Does a policy of meaningful federalism offer a credible option to the nations?

I don’t oppose Scottish independence, assuming that that’s what the Scottish people want. And, given that the options available to them were independence or, under a Conservative Government, a creeping clawback of powers from Edinburgh to Westminster, you could see why the debate is going the way it has - increasingly polarised.

The thing about freedom is that... it isn’t actually free. Freedom always comes with a cost, the question being, are you willing to pay it?

I tend to the view, having seen some of the financial projections out there, that independence would be costly in terms of GDP, at least in the short term. Membership of the European Union would probably follow, which would offer the opportunity for a gradual recovery. The question is, if the United Kingdom reverted from its current banana republic approach, would that be as attractive as it seems now?

A Liberal Democrat offer of a properly federal state might offer an option which attracted genuine support from both sides of the divide. The only problem is, would anyone believe that it was deliverable, especially coming from a political party which was in fourth, fifth or perhaps sixth place in Scotland?

It does, however, give us a place in the debate, should we be able to articulate it, and so long as we don’t remain hung up on the idea of the Union as a sole option. We surely don’t believe in this Union now, do we? The Union regardless of how it serves Scotland, or Wales, or Northern Ireland, or even the English Regions?

Andrew Duff has always been an interesting thinker in terms of a multi-speed Europe, with an inner core which is truly Federal, and with other nations opting in to elements of the Union, and I find myself wondering if you couldn’t reconstruct the United Kingdom along similar lines, with the four nations pooling sovereignty on an agreed basis covering elements best served by fully collaborative working, leaving other elements under the control of the nations, with a working assumption that powers would be devolved unless agreed differently.

There is a catch. It would mean, in all likelihood, a federal union outside the European one, unless the European Union was likely to progress along similar lines, which I don’t think is in prospect yet.

So, it does require liberals to rediscover their belief in self-determination, but also to have a properly federal vision and a stance on what an independent Scotland might look like. And, yes, I know that current political debate demands that you take a side on the independence debate, but we don’t actually have to. We could place our trust in the people on this one...

"Speed, bonnie bus, like a bird on the wing"...

It still wasn't very nice as I left Inverness (again). At least it wasn't raining as hard as it had been for the most epic part of my rail adventure, involving two trains, a ferry and two buses, one of which might not actually exist.

The railway line to Kyle of Lochalsh is another of those well-known railways to nowhere, passing through a whole lot of nothing on the way to a ferry port which lost its raison d'etre when the bridge to Skye was built. Admittedly, the 'whole lot of nothing' is insanely scenic, but you do wonder how such a line survives even now. I'm not convinced that the number of fare-paying passengers really justifies keeping it, but as the sort of person who can think of little finer than gazing out of the window of a moving train, accompanied perhaps by a nice cup of tea, I am grateful to the powers that be for funding it.

The train rolled into Kyle of Lochalsh at 11.30, leaving me less than five hours to get to Mallaig, the furthest extent of the West Highland Line. The obvious route was via the Armadale-Mallaig ferry, but how to reach Armadale?

There is a bus from Kyle of Lochalsh to Broadford, on Skye, which conveniently leaves the slipway, near the station, at 11.50 a.m., and so I headed there to catch it. I found it easily enough, a little thirty-seater operated by Stagecoach, and sure enough, it made its way over the bridge and onto Skye. Soon, I was in Broadford, which is the second largest community on Skye, after Portree. This is not saying an awful lot, but it has all of the key things that you might need, including a bus stop. It even has the Isle of Skye Candle Company, which offered an opportunity to do some minor gift shopping.

According to Traveline, there was a bus to Armadale Pier, run by Maclean's Coaches. There was, however, no mention of it on the bus stop, and the company website indicated that there was no summer timetable. I could, however, ring them for information, so I did, only to get a voicemail message which indicated that I could leave a message, which I did. It also indicated that the bus stop was half a mile away.

And so, I trudged through the rain, suitcase trailing behind me, until I found the designated spot. I was not optimistic but, at almost exactly the appointed time, a slightly stretched pale blue minibus hove into view, which I flagged down, somewhat to the surprise of the driver. It was the mysterious number 601 bus to Armadale Pier.

I stopped for fish and chips (don't tell anyone) at a rather cute little cafe next to the port office for Caledonian MacBrayne, who run most of the ferry services in the West of Scotland, and did a little more shopping, before buying my very reasonable ticket to Mallaig.

