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...

ALDE: doing good, one small policy proposal at a time...

I am, as a politician (and I use that term in its loosest possible sense), a gradualist at heart. Perhaps it is the slightly diffident bureaucrat in me that shies away from big, spontaneous gestures, or a lack of a specialism that offers the required expertise, that prevents me from proposing big ideas, but I do flatter myself that, when it comes to the mechanics of implementation, I have an eye for implications. And today, that came in useful.

We were discussing membership structure proposals at today's meeting of the ALDE Financial Advisory Committee - naturally, I cannot discuss specifics as everything is still at the proposal stage, and the relevant bodies are yet to be informed - but as we discussed them, and the implications, it dawned on me that they presented an opportunity to reach out to those parties who, for various reasons, find it hard to pay affiliation fees and therefore opt for a more limited form of membership.

And so, I offered up a suggestion which, I hope, will make it easier for smaller parties, from places where politics is difficult, to engage with the rest of us. It does involve some expenditure on the part of the ALDE Party, but I see it as an investment in building a bigger, more diverse, European liberal family, and, given the support of the Treasurer and, I believe, the Secretariat, it is a decided possibility.

As I said, it isn't a big thing, but it is the ability to make a contribution which makes my position as a member of ALDE's Council so worthwhile - a place where process and careful analysis take precedence over grand politics and the expression of ideas.

What that means is that, unlike my usual diffident approach to elections - it would be nice to win, but it isn't the be all and end all - this one is different. I would really like to be re-elected this year to another two-year term, so I'll be campaigning somewhat harder than I have in the past, on a platform of vorsprung durch verwaltung - progress through administration.

You see, I believe that political parties have a duty to run themselves efficiently, as their internal workings are a window into the way they believe politics should be done. They should also wear their principles on their sleeves, because if they don't, why should a voter have any faith that, in power, they would be true to them?

It is that spirit that I bring to my work, and whilst virtue is apparently its own reward, the recognition that re-election represents would be even better...

And so, another journey to the home of the Salamander...

It is that time of year again, when your correspondent travels abroad to carry out the solemn duty of advising European liberalism as to its moral and ethical responsibilities in terms of internal financial management.

I enjoy my membership of ALDE's Financial Advisory Committee, in that it allows me to be helpful - at least to a certain extent - in a field I understand, and yet remain relatively non-political. Our role - the Committee has seven members - is to examine the financial aspects of ALDE Party activity, suggest ways to progress its objectives and act as, if you like, a back-up conscience for both the Bureau and the Secretariat.

You note that I don't claim that we are the conscience, as I have every confidence in both the Bureau and the Secretariat to behave appropriately. However, sometimes, an external perspective, not involved in the day to day necessities and obligations of running a political party, is useful and, I hope, valuable. We are, by our relative separation from the professional staff and leadership, able to ask questions the answers to which may seem obvious to an insider but, to an outsider, might smack of "but that's how we've always done it".

My colleagues, Boris, Hans, Luca, Monica and Roman, bring different experiences to the table, and different perspectives, which is useful because there are as many ways of doing things as there are countries in the European Union, and issues that might pass unmentioned in one country might be problematic in another. For example, accepting a particular source of sponsorship may generate issues in, say Italy, that cause no problems in Sweden.

We do have a new member this time, as there is a new LYMEC (Liberal Youth Movement of the European Community) Treasurer to be introduced and welcomed, replacing Anne, whose input was always helpful.

So, wish me luck, as I'm kind of doing this for you - because financial probity matters to everyone in civil society...

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...

Liberal Democrats: try and keep your head up to the sky?

If all that I knew of the Liberal Democrats was the pronouncements from the centre and the debate on Liberal Democrat Voice, I would probably be pretty depressed. That isn't to say that it hasn't been a bit grim of late, as the fire of the Party seems to be turned on itself, aided and abetted by outsiders with little fondness for liberalism or, in some cases, interest in its survival in our country.

In some cases, where people have been hurt, or failed by the Party, I understand their unhappiness, even whilst wishing that it wasn't so. And if they feel that, having tried every other way to seek remedy for what happened, their only option is to attack the Party in a public forum, then those of us who remain will just have to take it on the chin.

We are promised change by our leaders, and maybe it will come. But it won't be quick, and it won't be certain. Not every member of the Liberal Democrats is a liberal or a democrat, political parties attract some people who, given half a chance, will demonstrate just how astute Lord Acton's comment on power and its ability to corrupt was, and one person's morality is not that of another. And, in judgement of such things, we are ultimately reliant on humans, with all their multiplicity of faults and failings.

Process is not, in itself, the solution to the mess that the Party finds itself in, as, unless the culture changes, the process is only good for punishing people after they have hurt others. It might act as a deterrent, and I hope that it does, but it won't prevent such events entirely, and I worry about the current level of expectation that it might. In an organisation which is predominantly run and led at local level by volunteers without experience of handling complaints, and where awareness of best practice is patchy at best - trust me, I have plenty of practical experience on the subject - you are only as strong as your weakest link.

