I’ve been saying for months that someone should sit Charles Kennedy down on a sofa and film him talking about the referendum. And last week, somebody finally did. This is the first excerpt and it’s very good. Enjoy – and share widely. Even if you aren’t particularly interested in the referendum, everyone loves Charles…
* 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
Spread it out: the liberal case for a wealth tax (Tom Reeve)
We need a long term strategy with vocational education and apprenticeships at the heart (Dino Schreuder)
Separation of Powers and Civil Liberties in the UK are now at breaking point (Tara Foster)
Welcome to my day: 15 June 2026 – some boldness on Europe… at last… (Mark Valladares)
Actually, this Summer of Strategy could be quite good… (Caron Lindsay)
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
The Joy of Six 1533
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Lord Bonkers: "Something less terrible than the truth"
Aidan O'Rourke: Mangersta Beach
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Jana 
Peter Martin Jana Peter Martin 
Nonconformistradical 
20 Comments
I have steered clear of anything relating to the Scottish referendum because it is for the Scottish people to decide their future. However, I couldn’t resist listening to Charles Kennedy as it is always a pleasure and a privilege. whatever the subject.
Charles is more convincing than most of the other ‘no’ campaigners put together.
Jayne Mansfield is right it is always worth listening to the Liberal Democrat who took the party to success and the election of more MPs and MEPs than any Liberal Leader since the 1920s.
Charles Kennedy was a popular and successful party leader with a real connection with the voters. I do not agree with him on this subject but I recognise his abilities and his achievements, which look even better in the light of the failures that have followed since he was forced out by a coup.
Jayne Mansfield is right it is always worth listening to the Liberal Democrat leader who took the party to success and the election of more MPs than any Liberal Leader since the 1920s.
Charles Kennedy was a popular and successful party leader with a real and lasting connection with the voters. I do not agree with him on this subject but I recognise his abilities and his achievements, which look even better in the light of the failures that have followed since he was forced out by a coup.
Charles Kennedy – best LibDem leader ever!
This is the core message. Well-done, Charles. It is possible to be both Scottish and British, just as it is possible to be both English and British, a New Yorker and an American, a Bavarian and a German, etc. All of us have multiple identities. If ever I am asked my identity, I say “British”. That is how I feel. My mother hammered into me from a very early age that I must never say “English” when I mean “British”. As I am 50% English and 50% Scottish (with a bit of Irish), I am unable to identify with one more than the other. English nationalism makes me cringe. Scottish nationalism horrifies me. All species of nationalism inevitably generate division. Some nationalist ambitions may be justified (where it is about language, or there is an absence of consent), but in the case of Scotland, we both speak the same language and there has always been consent. A huge amount of anger has been built up without good cause, and it won’t subside on the 19th of September. What other kinds of identity politics could a “YES” vote ignite? North versus South? Yorkshire versus Lancashire? Newcastle versus Sunderland? Arsenal versus Chelsea, perhaps? Where does it end? Is the future one where we are constantly at odds with each other over nothing? My opinion of politicians who stir up (often dormant) nationalist sentiment for their own ends is not a high one, to put it mildly.
Sesenco, this referendum is about consent. You cannot say that there is no case for independence based on consent until after the No campaign has won the referendum, which may or may not happen.
And certainly, the sort of consent that founded the union in the first place is not the sort of mandate that any democrat should be making big beans of in today’s world. It is probably for the best that we have a proper actually democratic plebiscite to legitimise the union we inherited. 300 years too late, but that’s just the nature of constitutional politics in the UK.
As for Mr Kennedy’s speech, a No vote won’t build the case for a federal UK and Scotland voting No will in fact mean it abandons any claim to be leading the way at all. No with a purpose and future was something that should have been articulated two years ago with a proper constitutional convention from the unionist parties, offering a real manifesto for change. What we’re getting is a week before the referendum, a series of bribes that will be backpedaled on after the vote to persuade Scotland to vote No.
This is unfair to Scotland, and its unfair to the rest of the union as well – nobody’s even considered bribing the people of the north of England or of the fens or of the west country or anywhere, and the stronger the No vote, the more likely it is that they’ll continue to get nothing and be overlooked.
Is this likely to convince anyone in the Yes or Don’t-Know camps at all? I think not!
Are a significant number of those people likely to know what “a federal UK” means? What the difference between it and the present arrangements is likely to be?
Indeed, does anyone at all actually know what “a federal UK” would mean?
T-J wrote:
“Sesenco, this referendum is about consent. You cannot say that there is no case for independence based on consent until after the No campaign has won the referendum, which may or may not happen.”
I disagree. At every general election since the universal franchise, Scotland has returned a majority of MPs who support the union. That was still the case as recently as 2010.
“What we’re getting is a week before the referendum, a series of bribes that will be backpedaled on after the vote to persuade Scotland to vote No.”