Mallaig was wet (just for consistency's sake) but, having stopped for tea as an alternative to being rained on, I was fortunate to board the train just before the heavens opened with particular ferocity - not a good omen for the train journey ahead. However, I wasn't to be disappointed, for the journey to Glasgow is a sensational one. My personal high spot was, just as we left Rannoch, a stag decided to display himself close to the track, immediately followed by a rainbow.

The last part of the journey is a bit of an anti-climax (if you choose to do the journey, do it in the other direction, is my advice), but I did get to my hotel in Glasgow early enough to have a truly marvelous steak and Gruyere baguette, possibly a marker for the culinary treat to follow the next evening. For I was heading south...

I don't envy Kezia Dugdale her new job, but...

I'm not usually one to get too involved in the internal workings of other political parties, and especially don't often offer advice - there's little enough reason why they should listen anyway. However, sometimes, the health of our body politic is a bit more important than that, and given that the place of Scotland in the United Kingdom has a direct impact on how the country as a whole is run, I make an exception here.

In Kezia Dugdale, Labour have elected a leader who has an opportunity to start a new chapter in Scottish politics. Not because she has any particular talent - I don't know enough about her to really know - but because she doesn't need to be particularly beholden to the sort of people who got Labour to the point where it has only one MP north of the border. Machine politicians who, when confronted with the collapse of the machine, had no means by which to resist the SNP juggernaut.

And, before you stop me, I acknowledge that, in terms of seats won and lost, we Liberal Democrats didn't do a whole lot better - our vote held up better though.

In truth, the SNP are unlikely to be beaten by simply regurgitating the old politics of aggression - they have an overwhelming advantage in terms of activists and organisation. Nor is any attempt to bring together the theoretical anti-independence coalition likely to work either. No, it is for different political groupings to offer the Scottish people what they, as proponents of different political philosophies, believe to be the best solutions for Scotland within a federal state.

Now, for Labour, that offers a bit more of a challenge, especially whilst the identity of the new leader in London remains unknown. How truly independent can Scottish Labour be, for example? Is there the will to create a truly Scottish left of centre platform? Recent history says possibly not. But in a Scotland which is well on the path to independence, and with a government in Westminster which is likely to encourage further steps along it, Labour have to adapt to the new environment, talking about a Scotland that could be.

Kezia has a history on social media of being something other than a slavish adherent to a line, and if she is allowed her freedom and is brave enough to take some risks, she could help to make Scottish politics something other than the bear put it resembles from the outside.

One should welcome new leaders in politics (within reason) as they have the power to change the political environment for the better. Indeed, I would suggest that they have a responsibility to do so. So, good luck Kezia, although you might need it...

Devolution: now that we've found love, what are we gonna do with it?

So, Scotland having voted to remain in the Union but with an understanding that there will be greater devolution to their Parliament, we can now move on to what it means for the rest of us.

Luckily, as a Liberal Democrat, I understand and accept the logic of devolution, of subsidiarity and federalism, which is that things will be different in different places, with a greater priority placed on X in Y, as opposed to Z. And, frankly, assuming that we can annex the Waveney Valley and North Essex, and make Ros our constitutional monarch, the notion of a free Suffolk is a strangely alluring one...

But, seriously, the Scots, the Welsh, and even the Northern Irish have it fairly easy, in that their boundaries are clearly defined, and they have an established tier of governance. For the English, however, it isn't necessarily as simple.

England is big, disproportionately so by comparison with the other constituent nations, making the conflict between it, and a federal United Kingdom, potentially debilitating. And yet, can English regions be credibly treated as being on a par with Scotland, for example? Indeed, can you design English regions that would encompass everyone and retain a sense of attachment in their residents?

In other federal states, such as the United States, Germany and India, there is no such dominant single element, so there is little help there to be had, and we will have to come up with an answer that enables Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to feel that they have a real state in a federal union, yet prevents the English from feeling as though they are being constrained or otherwise taken advantage of.

This offers a real challenge to politicians, especially Westminster ones, most of whom were elected to exercise power, rather than to give it away. If the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament are to be mirrored in England, what is the purpose of Westminster as it is currently constituted? Indeed, whisper it quietly, where does the House of Lords, elected or otherwise, fit in?

If Westminster is to become the home of a federal Parliament, how many representatives do you need, and what are they for? Is London the right place for the English Parliament, and do you need regional and sub-regional tiers? You could, for example, offer a choice between regions and counties, so East Anglia might emerge as an administrative tier, or Suffolk might take on extra powers.