So, we must strive to build confidence in our members and supporters that, where wrongdoing is discovered, that it will be acted upon swiftly, and with due process. But we must also stand prepared for the weaknesses of individuals and the randomness of misfortune...

ALDE: listen as your day unfolds, challenge what the future holds...

It's getting towards the time of year when thoughts turn to re-election, and as my second term as a member of the Liberal Democrat delegation to the Council of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe (ALDE) comes to an end on 31 December, I should be giving some thought towards a manifesto.

There are some new complications this year, in that gender balance will be more strictly enforced, which given that more men than women generally run, makes my prospects somewhat less rosy - c'est la vie, I guess. I am, it is true, somewhat more low profile than once I was, which probably doesn't help either, and I belong to a smallish, rather out of the way Local Party.

It would be nice to think that I could run on my record, but as hardly anyone knows what ALDE does, and even less what the Council is for, I'll be up against people who have views on European policy (even though it is Congress that makes policy, not Council), and have little or no interest in what Council does - it's the administrative bit of ALDE.

But I would rather like to get elected for another term. I like the way politics is done at European level, more collaborative, more consensual, I enjoy working with others to reach a policy solution that brings people together rather than driving them apart. And, at a time when domestic politics both within and beyond the Liberal Democrats is, to be frank, a bit depressing, doing something rather more positive is important.

So, I'll be pondering over the messages for my campaign, and working on the text of what will probably be just an A5 page in a large booklet of similar pleas for support. And whilst it might be premature for me to express a wish that you might look kindly upon my candidacy, do remember that, like most other candidates for elected Party office, I'm doing this because I want to serve my Party, not as some sort of quest for fame.

Crossing the path of Erik XIV once again, this time in Turku

That Erik XIV certainly got around, albeit somewhat unwillingly. This is Turku Castle, or Åbo Slott, as Swedish speakers would refer to it, where our friend was imprisoned. It would seem that he was moved around quite a lot, to prevent anyone getting any ideas about putting him back on the throne, until it was eventually decided that poisoning him was best for everyone (except Erik, presumably).

Turku was our third stop on our circumnavigation of the northern Baltic Sea, having left Mariehamn on a surprisingly perfect afternoon, on the M/S Viking Grace, a vast, rather snazzy ferry which travels backwards and forwards between Stockholm and Turku, calling in the Åland Islands en route. It was, in retrospect, too early to leave Mariehamn and, likewise, too early to reach Turku. But that's part of the travel experience and, as I always tell Ros, we can always go back.

In truth, Turku is not an obvious tourist destination, and despite its status as one of the two EU Capitals of Culture in 2011 - Tallinn was the other - there is little to keep the questing traveller. We went to Naantali, a rather lovely old town masquerading as a ferry terminal - we stood where the map suggested that the terminal should be, but couldn't find any evidence that a ferry travels from there to Kapelskär via Längnas, even though it actually does. 

On our second day, we visited the castle. It is rather something, notable for having had, as one of its defences, bears which would savage unwary attackers. Apparently, this would now be considered cruel and unusual punishment, although anyone attacking a castle rather deserves all that they get, if you ask me. The English-speaking guide was very good value for the €2.50 that she cost, with a lot of interesting stories and some very un-Finnish humour.

The riverfront makes for a pleasant walk too, and the cathedral is imposing, but it isn't enough to make me think that I really ought to go back - just watch, there'll be an ALDE event there next year, now that I've said that...

Âland of gentle surprises, set in a chilly sea...

There was a time, not so long ago, when a travelling bureaucrat would have been in some big city, looking at big things, flying on big planes. But times change, and so have my, or should I say, our travels.

The Äland Islands are a Swedish-speaking collection of Islands and skerries which form the western end of an archipelago that reaches out from Turku, in south-western Finland, across the lower Gulf of Bothnia towards Sweden. 25,000 or so people live in what is an autonomous province under Finnish sovereignty. That autonomy is such that they have their own flag, their own post office, a parliament and a bunch of exemptions from European Union regulations, and all of this is the result of a 1921 ruling by the League of Nations that was the talk of international jurists everywhere.

But enough history, why come here?

Mariehamn, the capital, isn't big - just ten thousand or so people - and it isn't exactly bustling. What it is though, is gentle, especially out of season - the summer bus timetable ends in mid-August, and most museums close for the year in mid-September, not to reopen until May. You can walk across from shore to shore in about fifteen minutes - there is sea to the east and west - and the bus service is slightly erratic.

It is a maritime town, with a history that looks to the sea, of brave men who set sail for the four corners of the world but whose roots were in the small communities and rocky outcrops that were their island home, of the women who raised their families and waited patiently for them to come home.

Perhaps it is the fact that, unlike some island communities, the locals are pretty friendly and very helpful, and, on a sunny day, with the sun reflecting off the water and the wooden houses, it is just the place I might live for a while. And then one is gently reminded that the average temperature is above ten degrees centigrade for four months of the year,  Stockholm is six hours away by ferry (it's five to Turku), and in the depths of winter the average temperature is below freezing for three months or more. Hmmmm... maybe not...