Again, I disagree. When the three party leaders agree upon a course of action of this magnitude, back-pedalling is inconceivable. They may encounter problems with their own backbenchers, but that is a different matter. Those backbenchers were elected, after all. We have clear outline proposals along with a legislative timetable with actual dates. Obviously, there has to be consultation. The three party leaders cannot dictate.
“This is unfair to Scotland, and its unfair to the rest of the union as well – nobody’s even considered bribing the people of the north of England or of the fens or of the west country or anywhere, and the stronger the No vote, the more likely it is that they’ll continue to get nothing and be overlooked.”
I am not so sure I understand your point. There was indeed a referendum in the North-East of England a few years ago about the then government’s proposal to have a regional assembly in that region. It was rejected very decisively. As for the West Country, there is a political party called the “Wessex Regionalists” which has been fielding candidates for nearly 50 years. Its candidates receive a handful of votes everywhere and on every occasion that they stand. The Fens? Does anyone want independence for the Fens? I often disagreed with Mark Oaten, but he was on the money when he said that getting people to vote in elections to bodies that already exist is hard enough, getting them to vote for additional layers of government would be harder still.
“and the stronger the No vote, the more likely it is that they’ll continue to get nothing and be overlooked.”
When has Scotland ever been overlooked? Scotland receives more per capita in public expenditure than England, and I think I am right in saying that this has been the case since at least the Attlee government. The present Prime Minister is Scottish, as were the two before him. Harold McMillan and Alec Douglas-Hume were Scottish, as were W E Gladstone, Lord Roseberry, Arthur Balfour, Henry Campbell Bannerman, Andrew Bonar Law and Ramsay McDonald. Is that Scotland being overlooked?
In early 2012 we had the opportunity to set out what we mean by a federal UK and have it on the ballot paper. But our Inverness conference rejected this in a nasty wave of anti-SNP rhetoric.
I admire Charles – the best leader this party has had – but he should have supported the Inverness motion 2 and a half years before the referendum. Saying it with a week to go just looks like unionist game-playing.
If there’s a No vote I’ll support Charles in trying to get a proper federal solution, but our party has missed the opportunity to set the agenda on this: we’re much more likely to get Labour’s devo-nano or the Tory equivalent.
Look, sesenco, if you think that the presence of some alleged Scots in the great offices of Westminster makes any difference at all in Scotland, you’re living in a fantasy world.
Your clear timetable is a back of the envelope panic measure that will be discarded about five minutes after the votes are counted.
And if your answer to my point about regions that have been suffering from poor representation and underdevelopment for decades is to hit out with ‘nobody wants independence for those places’, then you’re just feeding the problem. The reason why the Scottish nationalists have grown strong is because for decades, anyone who was concerned about the problems with the union was slapped down with that very charge. Well, nobody wanted it then. They do now.
In the interests of keeping the ever-entertaining arguments grounded in fact:
Sesenco: “The present Prime Minister is Scottish” — no he isn’t. He was born in London, brought up in Berkshire and has lived his whole life in England. Having a Scottish father, which is what you presumably mean, doesn’t make you Scottish; and there’s no such thing as “50% Scottish”. Some people’s national identities are rather scrambled, undoubtedly; Cameron’s really isn’t.
T-J: “the presence of some alleged Scots in the great offices of Westminster” — “alleged” Scots? Cameron I’ll grant you; Blair’s Scottishness is distinctly unpronounced; but to deny the Scottishness of the likes of Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Robin Cook, John Reid … well, that’s just silly.
T-J wrote:
“Look, sesenco, if you think that the presence of some alleged Scots in the great offices of Westminster”
T-J, how do you define an “alleged Scot”? Am I an alleged Scot? Is Charles Kennedy an alleged Scot? Is Gordon Brown an alleged Scot? Is being a non- alleged Scot dependent on place of birth, place of residence, accent, ancestry, support for separation, or what? My late cousin, Sir Eastman Bell, was born in London to a Scottish father and an American mother. He lived in London and Wiltshire running an international business that was founded in Scotland. Whenever he was asked his natioanlity, his reply was “Scottish”. Was he an alleged Scot, too?
“Your clear timetable is a back of the envelope panic measure that will be discarded about five minutes after the votes are counted.”
I five days, you’ll find out.
“And if your answer to my point about regions that have been suffering from poor representation and underdevelopment for decades”
Right. So the West Country and the Fens have been suffering from poor representation and underdevelopment for decades. If only the people who lived there realised that. Folk in Ely and Soham would find your assessment somewhat perplexing. Similarly, people in Bristol, Bath, Cirencester, Swindon, Taunton, Exeter.
“The reason why the Scottish nationalists have grown strong is because for decades, anyone who was concerned about the problems with the union was slapped down with that very charge. ”
I disagree. I think it is because separatist politicians have chosen to magnify existing grievances and invent new ones, and pretend that “Westminster” is to blame for them. For decades, the Labour Party succeeded in keeping the SNP out of power by pointing out that problems such as poverty and underdevelopment can only be solved by keeping people together, on both sides of the Cheviots, not by dividing us. Sadly, over the last decade or so, Labour has lost the plot somewhat, and is having to make up ground fast.
