It’s obvious.

Me.

Don’t we all think that?

John Curtice credits Margaret Thatcher with three enduring achievements: one of them is persuading the Scots of the attractions of Devolution. If you accept that analysis, you may agree that historians may come to see TB as responsible for Scottish independence.

Gordon Brown could still surprise us. He’s not finished yet, and if he sticks it out, he could yet edge past Eden and do as much damage to his party as Margaret Thatcher did to Scottish Conservatives. Yes, that’s a very tall order, but I’ve great faith in the ability of politicians long in government to be in denial and believe that more of the same medicine that isn’t working is what is required.

In a way I’m glad it was so, as this is just a thread to expose your own prejudices – a fun question for a pollster to ask, but not one any sensible commentator would answer definitively.

For my own choice I would say none, as the most relevant qualification for the job of PM is to get the job – failure to get the job suggests an underlying weakness which would lead to failure in the job.

Perhaps the bias is in the question – replace ‘best’ with ‘least worst’ and you’d also replace the fanciful, but ultimately empty speculation with some realism.

The best prime minister you never could have had and he’s still an MP!

Alex Salmond.

There’s a thought.

If you want constitutional reform though, Donld Dewar or Robin Cook.