So, come to Mariehamn, bring a sweater and perhaps a hat to keep the rain out of your hair. Take a walk, catch a bus, grab an ice cream and some herring - but not at the same time, perhaps. And, at the end of the day, kick back with a beer and relax in the knowledge that, tomorrow, you won't be in a hurry...

Is the only good Tory a kauppatori*?

Ah yes, Finnish humour - a concept somewhat less likely than the same nation's historic fascination with tango. But I digress, and not for the first time.

There can be little doubt that the process of differentiation between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives has begun in earnest. Odd, really, because the Conservatives have had very little trouble in that regard - there are very few serious commentators outside of the Coalition parties suggesting that they are much more 'wet liberal' than a Cameron-led, Conservative-only administration would have been, and in cutting welfare spending, they're doing what most people would expect them to, even if they don't like it much.

No, the expectation is that it is for the Liberal Democrats to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives, and that this is to be done against a backdrop of public cynicism, media vendetta and the hypocrisy of Labour activists who chastise the Coalition for its treatment of the poor and vulnerable whilst their leadership talk of being tougher on welfare and immigrants.

I'll be frank - doing a post-election deal with Labour isn't attractive to this rural bureaucrat. The catch is, would five years of continuing to try to mitigate Conservative incompetence any more worthwhile. I had thought that, whilst they might not be very nice, they were more likely to rebuild the economy than Labour, and on civil liberties issues, they couldn't be much worse than Labour were. I had not given much thought to the question of basic competence...

And it is competence, as opposed to 'right-wing evil' (message to some social liberals and most Labour activists - they aren't evil, it's simply that their view of society is radically different to yours), that has been the problem. In an attempt to win over the media, the Conservatives in government have effectively conceded that, whatever it is that journalists say must be done, regardless of the evidence. So, for example, when talk was of migration, the Conservatives came up with their absurd net migration target, something which has brought about a series of inane measures whilst failing utterly to convince those for whom the pledge was intended to placate and attract.

The 'bedroom tax', Europe, legal aid, anti-terrorism legislation, and so much more, where it is either clear that it didn't work and is being reworked, or is having consequences that thinking people had predicted from the beginning, too much of it is Conservative-inspired.

So, in the event that the British public throw up their hands as if to say, "we don't know, you sort it out", Liberal Democrats will find themselves with a rather harder puzzle to solve. And I really couldn't tell you, at this stage, how I might lean if it came to it...

* a kauppatori is the Finnish for a market square - perhaps as good a description of some Conservatives as you could hope to find...

Interim Peers List - so where do we stand now?

So, let's summate;

• the original 1999 list saw nine out of its fifty members get the call, although two more went on to get one eventually
• its 2004 replacement saw just two successful candidates, although that was better than...
• the 2006 list, of which only one member was preferred...
• but not as good as the 2008 list, which has seen five successes, and another from its subsequent 2010 top-up

My calculation tells me that, therefore, there are still thirty-nine names available to the Glorious Leader. That is, theoretically. Sadly, Viv Bingham is no longer with us, following his death in 2012. Meanwhile, John Stevens quit the Party in 2010 to fight John Bercow in his Buckingham constituency, and Jeremy Ambache is now a Labour councillor in Wandsworth, rather ruling them out, I suspect.

On the positive side, Catherine Bearder is unlikely to give up her seat in the European Parliament, thus taking her out of the frame, although even were she to tire of the charms of Brussels and Strasbourg and accept a peerage, her replacement, Antony Hook, would then be out of the frame instead.

But, to be frank, there may not be very many opportunities for anyone left on the list until next year's General Election... and possibly even fewer after that...

The slightly mysterious Interim Peers top-up list of 2010

It is entirely a coincidence that the 2010 top-up list was announced on 13 November 2010 - although it was my birthday - and a new list of appointments to the Lords was announced six days later. It did lead to an interesting occurrence, however.

A list of fifteen, to be added to the remainder from the 2008 list, was elected as follows (those actually appointed highlighted);

1. Sal Brinton - count 1 (19 November 2010)
2. Mark Pack - count 1
3. David Boyle - count 2
4. Kay Barnard - count 2
5. Flick Rea - count 20
6. Sue Baring - count 22
7. Mike Tuffrey - count 23
8. Val Cox - count 27
9. Alan Butt-Philip - count 28
10. Jon Ball - count 28
11. Chris Wiggin - count 28
12. Richard Church - count 28
13. Liz Leffman - count 28
14. Chris Bones - count 28
15. Antony Hook - count 28

It was almost certainly a coincidence that Sal was appointed six days later - whilst nominees are warned some time before the official announcement, the timing is rather longer than that. And there have been no other appointments since from the top-up list...

Ah yes, the 2008 Interim Peers List. And how, exactly, did they get on?...

