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.

There has never been a more important time to be a member of the party. Now we have a chance to influence what the Government does. This week, I’ve been asking you to sign George’s and my petition asking ministers to make sure that all chemotherapy patients are not hassled by ATOS to do work capability assessments. A couple of months ago, I asked you to write to Lib Dem peers to make sure that they voted in accordance with the motion on Employment and Support Allowance passed at our Birmingham Conference.

The Welfare Reform Bill has been wending its way through the Lords over the past few weeks and the next few days see some critical votes. One of the most iniquitous parts of this legislation is the withdrawal of contributory ESA from people after a year, regardless of their condition. The most compelling argument on this I heard came at Scottish Conference from Ken Reed, the incoming chair of RNIB Scotland:

Ken is a really eloquent speaker and made the clearest argument I’ve so far heard against the arbitrary time limit for contributory ESA. He asked us all to imagine what it would be like if we lost our sight tomorrow. It would take us 12 months just to get used to life as a blind person. No way would you be ready to get into the job market again.  You can see what he means. Imagine if it happened to you - once you’ve got over the sheer shock and can get around your own home without incident, there’s becoming fluent in Braille to consider. Maybe you could have a look at an introduction to Russian or Chinese to see how quickly your brain could learn to process different symbols properly just to get a smidgen of an idea of what that would be like.

Yet, under the Government’s plans, that newly blind person would be left without any ESA after 12 months. The person whose body is wracked from exposure to toxins at almost fatal limits as a result of chemo is unlikely to have recovered. And what of long term conditions from Depression to Crohn’s Disease? What’s particularly bad is that it’s darned hard to get decent treatment for many mental health conditions. Nick Clegg’s helped that with an extra £400 million for talking therapies, but it’s still not enough.

If you want to see our peers vote in accordance with the policy passed in Birmingham which was very clear that Lib Dems in Government should “oppose arbitrary time limits” then you need to encourage them along that path by writing to them soon. Pick as many as you like at random. Campaigner Sue Marsh, at Diary of a Benefit Scrounger, has suggested a template letter.  I think it’s vital that our Peers see the strength of feeling amongst our membership on this, so please write yourself and encourage others to do so.

You can take your pick from the list here. If you know them personally, so much the better – the more you can write to the merrier.

These are a crucial series of votes which make a huge difference to sick and disabled people. Please take some time out of your day to e-mail our peers and let our party leadership know how strongly we feel on these issues.

My feelings are these:

1.  I think the EU has failed to reach an agreement that will solve the current financial crisis.  I think this agreement will fail to save the Euro.

2.  I have some concerns that the aim of European leaders is a little too much to save banks that have loaned money to various European states rather than about saving any national economy.  There is a little too much of the poor paying the price for this global financial crisis.

3.  I have some concerns that the French are no friends of the importance of London as a financial centre and wish merely to curtail its power.  I also think the French have a bad habit of thinking France and Europe are synonymous.

4.  I worry that with the Euro, fiscal and monetary policy is basically aligned to what suits the German economy and that it is almost the case that a common European currency may as well be the Deutschmark.  This isn’t necessarily a bad thing for every economy, but I doubt it would ever work well for the UK economy (and incidentally I doubt it would be right for any independent Scottish economy, should that ever happen, in the future)

5.  I think France and Germany were trying to get Britain to bail the Euro out.  I believe the UK should participate in doing what needs to be done to bring financial stability but we are not part of the Euro and should not bail it out.

6.  I think David Cameron went over there to veto the deal and to appease the many Euro sceptics in his party.  There are rather too many Euro sceptics in his party and their Little Englander nationalism is not good.  I think, therefore he was far too quick to veto and could have taken a far more subtle approach.  There was no win-win created.

7. In fact I think David Cameron was somewhat out manoeuvred by Sarkozy and my impression is that he has not done a good job with his diplomacy – rather overplaying his hand and getting a quite unnecessary result.

8.  In actual fact we have vetoed the Euro Zone doing something we don’t mind – the Eurozone working within the EU to support their fiscal union.

9.  However, in doing this we have failed to stop something we do in fact mind – the 26 countries acting as a bloc on  single market issues with the UK on the outside.  This is not good.  It is not good for the UK long term and it may damage our trade and industry.

