Backing the Lib Dems is real vote for change

He walks up to you and says: "We acted swiftly and decisively and saved this." His hand gestures to the ruins. He doesn't meet your eye. You seem to remember there were two of them when you left, but the one who did all of the talking then has disappeared. The one left behind is the dour one. You ask what caused the conflagration.

The only answer is, "no". Maybe it is unfair to blame the economic collapse on Labour. But it happened on its watch. This was the Labour government that came to power eager to show that it was capable of stewarding the nation's economy. It was Gordon Brown as chancellor who repeatedly assured us that his prudent hand on the tiller had brought prosperity and stability; there would be no more boom and bust. Right up to the biggest bust for 70 years. The only question left then when considering Labour is whether the achievements of its 13-year reign cancel out the economic catastrophe the party presided over. Have there been significant improvements in health care, education, social justice? Are we comfortable in the way we entered the Iraq war? Both of those questions are met with a resounding "no". So why would anyone think they deserve another shot? Perhaps there are those who believe we should forget the past and look simply to the future, and judge the parties on their proposals to go forward. But putting aside the obvious pitfalls of failing to learn the lessons of history, it falls on the matter of trust. Brown has become a tragic figure who can do no right, but even if he is jettisoned by his colleagues, we can no longer trust Labour to govern.

A vote for the Conservatives in Scotland brings with it difficult questions. For them there is also the matter of trust: do we trust David Cameron in his message that the party has changed and left behind its more divisive social attitudes; or do we suspect that underneath it remains the same old Tory party? And then there is the practical issue of a vote in Scotland: how many seats are the Tories actually able to win here? And it is to be remembered that a Tory government in Westminster could have a very significant impact here in Scotland, where it would have, at best, a handful of MPs. The question would be asked, loudly from the Nationalist camp, but by no means from there exclusively, what mandate the Tories had to govern in Scotland? It would throw into sharp relief the differences between the two countries. It may be that the differences are growing, and it may be that those differences need to be reflected in an altered political relationship between our two countries. But that is not a question for Thursday, but for another day. This election is purely about how best to get the country out of economic crisis.

That is why the SNP strategy fails to impress. The idea that we send a bunch of Scottish MPs to Westminster purely to turn the screw, so that we do better at the expense of other parts of the UK, smacks of the churlish small-mindedness we must avoid. There is a very strong argument, given the two bailed-out Scottish banks, that we should play a full part in the recovery, not gratuitously exploit the situation. Our economy is firmly tied to the rest of the UK. The idea that we can prosper as it fails is nonsense.

Make no mistake that this time around a vote for the Liberal Democrats is not a protest vote, one that can be cast casually because it will have little impact on the eventual outcome, but is a vote that could have extremely far-reaching consequences. It could increase the chances of a hung parliament, and there have been dire warnings about what that would mean for the economy. But those warnings have been exposed as barely credible. Yes, if our credit rating drops that could have a very real effect on how much economic pain we have to suffer and for how long, but the idea that it is an automatic consequence of a hung parliament is simply not true. What matters to the markets is whether we are good for our debts. What matters is how the next parliament goes about its business – hung or not. If it puts forward credible plans to restore the economy and repay debt then the markets will be content.

The highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, in its analysis of the parties' financial plans, said the Lib Dems had the smallest black hole of the main three in their funding schemes, and that there were no hidden tax rises on top.

Another consequence of a vote for the Lib Dems is the potential for bringing in the greatest constitutional reform this country has seen in a century. If the Liberals demand proportional representation in forthcoming elections as a price of coalition then it will forever change politics in Britain.

The truth is that the current first-past-the-post system delivers poor democracy. If there was any doubt then consider the fact that Labour might come third in terms of share of the vote this election but still get the greatest number of seats. It used to be said that strong government was worth this democratic deficit. It is hard to see that now.

In the interests of stability and confidence David Cameron, if he gets most seats but is short of a majority, should not try to form a minority government but instead seek support. The more seats the Lib Dems get the harder it would be for him not to reflect that in government.

There is little doubt that the public's respect for politics is at an all-time low; they feel they have lost their voice, and, after the MPs' expenses scandal, want to see real and obvious change. Proportional representation will mean a visible end to the old yah-boo system and will force politicians to mature. Consensus politics is not weak politics, but enforces a necessary realism about what can be possible.

So, in the hope that new faces can bring about new politics, and that the economic crisis can be tackled with maturity and responsibility, energy and vision, let's get the Lib Dems as many seats as we can.