The SNP are holding their Conference in Aberdeen this weekend. Next weekend, the Scottish Liberal Democrats hold our Conference in Dunfermline. These are very different events, not least in terms of scale. The SNP’s event is massive this year, for obvious reasons. They are not used to the presence of the BBC’s UK political editor.
I’ve been looking over the agenda for both events tonight and have a few reflections to make:
The SNP’s motions are much simpler
Have a look at the SNP agenda. It’s pretty bland. Compare it with ours. Our motions tend to be longer and contain a whole load more detail.
Our motions also tend to challenge our leadership more. The first thing Conference will discuss on Saturday is something that will be a little more radical than the leadership was thinking about for our manifesto – a motion to put a penny on income tax with money raised to go towards our underfunded and failing NHS. I have no doubt that there will be an amendment from the Policy Committee, but there will be a good and genuine debate.
Meanwhile, the SNP’s former Deputy Leader Jim Sillars has criticised their leadership for stifling debate, particularly over the question of a second referendum. He told the Telegraph:
Since 1993, the leadership has had a firm grip upon the SNP as a party and the conference has over those years degenerated into a happy, clappy outing for leadership speeches – good, bad or indifferent.
Liberal Democrats challenge their governments more
If you look back to when the Liberal Democrats were in Government, there were many more Conference motions which directly challenged the leadership. One thing you won’t be finding at SNP conference is someone telling the leadership that “there are some things you just can’t polish” as I did when I proposed a motion opposing secret courts to the Scottish Conference on 2012. You can read my speech here – it didn’t pull any punches. That link also contains a video clip of part of my speech and one by Glasgow’s Hugh Waterfield, also opposing secret courts, in which he said something pretty surprising.
That same Conference passed policy opposing the thing we’re not supposed to call the Bedroom Tax.
It was not unusual for Conferences at all levels to pass policy critical of the Coalition Government.
Compare and contrast with the SNP. Most of the motions on offer this weekend are there to slag off the UK Government. If they aren’t doing that they are welcoming the SNP Government’s actions. There is one very simple motion which calls on the Scottish Government to:
…in the course of the next Parliament, to seek to put measures in place that will ensure the number of women in prison in Scotland is reduced.
It’s not a massively specific ask, is it? Will SNP members really be happy if, after five years, there were just one fewer woman in Scottish jails?
This would almost be funny if the SNP hadn’t had 8 years in charge of the justice system and if their record on women in prison hadn’t been such a horror story. By the end of their first term, Scotland’s only women’s prison had had two damning inspection reports that had been ignored by the then Justice Secretary. As I wrote at the time:
This Minister was told in 2009 both by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and by a committee of the Parliament that there were major failings at Cornton Vale and in the way women were treated in the justice system. Two years later, things, if anything, have got worse. If he’s not prepared to take immediate, practical action to sort out the disgraceful conditions at Cornton Vale, then, frankly, he should hand over to someone who will.
While Liberal Democrat members are prepared to challenge their ministers, it appears that SNP members are not. We complain, often with some justification, about our Conference Committee not picking the right motions or amendments, but at least they will put critical stuff on the agenda and we have the debate.
SNP members only get to tell other governments or bodies, most often the UK Government, to go take a running jump. Its own government is treated like a delicate flower to be nourished and nurtured.
I am sure that SNP members, especially those attending their first conference, will be having a whale of a time. The chance of a selfie with a charismatic First Minister, the whirlwind of such a massive event, that buzz of being with like-minded people is all great fun. We have all that froth too, but we underpin it with a robust policy making process that isn’t automatically biased in favour of the leadership.
The last meaningful debate that they had at an SNP conference was over NATO membership back in 2013 and that was only allowed because the leadership realised they had to do it to give them a chance in the independence referendum.
The Liberal Democrats are far from perfect, but I’d much rather be part of a movement where leaders are not revered and are occasionally given food for thought from the Conference floor.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Aidan O'Rourke: Mangersta Beach
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Peter Martin
Jenny Barnes
expats
Angie Harris
Andrew Tampion
19 Comments
I honestly don’t see the point in these articles comparing the Lib Dems with other parties. No-one is going to be persuaded to join the Lib Dems because of this and it just comes across as SNP-bashing again which is a bit boring, to be honest. Sorry but it’s just puerile to say ” look how wonderful we are compared to them” . There are lots of things wrong with the Lib Dems and wasn’t it Tim Farron who said Lib Dems believe in ” your failure is not our success”.
