Danny Alexander, remember him?
The former chief secretary to the treasury.
A member of the so-called quartet, of Cameron, Osborne, and Clegg that took every decision of the coalition government between 2010 and 2015.
A key part of the Better Together campaign.
The man, who, despite pouring thousands of pounds into Inverness was roundly and completely and utterly told No by voters, who turned his 9,000 majority into a 10,000 majority for the SNP.
There are many “Danny Alexander moments". We all have our favourite. Perhaps it was back in December 2013 when he was pictured opening a food bank. There he was smiling for photos, handing over packets of pasta and Yorkshire pudding mix, the man who must bear some responsibility for the Treasury’s draconian austerity policies.
Or perhaps it was when he presented his “yellow” budget? As Osborne first hinted at the £12 billion cuts on the horizon, Alexander stood outside LibDem HQ with his alternative budget in a yellow briefcase.
The chief secretary to the treasury, who sat in on every financial decision Osborne and Cameron made, and here he was, months before an election trying to show that he had a different way of doing things.
Perhaps it was an admission that despite being in government, despite being in the quartet and despite sitting beside Osborne at every Budget, Treasury questions and financial statement in the House of Commons, he was irrelevant. Let’s not forget that last month Alexander said the SNP’s 56 MPs had no clout.
This man is to be rewarded with a knighthood.
Surely we as a country should be past knighthoods now? They are an anachronistic throwback from a different time, unsuitable for the 21st century.
The idea that we should bend the knee and treat someone with more respect purely because they have the patronage of someone in government should be consigned to the big green wheelie bin of history.
But that is not even the worst thing about Danny Alexander getting a knighthood, the worst thing about it is that we have to once again hear about this irrelevance of a man.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here