10.  I argued previously that we are right not to be part of the Euro – a currency zone that does not work for us and is, and seems likely to remain, inherently unstable.  It is right and very important that we are part of a supra-national body like the EU that is far more than a free trade area, but stops short – and always stops short of full integration.  Our global relations and flexibility – especially openness to the growing far east and so-called BRIC countries remain important.

This may be a watershed moment.  It is just possible that Europe may never be the same again.  If this all means a two tier Europe, then so be it (I’m not sure how the Euro Zone will play out anyway).  However, we must remain an integral part of the EU and we must work to achieve our interest within it and to take a lead.  France are too self interested to be left alone to it and so, in the final analysis, are Germany.

The EU needs us and we need the EU.   It is important that we avoid total isolation because there are trade deals to be done and diplomatic influence to be wielded – if we have any left!  To this end, as a puzzle what happened and where that leaves us I am asking, “David Cameron, what was that all about?”

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!

Scotland punches massively above its weight in the UK.  It has often been punished for having the audacity to be progressive by UK governments that are not – especially in the 80s and 90s – but it has also suffered at the hands of governments that have taken it for granted.  Labour’s record from 1997-2010 is a shameful one – their lazy assumption that Scotland would just vote Labour led to Scotland’s interests being ignored.

 Scotland has progressive and radical heart, its strong sense of community makes it inclined towards social democracy, but it has a personality that is unmistakeably individualistic, dare I say Liberal.  Scotland’s nature is to be Liberal. The job of Liberal Democrats is to connect with Scotland’s Liberalism and to campaign in a way that chimes naturally with the Scottish natural identity. 

I’m an Englishman, but I consider myself a northerner and British before I consider myself English, as a Cumbrian MP, we share much of the same media and have incredibly strong economic and cultural ties.  I’ve more in common with folks in Galashiels than I do with folks in Guildford for example, and the same can be said of my constituents. 

It breaks my heart that Alex Salmond has an agenda to fracture Britain in a way that will make us all poorer.  A proud Scottish identity is vital, but a centralising, intolerant nationalism is an anathema to what it is to be Scottish.  Salmond is an effective politician, an admirable operator – but already he is showing that his instincts are illiberal, and proving the age old case which is that in opposition nationalists may be radicals and reformers, but in government they become centralist control freaks, with alarming traces of prejudice and reaction. 

 It’s questionable now whether we can really call the SNP a party of the left any more – nationalists rarely are.  For Liberal Democrats, well our identity is in the spotlight too.  We are in coalition in Westminster with the Tories and that has had a real impact on how the electorate sees us – almost irrespective of what policies we pursue!  

 But back in May 2010 we had no choice. The electoral maths meant that there simply were not enough Lib Dem and Labour MPs to form a government, but thanks to Nick’s incredible performances in the leaders debates the Tories absolutely did not get it their own way so instead of having a bunch of frightful Englishmen in the Scottish office, we have our own Mike Moore!

 And when it comes to the other opposition in Scotland – well, the Tories had the choice of radical change in their leadership election, and despite the public declaration by Murdo Fraser that they were finished if they didn’t redefine their identity, they picked a candidate with a ‘steady as she goes’ approach and for Scottish Tories that means continued irrelevance.  For Labour, their best talent opted to stay in Westminster, their second string got beaten in the May elections, and so on offer now is essentially the Labour 3^rd team – not terribly enticing. 

But despite some dreadful results for the Scottish Lib Dems in May, there has been a massive silver lining to that dark cloud – it was the election of my friend Willie Rennie, both as a Member of the Scottish Parliament and as the new Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.  Willie is comfortably the best, most tenacious and most effective opposition politician in Scotland.  He’s the right man in the right place at the right time and I am confident that he will help to reinvigorate and rebuild the Party as we face our next electoral tests, starting with the local elections in May.

St Andrew’s Day falls in the most turbulent times this year. Today is the day of a massive public sector strike – nominally over pensions but probably over far more.  The debate has become more empassioned, views more polarised and the real issues and possible solutions more fuzzy as the day of the strike dawns.

Today is also the day after a stark Autumn Statement where the Chancellor laid out bleak prospects for growth, a continuing huge national deficit and difficult prospects for the European and Global economies.  These are days of a realignment of conventional wisdom on macro-economics and what appears to be the beginnng of an era of stagnation.  Abroad, the European Union is under enormous strain and the Euro currency seems unlikely to survive in its present form.  In such times nationalism becomes increasingly popular and UKIP in the south and the SNP, with a very different form of nationalism, are riding higher still in Scotland.  Indeed, the very existance of the United Kingdom is under scrutiny with a majority SNP administration in Holyrood.