Yesterday, I caught up with the first three elected Interim Peers lists, as elected by Federal Conference delegates in 1999, 2004 and 2006. Today, it's time to move on to the 2008 list, and the 2010 'top-up' list that went with it.

Here's the 2008 list, in order of election (successful candidates highlighted in red=;

1. Brian Paddick - count 1 (1 August 2013)
2. Duncan Brack - count 1
3. Viv Bingham - count 1
4. Ramesh Dewan - count 1
5. Ben Stoneham - count 1 (19 November 2010)
6. Julie Smith - count 1 (8 August 2014)
7. Jonathan Fryer - count 1
8. Gordon Lishman - count 1
9. David Williams - count 1
10. Catherine Bearder - count 2
11. Jonathan Marks - count 2 (19 November 2010)
12. Chris White - count 3
13. Jock Gallagher - count 4
14. Ruth Coleman - count 4
15. Jackie Pearcey - count 5
16. Justine McGuinness - count 6
17. James Kempton - count 6
18. Bill le Breton - count 7
19. Robert Adamson - count 15
20. Josephine Hayes - count 23
21. Peter Price - count 27
22. Qassim Afzal - count 27
23. Monroe Palmer - count 27 (19 November 2010)
24. Fiyaz Mughal - count 29
25. Bernard Greaves - count 30
26. Jane Smithard - count 31
27. Alan Sherwell - count 31
28. Jeremy Ambache - count 31
29. John Stevens - count 31
30. Tony Vickers - count 31

In which I discover that I am, in fact, a Viking...

No, I don't possess a helmet with horns, nor do I partake of looting, pillage or any of the other stuff that Scandinavian tourists used to get up to in less enlightened times, although I do enjoy the occasional beer... but where on Earth has the idea come from that I might be a Viking? Let's go back to the beginning, shall we?...

Tuesday morning dawned a bit grey, it had to be said, but Ros and I had a boat to catch. And as it made its way west from the city, we began to realise just how close to Stockholm the great outdoors starts. The islands are dotted with cottages near the water, with their own mooring and a small boat, and it is all very tranquil.

Our destination, however, was Birka, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and an important trading centre in the eighth, ninth and early tenth centuries. It was a place where the world came for wood, furs and iron, bringing silks and silver, amongst other things. And, from there, Swedes brought drama, albeit very brief drama, into the lives of others.

As our guide explained, the people who went off on expeditions were called vikings - it was a job description, as in he's a plumber, she's a brain surgeon, they're vikings. The use of the term Vikings only really developed during the eighteenth century cultural revival, when the concept became romanticised - and let's be honest, the romanticised version is always rather more positive than the truth.

There isn't much in the way of visible evidence of the thriving town that was Birka. It was made of wood, after all, and the town went into decline as early as 950 AD, but archeologists have gradually unearthed its secrets, some of which can be seen in the on site museum.

And, even on a rather grey day, with the aid of our excellent guide, it is an evocative place to hear stories of adventure and exploration, of trade and of kingship - an excellent place for Ros and I to have visited on our expedition.

I think that we won't be wearing helmets though, as we head further east...

Whatever happened to the Interim Peers List... Redux

More than four years ago, I took a look back at the Party's concept of electing its nominees to the House of Lords, a concept that, to be honest, I had some scepticism about at the time, and to some extent still do.

I started with a look at the 1999 list, from which nine, including the woman who had subsequently become my wife, had been selected. Since then, Monroe Palmer - number 17 on that list - and Dee Doocey - number 38 - were elevated in the first Coalition list in November 2010 (the May 2010 list was Gordon Brown's dissolution list).

Next, the 2004 list. Two people, Robin Teverson and Celia Thomas, were preferred in 2006,  and Monroe was on that list too - at number 4 this time - whilst Dee had chosen not to run. However, there were three more names on that list who went on to get a peerage. Ben Stoneham, at number 12, was another on the November 2010 list, as was Jonathan Marks (number 28). And, loosely sandwiched between the two at number 24, was Julie Smith, whose peerage was announced earlier this month.

The 2006 list drew an even shorter straw, with only four appointments made during its lifetime - Sue Garden (number 7) got a thoroughly justified nomination in September 2007. However, four more women on that list - Dee Doocey (number 2 and already mentioned above), Kate Parminter (number 3), Olly Grender (number 9) and Meral Ece (number 21) - went to get peerages, Kate and Meral in May 2010, and Olly in August last year.


So, what has happened since then?...

The race for the Party Presidency - and then there were three...

Pauline Pearce's dramatic withdrawal from the contest came as a bit of a surprise to your absentee bureaucrat, although, to be fair, her emergence as a contender in the first place was itself a bit unexpected.

I don't want to touch upon the grounds she has given - I haven't been involved in her campaign, nor that of any other candidate, as I mean to be an interested, neutral observer in this contest - but perhaps I might examine the four questions that I put to her some time ago, and never got an answer for;

• What do you think the role of the President should be in the year of a General Election?

• What do you think should be the relationship between the President and the Party Leader?