Six months ago, this would have seemed entirely esoteric, and a debate for constitution geeks. Now, everyone has a stake in this even if they don't really understand it. But, it's a debate that is firmly on the turf of Liberal Democrats, and we have an opportunity to make the case that we've been rehearsing for decades. A federal Britain in a federal Europe - what's there not to like?...

Scotland: and if the world were to come to an end tomorrow...

It is, I am reminded, now less than twelve hours until Scottish voters start to stream into polling stations in order to determine their future, which is nice, when you think about it. Or not, depending upon your persuasion.

In my case, I've tried to drum up some enthusiasm... and, for the most part, failed to do so. I've observed the passion, indeed the venom, of a campaign in which neither side has offered a genuinely credible vision worthy of a nation with increasing bemusement. On one hand, the Yes campaign has either wished away virtually all of the difficult questions or, worse yet, viciously attacked anyone who has the audacity to ask them, whilst the No campaign has veered from fearmongering to promising what appears to be the Earth if only Scots will stay in the Union, something which leads me to wonder what the rest of us might think about such largesse.

I have been inundated with requests to call voters north of the border - as if my accent would more good than harm - or give money, or sign letters saying how much I want the Scots to stay, all of which I have studiously ignored. It is, I think, none of my business, even though I am technically half-Scot myself (my mother was born in Keith, about halfway between Aberdeen and Inverness). I don't feel particularly Scottish, even though I could play football for them, and don't have a desperate sense that there is a part of me that yearns to be part of that nation.

No, if a majority of the Scottish electorate don't want to be part of the Union, then so be it. All I ask is that both sides understand that their behaviour during the campaign comes with consequences, regardless of whether they win or lose.

For the Yes campaign, who have promised a land flowing with milk and honey, the challenge of negotiating a settlement (note that I don't insert the word 'equitable' - no deal will be seen as such, regardless of the facts) with the very people they have so unpleasant about and to will be an interesting one. Doubtless anything that goes wrong after independence will be blamed on Westminster by the ultras, but they shouldn't expect the rUK negotiators to quietly roll over - the remaining nations will expect, nay demand, a robust approach.

And as for the No campaign, promises of more powers for Scotland within the framework of the United Kingdom mean more devolution of power for the rest of us, in other words, federalism. You can really see the Conservatives pressing for that, can't you? And as for the centralising control freakery tendency that lead the Labour Party, the very notion of giving away power to others would probably bring them out in hives. At least Liberal Democrat policy has always called for subsidiarity and the handing back of power to individuals and communities, even if some of my colleagues give an impression of being far more in favour of the theory than the actuality.

No, I'll save my passion, and my energy, for what happens next, whatever that may be. I'm a liberal, and what I care about is what is and what might be, rather than fret about missed opportunities and what might have been. For, regardless of the result tomorrow, we are likely to be waking up on Friday morning on a country that has changed forever...

Scotland: you gotta be cool, you gotta be calm, you gotta stay together?

If the polls are to be believed, the margin between those intending to vote 'yes' to independence in the Autumn, and those intending to vote 'no' has shrunk towards the margin of error. And whilst I'm not a defeatist, and I'd really not want to see the Scots go, I could hardly complain if they did.

I'll set aside the impact of Scotland reclaiming its independence on the rest of the United Kingdom - it's mostly conjecture and there'll be a queue of people writing about it before very long - and look at the decision itself.

As a liberal, I believe in self-determination and devolution of power, and I suppose that there can be no clearer declaration of that than the desire for nationhood. And yes, the concept of a sovereign state is somewhat different in our modern, inter-connected world than it might once have been, but it is still one that stirs the blood. So, if the Scots want it, they should have it.

It must be for Scots to take responsibility for their actions though, to weigh up the modern day equivalent of the 'cost in blood and treasure' of breaking away, and it is for those in positions of authority to talk through the issues in a manner that treats the people as adults, with hearts and minds, which is why the debate that is currently taking place looks like such a shambles, with its utter disregard for the significant areas of doubt and uncertainty that exist on currencies, European Union membership and finance to name but three.

And nationhood is not, and should not be, conditional - the "we'll keep all the good bits of our old relationship" argument - because they aren't yours to promise, they're for others to offer, should they be so inclined.

