I was not even remotely surprised to wake up this morning to this headline.
Andy was Chief Executive of the Scottish Party from 1992-1997. He was then a special adviser to Nicol Stephen during the second term of the Liberal Democrat/Labour coalition. Sadly, he’s no longer a member of the party, which is a great shame. We shouldn’t be losing good liberals like him. I hope that at some point in the future he’ll feel able to join us again.
It’s been clear from his always thoughtful and considerate posts on Facebook for some months that this was the way he was going .It’s also very clear that today’s press release from Yes Scotland had not been through their “on message” machine. This is what he said:
After spending much of my adult life trying, genuinely, to improve government in the UK, I have come to the conclusion that there is a much better chance of bringing power closer to the people in an independent Scotland.
As a liberal, I believe that sovereignty starts with the people and is passed upwards. Devolution is, on the other hand, about sovereignty being passed downwards, however benevolently.
I campaigned for a devolved parliament because it brought power back closer to the people, and I thought it might shake-up the UK constitution and lead to major reforms. I now see that this was a naïve hope or belief.
I can see no evidence that it will lead on to a modern British federation, where Scotland is a genuinely equal partner with the other parts of the UK. None of the UK parties are even talking about what I consider to be federalism. I have come to the conclusion that the best way forward is an independent Scotland within the EU.
These are the things that I want to focus on. I think it will easier to do so after September 18 in a newly independent country.
I want to live in an ordinary country, where the constitution is written down and largely accepted, but can be amended. I accept that such amendment should require very significant effort, but it should be possible.
So I am forced in September to ask myself a simple question: Will I get to a written, amendable constitution quicker by going with the continuing UK or an independent, sovereign Scotland? I think that voting Yes is the surest way of getting to this benign position.
I have reached a different conclusion from Andy but that doesn’t mean to say I’m going to stop looking forward to his thoughts, which have provided nourishment and intellectual challenge. Ultimately, I’m too emotionally and practically invested my British as well as my Scottish identity to want to leave the UK. I’ve not seen anything on offer from the Yes campaign that makes me feel that the independent Scotland they put forward is the place I want to live.
For me, the crux of what Andy talks about is not about a constitution, but about tackling the real challenges that Scotland faces, like poverty and climate change. Whatever happens in September it needs to be these sorts of issues that occupy our thinking, not the Constitution. For me, the most important thing is having a liberal Scotland where we bother about freedom and giving people opportunities in life and building a sustainable future. Sadly, that’s not on offer from either side in the referendum.
I hope that Andy’s decision will somehow get more liberal thinking into our discussions over the next few months. I’m not holding my breath, but I’d like us to lift our eyes from the very narrow scripts of the two official campaigns and reclaim the debate for ordinary people.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
23 Comments
Its the logical choice.
By the same logic, we English should also be seeking to pull out of the UK.
Jo Grimond made the case for independence rather than devolution in 1983 in a way which Liberal Democrats can surely espouse. “The object of giving responsibility to the Scots and Welsh”, he wrote ” is so that they can foster their own traditions, develop along the lines they choose, do something different from the English.” He added that, If this is to be achieved, they must cease to be dependent on the British Exchequer.
Independence for Scotland should benefit all parts of the British Isles. Cultural, political and economic diversity would be rescued from the insidious effects of dominance by Westminster, the City, the BBC and the national press.
Caron, it is not clear from your post whether Andy Myles has just left the Lib Dems, or whether he had left previously – if so, when? I am afraid those of us who live further south, and in some cases don’t even have the advantage I do, of a landlord who lives in Scotland and keeps me in touch with political developments!
Tim, he didn’t make a song and dance about leaving the party, he just left quietly about six months ago. A real shame.
Yes, it is a real shame (that Andy left the party). I had no idea until now.
On the issues that Andy deals with in his statement above, it will probably not surprise Caron to know I’m in broad agreement, but would go further in some respects. The written constitution itself, while desirable, is of lesser concern than the well-being of the Scottish people. The real question is whether a liberal society would be more achievable in an independent Scotland than it would in the current, somewhat dysfunctional, Union.
If good people like Andy Myles are leaving the party someone ought to start taking notice and do something about Clegg. You do not need the shipping forecast to see which way the wind blows.
Andy Myles is also right about voting Yes in the referendum.
This is the big chance for the people of Scotland to escape the Etonocracy.
Good grief. He would happily tear apart this country and throw away 300 years of unity and co-operation just to increase the chance of a written constitution? Because written constitutions guarantee good governance? Just ask all those countries like the United States, Russia, Italy, Egypt, etc that are so better governed than us because they have a written constitution.