• What do you think should be the relationship between the President and the voluntary party, i.e. the activists and volunteers?

• Name three personal attributes that would help you perform the role of Party President and why?

To be honest, I don't know Pauline at all, although I knew a little from some of the coverage she had received. But it was never entirely clear to me why she was running for the Party Presidency, or what she hoped to achieve both through her campaign and if she were to be elected. And, whilst the other candidates were beginning to campaign or, at least, raise their profiles, there were rather less obvious signs that Pauline was doing the same.

Running for the Presidency is not easy. The requirement to persuade ordinary members to support you means that, especially in a crowded field, you need to have a strategy to reach beyond the usual suspects - Parliamentarians, bloggers and other social media devotees - to Local Party Officers, councillors and the like, who offer a means to reach those armchair members who don't pay that much attention to internal Party affairs.

If you don't have a national profile already - and I'm not convinced that Pauline did yet - you need to develop one, and to grow a supporter base of people who can and will lobby their local members to vote for you.

In a General Election year, especially one that looks as difficult as 2015 does, I personally see the role of an incoming President as being at least twofold. In the run-up to May, it is about 'rallying the troops' to win as many seats as possible. It won't be glamorous, especially as the campaign organisers will have little or no idea what to do with you, and won't want you to draw attention away from the Leader.

Afterwards, if there is another hung Parliament, and the Liberal Democrats are relevant, being an honest broker during the decision making process and acting as a conduit for the views of the members and activists is critical. Otherwise, if the result is a bad one, keeping the Party together and dealing with a potential leadership contest will be the new key tasks.

Could Pauline have done those things successfully? I guess that we'll never know now, and I'm not sure that there were developed answers to my questions, not that any candidate will convince everyone of their potential in the role.

Still ahead of par, as country number 55 is ticked off...

One of my personal aims is to have visited more countries than I have had birthdays. As a child, I didn't travel that much, and I only really got going when I took up international youth politics. Then, of course, having married, the travel really took off and now, with Ros, we are lucky enough to have a number of opportunities to see new places.

But my travel has been somewhat erratic - I've been to nine Latin American countries but not Norway, for example - and there is still plenty of low-hanging fruit left. And so, having decided that we wanted to see a little more of Northern Europe, I found myself with a chance to add a new country - Sweden. I had, technically, been to Sweden before, having stood on the roof of Gothenburg's Landvetter Airport once whilst connecting en route from Frankfurt to Helsinki, but you can't really count that, can you?

And so, on Saturday, Ros and I set off for Stockholm, flying SAS (not a wildly impressive experience, I must say) out of Heathrow's Terminal 3. It's not a long flight, and after a fairly uneventful journey, we reached the apartment we had rented in Södermalm, the now hip and trendy suburb just south of Gamla Stan, the historic core of Stockholm.

I'm afraid that, as a fan of the Muppet Show's Swedish Chef, I have to resist a temptation to mutter in mock-Swedish, but having overcome that, we were off to dinner at a restaurant where I had taken the precaution of booking a table in advance. One problem we often face is finding somewhere to eat on a Saturday night, as all the good places are reserved by the time we arrive. But now, thanks to the wonders of the internet, you can beat the locals - after all, you probably know your plans well before they do.

Pelikan is a rather stylish, modern Swedish restaurant, and having recovered from the slight heart murmur caused by the price of everything - Sweden is really quite painful on the budget - we enjoyed a good meal. There was, I admit, herring involved, and there may have been meatballs too, with lingonberries, but it was all good.

All in all, a good start to our trip...

Erik XIV lived here...

... albeit unwillingly. This is Kastelholm Castle, now a quiet corner of Åland, and the only medieval castle on the islands, founded in the 1380s, and one of the many castles where Erik, his morganatic wife and their two children were imprisoned after he was deposed as King of Sweden by his brother, John III, in 1571.

It is a very peaceful spot, something that its inhabitants in its days as an active castle would have found hard to imagine, and not necessarily the easiest place to get to by public transport.

However, Ros and I had decided that it was worth it and, after a pleasant walk around Mariehamn, we caught an early afternoon bus towards Prästö. Åland is a surprisingly pretty place, and our bus glided through small communities and forests before reaching Kastelholm, where, along with a pair of German tourists, we were deposited and then abandoned.

Åland is like that, and even coming from somewhere as rural as Creeting St Peter, the silence is a mite unnerving. But we could see the castle, and as we crested a rise, the open air museum and a new, and apparently rather swish, restaurant called Smakbyn appeared. Time for lunch, we thought.

It was a good choice, as Ros had the pea soup (warning, it's not vegetarian!) whilst I had the salmon - both were excellent - followed by the Åland pancakes with plum sauce - also very good. But we had a castle to visit.

It would be fair to say, now that summer had apparently left Åland, that being a tourist here makes you something of a comparative rarity. The winter timetable for the local buses started a week ago, things start to close for the season - the open air museum will close its doors for the year in mid-September - and whilst our hotel is busy, it isn't exactly full. And so, the discovery that there were half a dozen of us in the castle was not quite as much of a surprise as it might have been. It did mean that we could gently potter about, enjoying the views and wondering about witch burning - they did that here too.

