GOOD RIDDENCE TO POMPOUS IRRELEVANT BRIT MING

Steve Bell summed up Ming's political future with this cartoon.

In a media obsessed age any personal faults are magnified. Ming might have been clever but he came across as pompous and his love for the Britain that he represented at the Olympics was out of place in modern Scotland.

His leadership has led the Scottish Lib Dems into the political wilderness with their undemocratic disdain for a referendum on Scottish independence, while at the same time demanding one on the EU. (the Tories are hypocrites in this area as well).

Dynamic politicians have charisma and earn respect no matter what their age is. Age might have been the excuse to get rid of him but the reality was that Campbell wasn't an effective leader of his party. Also, his own attempts to draw attention away from his age - claiming recently that he had 'married a young turk himself' were cringeworthy.

Since Labour have moved to the right and the Tories have moved to the left (marginally) both are attempting to occupy the voter friendly, politically muddled ''centre ground'.

In this situation the Lib Dems become irrelevant because they can't seriously compete with the 'big two'. In Scotland the SNP are a much more logical alternative to Labour and the Tories.

This leads to the question, what is the point of the Lib Dems? The answer is not a lot and they would be as well to throw their lot in entirely with the Labour party who they kept afloat in Scotland for many years. Those genuine home rulers who would balk at Labour's unionism (there doesn't seem to be a lot of them left given the non-reaction to the blocking of an indy referendum) could then move over to the much more relevant SNP.

DISINFORMATION AND HYPOCRISY FROM LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

The story in the Herald re Ming Campbell today is interesting as it shows up his utter hypocrisy - pity they don't allow any comments.

The Scotsman is more biased (the Herald is biased as well but is slightly more subtle) but at least you get a chance to comeback.

Check this out:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1230481.0.0.php

'Sir Ming' [who obviously has a vested interest in the status quo] argued Scotland would forfeit much international influence if it went independent, for instance losing a seat on the UN Security Council. "Our ability to influence the kind of world we live in would be very severely dented," he stressed.

Is he really so stupid? It's not SCOTLAND's seat at the UN security council. Scotland is not represented in the UN at all.

Jack Straw was a hell of a lot more honest when he said he was worried England would lose their seat at the UN Security council if Scotland became independent.

Straw is quoted by the BBC as saying: "Historically, England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among others things, of amplifying England's power worldwide. And the reverse would certainly be true. A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England."

He adds, "Our [England's] voting power in the European Union would diminish. We'd slip down in the world league GDP tables. Our case for staying in the G8 would diminish and there could easily be an assault on our permanent seat in the UN." [Security Council]