Not that I believe there is any real chance of the Yes side winning, but as long as we are discussing this hypothetically I would like to know:
1) What happens to the Scottish Liberal Democrats? Could they successfully reorganise as a national Scottish party? Their numbers have been uniformly disastrous for years now (much worse than the UK average).
2) Is there really political space within a purely Scottish arena for a four-party system? Is it possible that, without a relationship to a national party, the Scottish Lib Dems would either dissolve or merge with one of the other parties?
3) What happens to the political careers of Scottish MPs at Westminster?
4) What happens to Scottish Lords?
5) Is there any way in which the Scottish Liberal Democrats could turn Scottish Independence to political advantage?
So Andy Myles has gone. Sadly one less vote to get rid of Nick after the coming debacle.
My one regret in all of this has been the nonsensical posturing of the Westminster set in saying that Scotland would ‘Lose the pound’ and Scotland would ‘not be able to remain in the EU’. Personally I think it’s a matter for Scotland to decide if it wishes to be independant, and if that decision is yet is it behoven on Liberals in England to support that decision and to ease the way for the transition to be as smooth as possible, for the sake of both countries.
A Scotland outside Sterling will only weaken Sterling, a Scotland inside Sterling would open the door for other EU countries to join the Sterling Group if it suited their economies, which would strengthen sterling and make it more able to compete against the emerging Euro.
A Scotland outside the EU will weaken England’s ability to control its borders and will reduce the influence England has over things such as the common fisheries policy where Chris Davies has made incredible progress on negotiating a revised policy and securing nature reserves on our sea beds.
A Scotland outside Nato would massively weaken the defences of this Island.
It’s time for a little common sense in this debate.
Stephen W, I just realised I hadn’t coped over another part of the article where he talked about focusing on more important issues without constitutional distraction:
“Mr Myles said he looked forward to settling the debate so that the people of Scotland could concentrate, with fewer constitutional distractions, on tackling important issues such as ending poverty, learning how to distribute the common wealth more fairly and “saving ourselves from the horrors of climate change”.
He added: “These are the things that I want to focus on. I think it will easier to do so after September 18 in a newly independent country.”
Having said that, I don’t agree with him that independence is the best way to achieve any of these things , but unless the pro UK side gets its act together with some real positive mood music rather than dourness and language like devastation and damage and threat, then we might find ourselves in that situation come September.
1) What happens to the Scottish Liberal Democrats? Could they successfully reorganise as a national Scottish party? Their numbers have been uniformly disastrous for years now (much worse than the UK average).
Actually, there are lots of liberals in the SNP – it would be more about what would happen to them once they achieve independent.
2) Is there really political space within a purely Scottish arena for a four-party system? Is it possible that, without a relationship to a national party, the Scottish Lib Dems would either dissolve or merge with one of the other parties?
Scotland has a very long liberal tradition so there would be a need for a liberal party. No way would we merge with anybody.
3) What happens to the political careers of Scottish MPs at Westminster?
That would be for them and the party to decide – they’d have to fight for seats in the Scottish Parliament if they wanted to continue. It’s kind of stating the obvious.
4) What happens to Scottish Lords?
They wouldn’t be in the House of Lords any more – but then we would hope that none of them would be in their current appointed set up within the next decade anyway.
5) Is there any way in which the Scottish Liberal Democrats could turn Scottish Independence to political advantage?
Willie Rennie and our small band of MSPs are doing a marvellous job speaking out against the authoritarian, illiberal, centralising instincts of the SNP, he’s shamed them into extending childcare and giving more money to colleges. Willie is constantly being recognised as punching above his weight. Whatever happens in Scotland, there is a place for the Liberal Democrats.
Iain, I said at the time of Osborne’s declaration on the currency union that that was a big risk. I don’t think the language coming from key players on the Pro-UK side is in any way helpful, even if some of it is factually correct. We actually have to win the argument and I am not convinced we are at the moment, not while Sturgeon and Salmond just say that we’re scaremongering and bullying. Obviously that’s because they don’t want to talk about the issues and it’s so much better to paint Westminster as the nasty bully. But why give them the excuse?
Andy Myles conversion to Independence is presumably borne out of frustration, but it doesnt really explain why he has resigned from the LibDems. I would imagine he will pop up as an SNP candidate quite soon.
DC, Andy is not joining any other party and I’d be very surprised to see him in the SNP. On what basis do you make your prediction?
Putting a “written, amendable constitution” ahead of everything else and using that as the basis on which to break up the UK strikes me as more than a little odd.
@David-1: Re a four-party system, our half-baked PR electoral system can produce some odd results, but there will be more than three parties in practice. The Greens are also represented in Holyrood. As for the SNP, it may fade away after Independence, since it will have no raison d’etre and no coherent policy platform on issues other than Independence to distinguish it from other parties. The Lib Dems in Scotland will have a bright future and can aim to lead a coalition.