Next, we had a look around the open air museum, with its post mills and red-painted buildings whilst the sun put in an unexpected but welcome appearance.

Sightseeing done, we headed back to the bus stop, expecting a lengthy wait for what we thought was an hourly bus service. The unexpected sight of a bus somewhat earlier than promised by the timetable came as yet another pleasant surprise, as we returned to Mariehamn via a rather more direct route and were back in time to do a little shopping.

Tonight, we're eating out again, at one of Mariehamn's best restaurants. This might not ordinarily be saying much, but we have eaten remarkably well so far, and the reviews are good...

Goodbye, Mr Ruffley. You didn't really get it, did you?

This evening's news that David Ruffley, my local Conservative MP, has announced that he will not be contesting next year's General Election is, I have to say, very good news for anyone who, like me, believes that there must be some standards for those in public life.

When the news broke, courtesy of Guido Fawkes, that the police had been called and that a caution for common assault had been accepted, I was surprised that the story appeared not to attract very much interest. After all, given the acres of press coverage given over to accusations of sexual misconduct in other cases, the acknowledgement of guilt on a charge of domestic violence might perhaps lead to open season on the guilty party by the press.

The outgoing MP for Bury St Edmunds

And yet, the story seemed to be going nowhere, with even the local newspaper, the Bury Free Press, very slow to pick up on the matter, and as for the national media - the Daily Mail being an unusually honourable exception - well, you might almost have thought that a conspiracy of silence applied. It was alleged that Mr Ruffley's public silence was being combined with a private campaign to 'sweet-talk' the media but, as long as the story didn't snowball, it looked as though he would get away with it.

I admit that my working assumption had been that his local Conservative Association would have a quiet word, and he would announce his retirement - his political career wasn't really going anywhere following the unfortunate incident not long after the General Election. And, perhaps, a bright young thing, or a prominent local member, might suit local circumstances nicely. However, the public support of the Association's Chair appears to have given him the belief that he might get away with it.

There is always a danger that a partisan campaign to drive someone out of office backfires, so when the Labour PPC for South Suffolk, Jane Basham, started to publicly call for his to go, I half expected local Conservative activists to rally round, but the blunt statement from the Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner, Tim Passmore;

Those of us in a leadership role in society must do our level best at all times and try to set a good example to others in what we do and how we behave – that includes all politicians regardless of any party affiliation.

In my opinion there cannot and must not be any hiding place for the perpetrators of such crimes.

and an equally unequivocal statement from the Conservative county councillor and Chair of the Suffolk Domestic Abuse Partnership, Jenny Antill;

I cannot condone any incident of domestic abuse, regardless of the identity of the perpetrator or his or her position in society or political persuasion.

rather put the pressure back on the Association.

It took nearly four weeks for even a grudging public apology for his actions to emerge, an apology which seemed to have been crafted so as to accept a minimum of blame - as if the fact that his victim had accepted his apology somehow mitigated his behaviour.

But his apology evidently didn't satisfy, and when a letter from the Dean of St Edmundsbury Cathedral emerged, calling on senior local Conservatives to act, combined with forty thousand signatures on a petition calling for him to go, it seems that his position had become untenable.

David Ruffley is alleged to have some serious anger management problems. I have never had the misfortune to experience his anger at close range, but the rumours of his poor treatment of his staff, his unnecessarily rude and aggressive treatment of witnesses at Treasury Select Committee, combined with this final incident, does appear to suggest that Parliament is a slightly better place without him in it.

Naturally, he leaves an extraordinarily attractive opportunity for an ambitious Conservative - a majority of over 12,000, no obvious opponent for anti-Conservative voters to rally to - and given the hordes that applied for the South Suffolk seat torn out of Tim Yeo's hands not so long ago, I can expect a lot of people in smart suits, male and female, to be buzzing around Bury St Edmunds, Stowmarket and the villages over the coming weeks. It's probably a job for life, but then that's almost certainly what David Ruffley thought...

@BaronessRos in the Lords - European Union Committee: Report on 2013-14

Every year, the European Union Select Committee in the Lords reports back on its activities. And oddly, given the huge fuss made about the influence of the European Union on our day to day lives, very little attention is given to its work, and that of its six sub-committees - even by members of the House of Lords. As Chair of one of those sub-committees, responsible for agriculture, fisheries, environment and energy, Ros was keen to tell of the work of her colleagues and staff...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD): My Lords, I wish to focus my remarks on the work of Sub-Committee D, which I have had the honour to chair since May last year. This is not in any way to downplay the important work undertaken by the Select Committee itself. Our report into the role of national Parliaments is a timely and valuable contribution to a growing debate across Europe and reflects the leadership shown by my noble friend Lord Boswell, whom I thank for his personal support for my work. In my work on the sub-committee, I try very hard to reflect the principles outlined in the report on the role of national parliaments —namely, that of engagement with counterparts and officials from across the EU and looking at policy before it reaches its final legislative form.

