The last time Britain faced a financial crisis on the scale of the current one was in 1931. Confidence in the national economy totally collapsed; speculators were in overdrive; the nation's reserves were seeping away. Trust in the banking system evaporated, and there was widespread alarm that savings and pensions would prove to be worthless. Unemployment was rising and people were afraid.

The beleaguered Labour government faced internal revolt. Many Labour ministers and MPs seemed more concerned with party wrangling than dealing with the national crisis. There was little confidence in the prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald. The Tories were ready to sweep to power at the next General Election. Sound familiar? Well, up to a point. One difference was that the Labour government was then a minority one, and half the cabinet were ready to defy their leader.

When MacDonald tendered his resignation the king urged him to try to form a national government.

This did not go down well with either the Tory or Labour parties. The Tory leader, Stanley Baldwin, felt his ability to reassure and to heal wounds made him the man of the moment. He was now going to be cheated out of his rightful role. Labour MPs reckoned that a national government would push through economic policies they could not stomach.

Yet MacDonald managed, in September 1931, to form a genuine British unity government. It was dependent on parliamentary support from the Tories, though in the new Cabinet "of all the talents" only four of the 10 places were held by Conservatives. The new government won a huge majority in the October General Election.

"Country before party" became the Tories' watchword. There was cynicism here - nobody, including the Tories, expected the national government to be more than an interim one. People thought that when the crisis passed, the Tories would form the next government, possibly within a year.

Instead, the national government lasted for several years. In a paranoiac climate of greed, fear and hatred of speculators, so reminiscent of today, it managed to provide both stability and economic authority. But the scars left on Labour were deep. To this day MacDonald is remembered as the great betrayer, though it could be argued that he helped to save his country and did not destroy his party.

Is there a case for a national unity government today? The moment the question is asked, you come up against a huge problem: the sheer paucity of political talent. The current situation should be tailor-made for our present premier. Gordon Brown served as Chancellor for more than a decade; he understands the international banking system; he is on speaking terms with many of the world's top financiers; he is a serious man - just the chap for a crisis such as this. But people are looking for two things Brown cannot provide: reassurance and decisiveness. Ramsay MacDonald was also unpopular in his own party and in the country, but he had much more authority than Brown can muster.

If not Brown, who could lead a national government? David Cameron is expected to be prime minister of Britain before too long, but he has been pretty quiet these past few days. He seems to leave all the financial and economic work to his colleague, George Osborne, hardly a figure to command national respect. The most able and skilful British politician around is probably Alex Salmond.

It would not be feasible for Salmond to lead a British national government, but he could serve in one for a few months, and let his deputy, John Swinney, run Scotland. If Salmond participated in a unity government he would show he was prepared to put Britain's needs in this time of crisis ahead of Scotland's, and that might in the mid-term serve the cause of Scottish independence well.

If not Brown, if not Cameron, who could lead a national government? Nick Clegg, particularly after his gaffes this week, is hardly a figure of substance. Vince Cable is more mature and a politician many people instinctively trust. But he is untried in government.

One veteran who might just fit the bill is Ken Clarke, the best leader the Tories never had, a successful Chancellor and also an efficient Minister of Trade and Paymaster General. He has a suitable persona, being at once decisive, combative and emollient. His beer-drinking, football-supporting, jazz-loving lifestyle lends him the aura of an ordinary bloke, yet he is also an authentic political heavyweight But this is wishful thinking -and indeed the main purpose of this piece is to point up just how bereft we are of serious political talent when we need it most.

MacDonald and Baldwin were hardly world-class statesmen, but we could still do with their like today.