Now, more than at any other time in my life, everything is changing and all our ideologies are challenged.  Nothing remains the same.  It saddens me when I see some political bloggers retreating onto partisan soapboxes and coming up with predictable and lazy arguments.  Now is exactly the time for activists and political bloggers to stand back and honestly assess the situation, be open and discerning as to the causes of our pains and open and thoughtful as to the alternative solutions.

Now is a time to debate what issues the world around us faces, to explore our choices and think through what sort of societywe want and how we might get there – including the potential drawbacks of each solution.  For there are no easy answers, and if you are proposing some you are probably talking nonsense.

Now is a time for ideas freely expressed and tested in open good humoured debate because everything has changed and we need to think the unthinkable rather than retreat into old cliches.

So happy St Andrew’s Day and let the arguments begin.

I want to consider the issue of those who suffer mental ill health and their carers.  I want to talk about how important they are, how important it is to look after them and how – when it comes to carers – the mental health authorities are all talk and could do better!

Something like a fifth of the population suffers from mental illness and it is estimated that in the UK there are 1.5 million caring for relatives suffering in this way or from dementia.

Carers are a desperately important part of the support medical care given to those with mental illness to allow their recovery or put them in a position where they can cope with their everyday lives.

The mental health authorities in Scotland have recognised the importance of an informal network of unpaid carers as a crucial part of the delivery of care and that they be” respected in their role and experience receive appropriate information and advice and have their views taken into account.” Which is apparently part of one of ten Millan guiding principles which went towards forming the Mental health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.

Carers also face a tough situation.  Sure they come in all shapes and sizes and face an almost infinite variety of different situations across a broad spectrum of severity.  However, they all face certain things in common.  Carers all report feeling emotions of hopelessness, fear, guilt and isolation.  Often they find themselves utterly alone and overwhelmed by a situation they feel inadequate to deal with.  There is also plenty of evidence now that their physical health often suffers as well.

Caring is a tough gig and it is important.  But talking to carers they all, consistently, complain of being kept outside the loop.  They feel they are not well communicated with about their loved ones condition. They feel, despite the fact that they know them and their moods best, their views and observations are not listened to and, perhaps worst of all, they feel there is almost no information and support for them.

One carer said to me, “the mental health profession is just a bit rubbish when it comes to looking after carers!”

This is a view many professionals working with carers sadly share as well.   I’m told by some people working with carers that the principles of working with carers in Scotland have not yet been truly implemented.  And I’ve no reason to think England and Wales is doing any better.

More needs to be done.

To this end I want to praise the work done by Edinburgh Carers Council (ECC).  They recognise the need to look after and support carers.  They need the support and ultimately this aids the recovery of the original loved one and patient.  And this is more than a one hit.

As the medical model of looking after mental illnesses has moved from complete recovery to finding a way of living a satisfying and contributing life, so that ongoing support has to adapt for carers.

The ECC are developing programmes that support carers on an ongoing basis.  One programme I have come across is known as WRAP (wellness recovery action plan).  It has been adapted for carers and is about supporting them and equipping them to support themselves.  It aims to give carers a range of strategies and routines which are about looking after themselves.  Eating properly and getting rest and exercise is part of it.  Making time for yourself and having routines to recuperate are also important.  This is about leisure and doing some of the things you love.  If you are not making a life for yourself you will rapidly become useless to your loved one you care for.  It is also about self esteem and feeling supported; and it’s about giving access to information and practical support to navigate the mental health authorities, to participate in care and get answers and support when you need it.  The idea is improved physical and mental well being, less guilt, more energy and improved relationships which all means being a better carer.

It is just one programme but it is giving real and practical support to carers of those with mental health problems in Edinburgh today.

My plea is therefore this:

We need more of this for carers of all types.

The mental health authorities, who do a tough job and many great things, need to be better in practice at looking after carers rather than just talking about it in reports.

And, in these times of austerity, I can imagine programmes like this could be in the frontline for being cut-back.  My plea is that they are vital and ultimately better value in saved resources and medication bills as a result of the support carers give the mentally ill on their journeys to recovery and coping.