Our work this year was dominated by the topic of food waste, to which I shall return in a moment. Some of our scrutiny work followed up on the excellent work undertaken by my predecessors, the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Coles and Lord Sewel, and it shows, I believe, the value of well considered inquiries undertaken early in the policy-making process. This is a hallmark of much of the work across the sub-committees and it is something that we do well.

In 2008, the committee published a report on reform of the common fisheries policy. Five years down the line, I am delighted to say that the work came to fruition. Regulations to reform the CFP were adopted that strongly reflected the key themes of our committee’s 2008 report, including the decentralisation of decision-making and the introduction of a discard ban. Last summer, when the deal was done, the committee turned to the practical implementation of these policies, particularly the discard ban. It remains one that we should be watching.

The second major dossier that reached its end point last year was the reform of the common agricultural policy—although, of course, it never reaches an end; it is like painting the Forth Bridge. Under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, the sub-committee had undertaken an inquiry into innovation in EU agriculture. Redirecting the juggernaut of the CAP is no small task, but incremental steps have been taken along the lines proposed by the committee in its report, and I am pleased to say that the committee continues to press the important themes of research and knowledge transfer as the process of implementation returns. It has also clearly become more of a priority for the Government because this week they have announced new investment in agricultural research.

One way in which we pressed those themes was through our recent report into the prevention of food waste in the EU. On-farm innovation is a very important element of tackling food waste at the initial stages of the food chain. The press and public interest that our report drew surprised even us; the press office tells me that it received more coverage than any House of Lords report it could ever remember. I want to trade anecdotes with my noble friend Lady O’Cathain and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. The Independent described our committee as a “true adornment” of your Lordships’ House.

It is very important now for us to follow up this work. The European Commission recently produced amendments to its waste legislation that very strongly reflect the recommendations that we made in our report to have an aspirational food waste reduction target — not legislatively binding — and to work on standard definitions across the EU. We are awaiting more information from the Commission and a non-legislative communication from it in the autumn. We will also hold a seminar to look at the practical barriers to redistribution of surplus food. I am now constantly being briefed by organisations and businesses across the country and, indeed, Europe on the work that it is doing to reduce food waste. I think that demonstrates that we are regarded as leaders in this thinking.

I turn briefly to some other work. We are currently in the midst of a very intensive period of work, within the EU and internationally, on future approaches to energy and climate policy. It was very pleasing that messages in our report last year with regard to EU energy policy have been reflected in the Commission's proposed policy for energy and climate change through to 2030. This relates particularly to the importance of creating a stable environment to support long-term investment. I am also very pleased that, as the Energy Bill was making its way through this House, noble Lords made a number of references to the work that we had done in our committee. This shows that there is a crossover between the work that we do in the European scrutiny context and in the wider work of the House. Work on energy and climate change will be at the headlines of our next inquiry, into EU regional marine co-operation, which we launched at the beginning of this week. We are trying to bring a number of these things together, such as fisheries, energy interconnectivity and knowledge transfer. I hope that what I have said gives a sense of the work that we have been doing and that we plan to do, and demonstrates that we continue to seek to build and follow up on previous work.

There is a further point that I wish to make. It is a matter not for the Government but for this House. The new rotation rules that have now been introduced for the European committees will result in a two-thirds change of membership of my committee and that of a number of others next year. I suggest that a two-thirds change really runs completely counter to the principles of gathering experience and ensuring the effective running of the committee. As if that were not bad enough, after I had thought about it, I realised that the changes will mean that, every third year, two-thirds of the committee will disappear. I hope that the House will rethink that because it will make our work very difficult indeed.

I am grateful to all members of my committee, who are a joy to work with. They contribute a huge amount of their time, their experience, their expertise and, above all, their enthusiasm to make us successful. I should like to pay particular tribute this evening to Lord Lewis of Newnham, who died earlier this month after a long illness. His interest in all aspects of our work, coupled with his immense knowledge of chemistry, made his contribution invaluable. We miss his deceptively gentle, incisive questioning and his kindness.

Finally, we would not be so effective if it were not for the work of our staff. I put on record my thanks to our committee assistant Mark Gladwell, our clerk Patrick Milner, his predecessor Aaron Speer and our policy analyst Alistair Dillon, whose encyclopaedic knowledge of the range of work we cover is always truly astonishing.

For anyone interested in finding out more about the work of the European Union Committee, here's a link to the rest of the debate...

@BaronessRos in the Lords: Agriculture and Food Industry - Motion to Take Note

Lord Plumb, a former EU Commissioner and President of the National Farmers' Union, had sought a debate on the role of agriculture and the food industry in the economy of the United Kingdom and, in her capacity as Chair of the relevant European Union scrutiny committee, Ros felt that she should make a contribution to it...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD): My Lords, I join the thanks to my noble friend Lord Plumb for securing this afternoon’s debate. As chair of EU Sub-Committee D, which has agriculture within its remit, I appreciate enormously his long experience of both agriculture and Europe and really value his contribution to the work of the committee.

