The other real interest is the Liberal party VS the Tory 1+2(labour)party that we now have in the UK.

“If [the SNP] is seen as a strong party that governs well for all Scots then it may well have a post independence future as the “national ” party.”

If it “governs well for all Scots” it could only do so by being pragmatic and consensual rather than as every other party by having a fundamentalist belief in a limited set of responses which are applied to every problem regardless of the unintended results.

They might also. if focused on only Scotland (but the whole of Scotland) rather than the limited metropolitain perspective of the alternate government parties, have policies that take account of both urban and rural conditions.

For example, in rural areas “choice” or parent involvement is not an issue. If you live on an island, you just want to have one school rather than no school, and you can talk to the headmaster when you see him in the supermarket or on the ferry.

The founding principles, proportionality and thought-out procedures of the Scottish Parliament could be very helpful here. That is by design.

Just because it has never been tried at Westminster doesn’t mean it can’t be done. The minority government situation – even coalitions – present an opportunity to be more innovative, consensual and pragmatic.

What would be a big advance would be independence, not for Scotland, but for the Scottish part of the UK parties in the Bavarian manner. The Conservatives should try this, they have nothing to lose, and it would be the shortest route to government in coalition with the SNP and Greens.

It is no surprise to hear further evidence that Tony Blair did not understand devolution. That observation has already been made from every part of the political spectrum.

As a measure of Donald Dewar’s achievement, can anyone give me any other example of major constitutional change effected by a second level government minister when the head of government did not understand what was involved and would have acted differently if he had?

I was at school with Donald, and I recall him being challenged by a nationalist, that Home Rule would inevitably lead to independence.(It wasn’t a Conservative stock argument at the time).

Neither then or later did he ever say anything inconsistent with “Scotland will be independent when people vote for it” but can you see Michael Howard or Tony Blair making a statement like that?

Paxman and Humphries would need the rack and thumbscrews. Waterboarding perhaps.

To put it at the lowest: The first objective of the Home Rule parliament is the better governance of Scotland; the second is as a model for the modernisation of Westmiinster. So much Donald made very clear to me half a century ago.

Independence? My SNP MSP has drawn my attention to what he described as future-proofing in one of Donald’s last speeches at Westminster. If it happens, he predicted it. If it doesn’t, he didn’t say that it would.

Let me give you an analogy. Young women get pregnant. It is what they are for. It’s No 1 on the schedule of Operational Requirements for all female mammals.

Sometimes it is life-threatening, economically or socially disasterous, but some part of them still wants to do it.

Whether Donald would have voted for independence in a secret ballot, I can’t say. I’m certain he would have gone to the SNP’s party to celebrate the result.”when people vote for it.”

Tony Blair, are you reading this? You’ve been conned.

The other parties were making the running, and votes have to come from somewhere.