There will be a price to pay for newly independent Scots, as my friend Cicero has already noted. Can the Scottish economy sustain the calls upon it that currently exist, let alone the promises that Alex Salmond has showered upon wavering voters? How painful will the transition phase be? How much will it cost to create a civil service to administer the new nation - diplomatic corps, tax authority etc. - and to build the support systems that they require?

Of course, one thing that emerging nations have not had to think much about is the view of the financial markets in a global economy, and yesterday's selling of Scottish companies (and the pound too) is a reminder that no country, no matter how passionate it is, is truly independent anyway unless it is to become a hermit nation, not a prospect that is likely or credible for Scotland.

So, despite the pleas from my friends and my party to fight to keep the Union together, I'll be remaining on the sidelines, conscious that the debate for Scotland's future appears to be an unsafe place for those with an open, questioning mind but without a direct stake in the outcome.

I have only one thing to add, and that's a reminder. Any decision, especially one as big as this, comes with a proviso, that the winners accept the consequences of their actions, and honour their commitments. And that goes as much for the 'No' campaign as it does for the 'Yes' one...

Scottish Independence: what are the chances of an honest debate?

It's an awfully long way from mid-Suffolk to the Scottish border, about five and a half hours by train, but as the son of a Scot, I take a passing intellectual interest in the debate that so dominates all political discussion up there.

So, let me nail my colours to the mast. If the Scottish people, however defined, decide that their desire for freedom is such that it can only be exercised through an independent state, it is not for the rest of us to say that they can't.

However, there is a catch. A free nation is also a community of informed citizens, called upon to make decisions on the basis of rather tricky things called 'facts'. And, rather disappointingly, I'm not entirely convinced that facts are going to be a core part of the debate.

You see, freedom costs. Oh yes, the alternatives aren't cost-free either, but there is a price to be paid. Often, where people seek independence, there is a cost in blood and treasure but, at least in this instance, blood is unlikely to be spilt. But there will be financial implications, and the pro-independence campaigners seem keen to avoid that issue thus far.

In strategic terms, that's probably quite sensible, as the issue is fearsomely complex. Which currency will an independent Scotland adopt? The Euro? The Pound? Will it go it alone? The first two options mean a pooling of sovereignty, the first through Brussels - and wildly popular that's proving to be, isn't it? - the second through London - you are kidding, aren't you? The third option leaves the new nation more vulnerable to the currency markets than most, but does offer the broadest range of monetary and fiscal tools. Each option comes with risks, each needs to be properly assessed.

International relationships are important too. Yes, Scotland would get a seat in the United Nations, but would have to apply for a place in the European Union. In the meantime, vast swathes of European Union legislation, directives and regulatory frameworks would be effectively imposed by fax from Brussels - ask the Norwegians what that means - hardly the independence that is supposedly on offer. In the modern era, sovereignty is increasingly pooled, be it within a federal state, or (whisper it quietly) a federal union. Independence is not necessarily what one thinks it is any more.

Finally, the terms of a 'divorce settlement'. I was interested to hear Angus Robertson, the SNP's Parliamentary Leader at Westminster, claiming that it was unfair that Scotland was not getting its fair share of UK defence spending. He ought to be more wary about arguments like that, especially as Scotland is perceived to have benefited from some quite generous provision in other areas, including disproportionate levels of public sector employment.

But if there is a separation, there will be a slice of the national debt to be agreed, and then serviced, there will be assets to be divided up, contracts to be honoured. The definition of a fair division will be a very difficult one - who gets the debt relating to bailing out the Royal Bank of Scotland and Bank of Scotland, for example.

It will undoubtedly be a tough negotiation, with both parties keen to get the best deal possible for their people, but amongst the range of possibilities are some pretty grim ones for Scots - potentially huge deficits in the short term, likely austerity in any event. There are rosier scenarios but, in the context of the current state of the United Kingdom economy, rosy is merely a paler shade of grey.

The real debate is a complex one, and the question is not just, "Do you want to be free?", but, "How much are you willing to sacrifice for it?".

And that's a question that the rest of us need to give some thought to as well. What deal are we, the English, the Welsh and the (Northern) Irish, willing to countenance? As pro-Union political parties, we have to be rather more upfront about the answer, and rather more transparent about the data.

The Scottish people deserve the very best that politicians on either side of the debate can offer, in terms of rhetoric and in terms of integrity. Whilst making an unwise call in terms of a vote for independence, if unwise it turns out to be, has an obvious, visible cost, remaining in a Union which holds Scotland back, if it does, will be a hidden burden on a proud people.

And let the Scots decide!