Many millions of people around the world are hungry. In some places it is because of natural conditions and in others it comes as the price paid by ordinary people for the ambitions and mismanagement of their leaders. Close to home, an estimated 5.6 million people are struggling to afford food. Many more people in this country have plenty to eat but are probably malnourished or on the verge of it because they are consuming food which is high in calories and low in nutrients.

It seems strange, given that food is essential to life, that we have no strategy for it. It is certainly true that the food sector is heavily regulated. It is not the Wild West out there. Everything from hygiene to labelling and packaging, from competition law to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, is regulating food, but there is no discernable strategic approach to food production and distribution which looks at our food from local, national, European and global perspectives into the future.

The assumption is that the free market will deliver for us because it is in its interests to ensure that we continue to have easy access to a range of cheap and plentiful food. Retailers have done a great job in providing this. The variety of food on offer has increased enormously in my lifetime, and as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, noted, we spend significantly less on food than we used to. However, cheap food comes at quite a high price, and the price is often paid by growers in developing countries who are tied into unfair contracts and by exploited workers in sectors such as tea and coffee, cashew nuts and prawn fishing. The price is paid in rooted-up rainforest, soil depletion and other environmental degradation. In places, people are going hungry because their land is more profitable to fill our food and energy demands, not their needs.

This is a matter not for government to address through legislation and regulation, but for retailers and consumers to give much more thought to the impact of their purchasing decisions. I welcome the fact that the major retailers are really starting to focus in on the ethical and environmental consequences of our food consumption.

Our sub-committee recently carried out an inquiry into food waste. It became evident that much of the problem lies within the nature of the food chain. Farm to fork has become something of a cliché, but long food chains consisting of individual businesses, each of which is concerned with its own bottom line, can result in practices which are bad overall. In the case of food waste, we identified the relationship between supermarkets and growers as a major problem, particularly where cancelled orders and overzealous specification results in growers being left with surpluses of food which they have had to produce to avoid penalty, which has then not been used. Without a market for that food, it gets ploughed back or anaerobically digested.

Those lengthy food chains are also where safety and verification problems come in. The horsemeat scandal was a real wake-up call both to the public and industry because, as supply chains become longer and extend geographically, the enforcement of regulation becomes harder. Will the Minister update the House on Professor Elliott’s report into food supply networks?

The sub-committee thought that the Government could do a lot more to understand food chains better and to promote expertise and understanding. Witnesses told us that expertise in food chain management is in short supply, and this is partly why tackling food waste and other issues has become so difficult. It not just retailers. Equally problematic are the large food service companies, which provide meals in our schools, hospitals and prisons, and the hospitality sector.

One of the issues identified by many witnesses in our food waste inquiry is that people understand food far less well than they used to. In the context of food waste, it means they do not know how to use leftovers, and they do not understand basic facts around the storage of food and particularly when it is safe to eat it. It goes far wider than food waste. Many people do not know how to cook any more, so they spend far more than they need to buying expensive prepared food and take-aways. Ironically, this is hitting the poorest hardest. A recent report from Kellogg’s showed that 45% of children said they do not learn about food at home or at school, although 79% said they would really like to. I would like the Government to give much more thought as to how people can learn about food. Most commentators now agree that, as the global population rises, food will become a much scarcer commodity. With basics such as land and water coming under pressure and the impact of climate change and agriculture making dramatic fluctuations more common, basic food security cannot be taken for granted. This is not in the distant future. Asda’s corporate affairs director recently told a conference that 96% of the fresh food that Asda buys is already at risk from changes to weather patterns.

We need to think long and hard about this. Are we right in our assumption that, somehow, we western countries will continue to take priority in global food markets and that we will have the same access to food? Can we just leave it to supermarkets to ensure plentiful food and, if we do, what is the price we are likely to pay financially, environmentally and socially? We need to consume more food produced closer to home. There are already growing signs of the impact of improving diets of people in China and India. Competition for food is becoming much more of an issue and it is already happening. Parts of the fishing industry in Asia are no longer prepared to supply EU markets because they can easily supply markets closer to home, where the ethical and safety demands are much less stringent.

For those of us who care about carbon footprints, how do we reduce them when less of our food is being grown close to home? The Government should give a high priority to research in agriculture, working with academia and industry to improve yield, reduce food losses and waste, and improve storage processing and packaging. There are a lot of very valuable partners in the EU, which can build with organisations such as the University of East Anglia, closer to home. I was delighted to see the Prime Minister’s announcement, earlier this week, of a new agricultural research fund and I believe that should focus on yield, food loss and waste and particularly, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and others have described, the question of land stewardship. We need social research to try to understand how best to nudge consumers into making choices which are safe, affordable, healthy and sustainable. A number of noble Lords have talked about the future. The Kellogg’s survey showed that just 1% of the Kellogg’s children wanted to be farmers so where, I wonder, is the next Henry Plumb coming from?