The SNP are vastly more successful than the Lib Dems – vastly more. They must be doing somethong right.
Anything other than total agreement with the SNP is seen as SNP bashing. And you do more than your fair share of Lib Dem bashing. I think it’s worth pointing out these differences. There are plenty reasons why they are doing better than us that are noting to do with our conferences.
Holding a governing party to account is as important a part of democracy as setting out your own vision.
True but to be fair I also write supportive things about Lib Dems when merited – for instance see my comments about Stephen Tall and my comment defending the Mods recently. If there is anything to support I will be very vocal in doing so. No-one is expecting total agreement with the SNP at all.
Yes I agree with your last sentence – so how about holding the governing party to England to account?
If only there were a governing party in England. But England has no government.
There is a governing party of the whole UK, elected by people across the entire UK. Is that what you might be referring to?
If so, there’s no shortage of criticism of the Conservatives on LDV.
After the Today Programme leave the radio on and at 09.45 there is carefully researched history about the identity of Britain at the time of King James. Shakespeare did not have a word processor, so, fast worker that he was, the political situation had changed by the time King Lear was on the stage. The popularity of a peaceful transition had ebbed.
The arrival of a large Danish fleet sounds like an invasion, but was actually a friendly visit by relative, despite the air pollution caused by the gunsmoke. The reference in Lear to dividing the kingdom had changed its meaning. Parliament was not automatically willing to do immediately and exactly what the King wanted.
Time the Lib Dems had motions at Conference instead of essays.
Democracy is important. If you believe in democracy you must exercise it in your own party. If you don’t and don’t get behaving the democratic way, getting into the habit, you will never behave democratically when you are in government or any other kind of influence. But the SNP are as centralist in power in Scotland as they are in their own party – no wonder they now think they are the true successors to the Labour Party in Scotland!
Tony Greaves
But David is right. The SDP used to laugh at the Liberals for our long motions. Now they are five times as long…
“Have a look at the SNP agenda. It’s pretty bland.” It does not load.
Holding a governing party to account is as important a part of democracy as setting out your own vision.
Caron,
“Have a look at the SNP agenda. It’s pretty bland. Compare it with ours. Our motions tend to be longer and contain a whole load more detail.”
Caron its quality rather than quantity that matters and how a motion is explained and debated in such a way that everybody can easily understand , it seems to me that your preference for motions that are longer and with too much detail are aimed at the few the political elite as to the detriment of the many the ordinary Joe Public. From what I have seen of the SNP Conference on TV fantastic debates wide range of diverse delagates and great to see a party with such a large number of women delagates, MSPs, MPs and the best women Party Political leader in the world Nicola Sturgeon.
@Tony Greaves: 100% right. We get annoyed with our Powers That Be sometimes, with justification, but they are rank amateurs against the SNP controllers.
Caron,
“We get annoyed with our Powers That Be sometimes, with justification, but they are rank amateurs against the SNP controllers.”
Caron where is your the evidence that your comment is based upon can you give please give me 3 examples of SNP controllers and the evidence to support your assertion.
“we underpin it with a robust policy making process that isn’t automatically biased in favour of the leadership.”
But the MPs ignored that and voted for the opposite. See Secret Courts as one example.
We have all been watching it on TV and reading the reports in the newspapers. Joe Stalin would be proud of it all!
Tony Greaves
I have to agree with the comments about long motions. I’m not sure I’ve ever started reading a Lib Dem conference motion without slipping into a coma before reaching the end. Legislation often needs to be complex, detailed and abstruse. Policy motions can surely be simpler; they certainly don’t need to include the arguments for their own adoption.
Malcolm hits the nail on the head on the issue of overly wordy motions. The point of a motion is to put something forward for debate. It should not contain elements of the debate itself. You do not seem to see the distinction. And the references to Stalin and the Controller are frankly pathetic. If you want to be defined by what you oppose and not what you believe in you are going the right way about it. I too await with interest your three examples and supporting evidence.
unless you include into the motion the background and supporting how can there be a debate? A motion that says “we must do something about………” may generate a debate but it will ba a debate that is unlikely to have a focus.
A motion that says ‘we must’?
Bill Greene
You’re muddling two different things here. A motion doesn’t become “we must do something” just because you take out all the background. The key question is what the motion calls for the government, parliament or the party itself to do. A lengthy preamble about the circumstances can still end in pointless mush. You can easily find examples here: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/10202/attachments/original/1442569744/Aut15_agenda_book_for_web.pdf?1442569744