@David-1; personally I think the Irish party system is a reasonable hypothetical guide for the future of Scotland’s main parties under independence, at least in the first 10years.
I’d suspect that the stance on independence will be used by many as a rhetorical defining tool for years to come, rather than any clear policy position; I see the SNP trying to build on its prestige as the founding party of the new state and probably shifting to the vaguely defined centre-right whilst what is now the Labour Party becomes the core of a vaguely centre-left opposition, possibly absorbing other parties.
I hope that a liberal party could exist in such a polity, but whether it would survive as a centrist goruping, or would be forced to adopt more radical policies to define itself against the big beasts, would be interesting; it might purely in theory pursue cooperation with the Greens. I suspect the sort of ideas Mr Myles is proposing might find a welcome in such a new party.
Answers on what happens to the Tories on a postcard; they could I suppose become a regional grouping pursuing devolution within the new state for the Lowlands/Borders area.
The big questions that will shape party politics in this hypothetical state will be about the shape of the consitution; will there be a second chamber / regional bodies able to stand up to the centre? will PR continue to be the main form of election to the parliament?
This is what I said to Andy on Facebook:
I’m wrestling with agreeing with most of what you say Andy and at the same time not being sold on the independence proposition. I suppose at the bottom of this is a question of personal values and being able to align them. By far the worst thing about the Union to me is Westminster and the centralised state and the power of the South East. And I have no truck with the shambolic and negative Better Together campaign. But I can’t see in the white paper any compelling vision of decentralisation or further empower individuals. Indeed I would find it hard to find the liberalising heart of a leader who creates a centralised police force and imposes a “one size fits all” policing model. Indeed so much of the Yes vision seems to be around reassuring people that things won’t change and we would just have a mini-me United Kingdom instead. On the wider impact of independence, economic, social union, the cost of the disruption and so on I can’t make it add up in my head. So I find myself in the rather contrary position of being delighted there is a strong voice making the Liberal case for independence and reminding us that Liberalism and federalism are not unionism but at the same time unconvinced that this particular leap would be the right thing…
It is disappointing to hear that Andy has left the Lib Dems. It’s over 20 years since we were leaving the House of Commons after a long winded Federal Party Committee. Andy suddenly said ” I hate this building and everything it stands for”. I was shocked by the force of his outburst.
If we actually believe in a Federal as opposed to an Unionist Britain, we cannot achieve this by breaking up the UK.
If Scotland votes YES the development of a new political system will be fascinating. After the referendum,the next stage would be a treaty of 2015 which would have to be passed by UK and Scottish Parliaments. The unity of the Nationalists would be severely tested. Many of their internal arguments would come to the fore and without the suppression of the referendum debate to unite them they could easily fracture. Liberal Democrats would have to uphold there beliefs in a political maelstrom. Nationalist movements can be chamaeleon like to survive after there objective is achieved.
Iain,
You seem to be making some bizarre assumptions. Scotland outside Sterling would probably mildly weaken Sterling in the short term, but a multi-national Sterling zone would face similar problems of the Euro without even the weak international institutions they have to handle it. Why should we turn our currency into some complex international Euro-lite just to make Alex Salmond happy?
Scotland inside or outside the EU will make almost no difference to our ability to control our borders since few people are going to attempt entry to England from Scotland either way. Anyway the relevant border issue is the extent of Schengen, which is not equivalent to EU membership anyway. And how exactly would it affect our Common Fisheries policy?
And a Scotland outside NATO would likewise make almost no difference to the defence of England. Do you have specifics?
In addition, it’s not just petulance to raise these points. Scotland can’t just have everything it wants. If EU law requires new entrants to the EU to join the Euro then Scotland will have to obey that law. It’s not some nasty machination of Westminster. If Spain or other countries insist Scotland do not receive instant access to the EU then that is also not the fault of Westminster.
I’ve just read this interesting thread and with others hope we see Andy back in our party in due course.
Just one point. Almost all the peers in the House of Lords are United Kingdom peers. So even those who are “Scottish” by residence or birth, or in some other way, would continue to be members of the Lords.
The only exceptions could be the small number of members of the Lords who sit by virtue of their hereditary Scottish peerages, though even that would have to be decided. These are old hereditary titles which (I think) all date from before the Act of Union. The only Liberal Democrat in the Lords who holds such a title is Jamie Erskine – the Earl of Mar and Kellie. However he left the House in 1999 with most of the old hereds, and came back in 2000 with a life peerage (Lord Erskine of Alloa Tower) and sits by virtue of that title (even though he is still known in the House as the Earl of Mar and Kellie…) So he is not affected either. (I think I have got all that right. It’s the Lords after all, a strange place).
Tony