And this is how we should approach government spending. Forget about protecting front-line services for a minute. We actually want these firemen/cleaner roles to be unnecessary. They are not productive roles. They are generally restoration roles: Fixing people (in the case of medical professionals) and catching people (in the case of police) when they have gone or done wrong.

These roles are the areas of government spending we should be actively aspiring to reduce. But it is pure folly to reduce them when their workload is projected to rise. The government needs to identify policies, programs and services that will allow cuts in expenditure on these restorative roles. These cuts should of course be greater than the expenditure on the preventative measures that allow them to happen, but without any cost being transferred to society in the form of undetected crime or untreated illness.

I fear that the government has it completely upside-down. Their determination (and I think a largely cosmetic one at that) to protect the restorative “front-line” roles has meant that cuts are happening instead to existing preventative measures. So the burden on the restorative medics and police is increasing while much of the important support work that allows them to do their job effectively is crumbling.

You might argue that if there were these magic-bullet, preventative measures then we would be using them already. Hah! If you will excuse me I would like to describe a few that we have failed to embrace.

Drug policy reform is an obvious one, and not a surprising one to come from this keyboard. One of the most important lines in the recent drug policy motion was this: “At a time when Home Office and Ministry of Justice spending is facing considerable contraction, there is a powerful case for examining whether an evidence-based policy would produce savings, allowing the quality of service provided by these departments to be maintained or to improve.” Indeed, if we were to “nationalise” the cannabis market we could not only make savings in the policing budget, but actually gain income from taxation of the product and the jobs created to produce, distribute and sell it. The education on the early warning signs of psychosis that I hope could be delivered before first use of the drug could create massive savings in the mental health and welfare budget as psychotic illness is identified and treated early enough that long term illness can be avoided. Schizophrenia alone is estimated to cost England £6.7Bn each year.

With the average problem heroin user costing society over £50K each year, spending around £15K each year on treating the most problematic (and likely far more costly) in heroin maintenance clinics would again allow cuts to the jobs that clean up the chaos they leave in their wake.

In the wake of the riots this summer I heard numerous commentators express a desire to “strengthen families”. If they had only thought to Google “Strengthening Families” they would have come across this: www.strengtheningfamiliesprogram.org .  For every £1 spent, such programs can bring £9.60 in savings by reducing drug use and delinquency and improving school performance.   Have a look: here .   Can the government please start identifying evidence-based policies and applying them?

We could combine this with alcohol minimum pricing, moving cigarettes to pharmacies and selling e-cigarettes in newsagents in their place (not to children) www.guardian.co.uk smokeless-nicotine-cigarettes-government and perhaps subtle changes to the pub environment that might create more moderate drinking and less medical emergencies and fights www.icd.go.cr

These measures are just my favourites. People will know of all number of policies, services and programs that could create savings. Money has been spent on preventative measures that have been evaluated to save £5 for every £1 spent or something similar. The government is cutting these measures though. They are creating more mess. By mistakenly protecting the cleaners, they might cause them to be overwhelmed by filth (this is a metaphor for a broken society crumbling to dust [which is itself a metaphor-sorry] ).

Liberal Democrats have to stand up and say that we want cuts to the front-line restoration roles, but only after their burden has been lifted through radical, evidence-informed policies and expenditure. The financial crisis gave us an opportunity to radically shift government investment and policy into the preventative measures of the most remarkable value and effectiveness. We’ve blown it so far. We can not sit back and watch cuts which will plunge society into crisis. We need a two-step process of removing the work for our police, medics, and other restorative roles and then justifiably laying them off when they become a luxury.

One will notice that not on the agenda is the option for a non-nuclear-armed United Kingdom.  If we LibDems are to have a distinctive message on Trident for the 2015 General Elections, surely it would be reasonable for us to have this option incorporated into our manifesto; especially since it is not possible currently for MPs to scrutinise the real costs.  To explain further.

On Sunday, the Say No to Trident group, a grass-roots LibDem organisation founded on ACT in 2009 held our second annual fringe meeting at conference.  Dr Peter Burt of the Nuclear Information Service (NIS) told the packed room that it was currently not possible for either parliament or the public to examine spending plans for Successor or any related projects such as upgrades to the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE).  Using the cover of EU legislation, Dr Burt claimed that the Ministry of Defence, who since 2010 are now responsible for funding Britain’s nuclear deterrent, are directly blocking requests on finances.

