.

And what of Britain?  What is the future in an outer ring of nations outside a core of 17 nations joined fiscally and monetarily?

In trying to answer this question I am conscious that I have always been, and remain, a pro European.  The EU supports trade and commerce and an incredibly positive cultural exchange.  True, it costs a lot but that is more than made up for by what we gain in trade and contracts.

I am also conscious that post globalisation the EU is an invaluable supra-national body, vital for international co-operation on issues like climate control and scientific projects.

But, most importantly I believe the EU (and its predecessors) is an absolutely crucial building block in what has kept the peace in Europe since World War II and what makes war seem almost unthinkable amongst these close knit neighbouring nations.

So what of the Euro?

I have always held the view that we were right to not enter into the Euro.  Oh, the principle seemed fine enough but only if monetary and fiscal policy was a good fit with our economy – which across so many countries and based heavily on Germany always seemed unlikely.  I thought Gordon Brown got it about right setting five tests to see if it was right to join, the first and most important of which said, ” are our business cycles and economic structures compatible so that we could live comfortably with Euro interest rates”.

Also, while I am a passionate believer in Europe and see it as far more than just a Common Market, I do not believe in a united states of Europe.  Nationalism is too potent a force to pull that one off peace-ably.  A close knit supra-national body and community of nations is how I see the EU.

This means I am glad we have not been part of the Euro.  I could never have foreseen this malarkey but it did not seem in our interests before.  Today, I think it is best we continue to keep out of it.

I suspect if the untangling can be done without excessive pain, one or two countries curently in the currency are best finding a controlled way to extract themselves.  This may be the best thing for all, not least the Greek people for example!

As it is these are interesting times for Europe and we must be careful that the EU itself does not unravel – which is a danger.

The Scottish angle in this is interesting. 

If Scotland were to become independent the SNP’s currency of choice would be Sterling.  Going into the Euro would be even more untenable now than when this policy was first made.  However, if we were to be part of a Sterling zone would it not be better if we got the vote for the body that decides fiscal policy that affects the currency – namely Westminster?  Does this not recognise we are part of a Sterling economy?  Is this not an indicator that we are a natural part of the UK rather than separate from it?  I would argue this helps to indicate that devolution within the UK is the most natural and the right constitutional arrangement for Scotland!

Independence in Europe, since the 1980s has been central to making Scottish independence seem more credible and less scary than outright independence maybe seemed in years gone by. If the future shape of Europe seems more uncertain, as I think is the case currently, then this strengthens the logic of being part of the UK.  Again, being an autonomous part of the United Kingdom is the way forward – Home Rule within the UK makes more and more sense to me.

I think in the current period Europe and the Global Financial Crisis are difficult ones for the SNP administration at Holyrood as they emphasise how they are in fact marginal to issues such as those crises and the the Sterling economic zone!

The Scottish Labour Party is basically the Scottish Constituency Labour Party as opposed to a national Scottish Party. The Scottish Liberal Democrats, although being a separate Scottish party within a federal constitution are suffering from being able to show real differences and even disagreements with what is happening in Westminster. It certainly doesn’t help that there are Scottish Liberal Democrats in the cabinet. Scottish Liberal Democrats are against tuition fees? Yet Scottish Liberal Democrat MPs voted for them. It’s a hard to argue against that fact. No amount of positioning and debate can truly make Scottish Liberal Democrat polices and politicians very distinct from the federal party. The Scottish Liberal Democrats aren’t even a separate political party registered with the Electoral Commission.

The Tories, full name the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party, are in the same boat as Labour with no real distinction between the party in Scotland and the rest of the UK. Which is one of the reasons that Murdo Fraser, one of the candidates to replace Annabel Goldie as leader of the Tories in Scotland, has proposed that the Tories in Scotland disband and reform as a new Centre-Right Party.

The Tories in Scotland have never recovered from the 1997 General Election and even now have only 1 MP.  As the Scottish Liberal Democrats have found, the Scottish electorate have a tremendous hatred of the Tories. For many nationalists and socialists, the 1979-1997 Tory Government is unaccountably seen as the worst thing to happen to Scotland since the last eruption of the volcano underneath Edinburgh Castle.

There is little chance of a political party overcoming that kind of opprobrium so the idea that the Tories should disband and reform is an attractive one. However, if Murdo Fraser is elected leader and the membership of the party does vote for the idea it won’t actually make much difference in the short-term. The party will still struggle in next year’s council elections and in other elections in Scotland when it is party of the UK. A big reason for this is, like the other Unionist parties, the Tories don’t seem to be able to put forward an argument that offers an optimistic and ambitious view of Scotland within the current constitutional framework. The genius of the SNP since taking power at Holyrood as been to concentrate only on Scotland, offer a positive vision of Scotland and seek as much power for Scotland as possible.

The SNP have governed pretty competently with less scandal and ministerial upheaval than their Holyrood predecessors and those in Westminster. They have a number of competent ministers and, as a party, have stayed pretty much on message and on target for a positive (for them) referendum result.

I wonder if Murdo Fraser can see the way the wind is blowing. I wonder if he can see that there is no real positive campaign message for Scotland sticking with the current constitutional settlement.  He would never admit that of course and campaign of Scotland staying where it is, but in establishing a new Scottish centre right party he could be stealing a march on other parties for the first Scottish election campaign after the SNP win their referendum.

What would happen if Scotland said yes? How quickly would there need to be a general election for the new parliament of Scotland. For any party to govern with a mandate in a new nation there would need to be an election fairly quickly. The SNP would be in a quandary, as one of their key policies would have been met so how many members would stick with them? Should they be a low or high tax party? How many would bleed away to other parties?

What about the other two Unionist parties? The Scottish Liberal Democrats would at least be able to look to their current constitution as the basis of quickly adapting to the new political situation. It would still need ratified and approved at a conference by our members.

Scottish Labour would, arguably, be an even worse position (unless the current review adopts a similar constitutional position to the Scottish Liberal Democrats). What this means is that Murdo Fraser and his new Centre Right Scottish Party would be able to offer Scottish policies and Scottish solutions very quickly and be able to gain momentum that the other two parties would be unable to match. And if those pro-business, pro-low tax SNP members and voters leave SNP for the new party then they could become one of the bigger parties in the new independent Scotland.

Willie Rennie is in the process of establishing a Commission to investigate both Home Rule and devolving more power to local communities. I wonder if its worth also considering more independence for the Scottish Liberal Democrats as well?