It was only through sterling work by Greenpeace through Freedom of Information questions that it has come to light that work is continuing on the Successor boats via the Initial Gate spending plans.  On the government’s own current figure of £25billion, this would allow up £3.75billion to be spent on the project before the Main Gate of 2016.  Last year our own federal president Tim Farron claimed a famous victory in the delay of the final decision, announcing that Trident would not be passed “on our watch.”  In light of the continued spending, on our watch, this victory is sounding rather hollow.

Stephen Gilbert MP, also speaking at the SNTT fringe, called for MPs to be allowed to have the spending figures available and also publication of the Liberal Democrat report on the alternatives.  Currently the report that is being put together by Nick Harvey MP, Armed Forces Minister, is not intended for general publication.    Full transparency – with the caveat of national security- is the only way Parliament can have an informed debate on this (or indeed any) issue.

The final speaker, Kate Hudson of CND, welcomed the initiative of the Liberal Democrat review and in discussions with Nick Harvey has pressed him to enlarge its parameters to include all options, including a non-nuclear Britain.  This view has support among voters; for the past three years the majority of those polls have been for the scrapping of Britain’s deterrent with the highest majority being aged twenty eight and under.

I remember a report on the Today Programme from 2010.  The point was made that ownership of nuclear weapons is not a military necessity; it is a political decision.  Thus the discussions on the way forward ought to be in the political realm and not left to officials.  Whether one supports the concept of a nuclear deterrent or not; think that the world should disarm on a multilateral basis or that Britain should lead the way unilaterally, there are things that we can all agree upon.

• It is right that members of Parliament should have the facts available to them in order to make a rational decision.  Currently that is not the case, neither with the MoD financial figures nor with the intended Liberal Democrat report.
• It ought to be Liberal Democrat ministers and MPs that leads the scrutiny and debate.  With a few honourable exceptions, the Conservative mindset is welded firmly shut when it comes to Trident and Labour is split down the middle.  We Liberal Democrats are the only parliamentary party united in seeking alternatives and that should mean all alternatives; not just keeping a credible deterrent.

I call upon Liberal Democrat supporters, members and activists, to lobby our MPs and ministers on the issue of transparency when it comes to these issues on nuclear weapons.  It is staggering that there are still those in the civil service (indeed in government too) who still think that the money, especially at this time of global and national austerity, can somehow be above scrutiny.

However, this got me thinking about the issue of lifelong learning and mature students. I read an excellent piece from LibDem blogger, Richard Morris which prompted my thinking.  Richard picked up on the fact that the Open University students studying for an equivalent or lower level degree to one they already hold will have to pay their fees up front from next year (The TES describes the issue).  He argued that many students will now be priced out of the system which will have a significant effect on the economy.  Furthermore he made the point that while other aspects of education rightly took priority this was an important issue and made a plea for the LibDems to address it as a policy issue.

“… Where there is money, we have chosen as a party to direct it towards the youngest in society (in England and Wales), through initiatives like the pupil premium and free nursery places, where we believe tight funds can get the best results and have the most profound impact. I agree with this approach.

But I cannot pretend that the knock on effect of this sits easily with me. As Liberals we are philosophically wedded to the notion of giving every individual the opportunity to make more of their lives – and the best chance of delivering that must come through lifelong learning. A quick Google search indicates we have had very little to say on this subject since May last year – which is surprising….”

I absolutely agree with him.  Moreover, I think this is a terribly important policy area with patterns of work becoming more disjointed over peoples’ lifetimes.

With the rise of the contract worker and many more people finding themselves working for a large company for a period of time then choosing – or being forced – to change direction, the need for workers in the 21st century to be adaptable is very high.  Patterns of work are changing and the days of the paternalistic large organisation are gone.  Large companies don’t do social welfare anymore – just look at pensions. Nor do they provide a culture to train and nurture a worker throughout life any more.

Companies will in the future employ a small group of uber managers and a core of key workers.  Other tasks will be performed by outsourcing, staff on short term contracts or professional contractors.  Workers therefore need to develop themselves and build new skills and knowledge to match a changing economy and changing technology – and each of us is responsible for our own development.

All this means that in building a modern, adaptable, knowledge economy, a coherent policy for adult learning is as important as education for the young.  Some of the young will need it too if they struggle to get careers off the ground in their early 20s in the current environment!

This is a key issue for developing Scotland’s economy and society in the future along with initiatives like Investors in People to encourage companies to invest in their staff for business success and to equip their employees for the modern world.