@ Richard Dean,
If it was a matter that involved me, yes he would persuade me. On this, as on other matters people with the charisma and likability of Charles Kennedy remind us that there are certain qualities needed by leaders if they are to attract followers.
Charles Kennedy’s past health problems just make him more seem more human and fallible like the rest of us. Even the term, ‘Chat show Charlie’ was used with warm indulgence, not malice. He seems authentic. By comparison, t he three other leaders seem like members of a university debating society practising what they have learned during their studies.
Sesenco, an alleged Scot is someone like Gladstone, who never self-identified as a Scot but who is occasionally co-opted into Scottishness to prove one political point or another. I’ve had hardcore Scottish nationalists tell me that the grand old man proves that all progress depends on Scots and I’ve had starry eyed unionists tell me he proves that Scotland can only have any purpose tied to the union. Unfortunately for both sides, his perspective can perhaps be best illustrated by his Midlothian campaign, which referred almost exclusively to the interests and priorities of England. Shorthand of the day for the Empire, but telling.
And your point that pockets of wealth exist in overlooked areas is irrelevant. The areas remain predominantly overlooked, and when the centre fails to address this, people then turn to more problematic political solutions. In Scotland, separatism, which fortunately has been largely claimed by the internationalist centre-left. In England’s deprived regions, reactionary far-right outfits like UKIP. This won’t be solved by head in sand reactions that blame the people asking for answers for the existence of the problem. And it is apparent that nothing short of an actual vote for separation will make the establishment realise or admit that there’s even a problem in the first place.
@Jayne Mansfield
I guess you are looking to be led rather than to think for yourself. Fair enough, we do rightfully delegate the task of forming opinions to our leaders – we’d be overwhelmed otherwise. But Charles Kennedy didn’t actually say anything that means anything in this video, except “Vote No and we’ll change something later”.
“..,it is apparent that nothing short of an actual vote for separation will make the establishment realise or admit that there’s even a problem in the first place.”
T -J is correct in this observation. The Unionists whatever their party were happy to forget about or to ignore Scotland when they could just take the Scots for granted.
I learned from Irvine Welsh on Ch4 News last night that 97% of Scots are registered to vote and that the turnout is expected to be more than 80%. No wonder that the political elite in London who are where they are by only bothering about swing seats and ignoring the voters in safe seats are worried. No wonder the polling organisations cannot tell quite what is happening.
The London establishment has thrown The Queen, David Beckham , the marchers of The Orange Lodge, Tony Blai rand Eddie Izzard along with the kitchen sink in the last forty eight hours. I think this will have an impact especially with elderly voters and NO will win. But if they do it will be a very hollow victory.
@JohnTilley
“The Unionists whatever their party were happy to forget about or to ignore Scotland when they could just take the Scots for granted.”
– Of the last five Liberal leaders three have been Scottish MPs. The current Deputy Leader represents a Scottish seat.
– Of the last five Labour leaders three have been Scots, two have represented Scottish seats and for 13 years there were Scottish Chancellors.
– The three previous elections saw a government elected for which the Scottish people had voted; Labour. (I believe out of the last 21 governments elected, Scotland has voted for 14. Given we Liberals haven’t seen a government we can fully support since 1916, I’d happily trade!).
Does not sound like Scotland being ignored or forgotten to me. As Liberals, we believe in devolved power – we are all, to varying degrees, fed up with the Westminster system. But will a Yes vote just shift that feeling to another body rather than being just a simpe replacing of one order for another?
I see nothing in the Yes campaign that will stop Holyrood becoming a replica of Westminster in terms of it being remote from communities and controlled by a new elite – just ask the Highlands and the Islands that they think of Edinburgh government. Also, look at the Swedish elections – a country the Yes campaign is keen to ape, but what did the voters say – we’re fed up with remote governments.
As a Scot, what I fear is that people will vote Yes expecting that their vision for Scotland will come forth and that they will be left just as estranged and discontent as they are right now – as it seems unlikely that Scotland will be the Socialist, class-system free Utopia with nothing but green energy promised by some and the Capitalist Disneyland of low taxes and vast oil reserves to burn and flog argued by the other.
Which is it to be? If Scotland votes Yes, it will be with around 50.1-52% of the vote. Of that number, how many will end up with the system and society they wanted? Come March 2016 some 70-75% of the Scottish people could find themselves with what they never wanted with no way back. As a Liberal, a Scot and supporter of the Union – I’m proud to keep arguing for the society I want within the UK. I want less borders and division, not more. That is why, like Charles Kennedy, I am perfectly happy being a Scot, being British and being European.
ATF
have you forgotten that up until 2010 the Liberals and Liberal Democrats were not a Unionist Party?
Most of the positives you list about Liberals and Scotland in the past came when the party was clearly the anti-unionist party.
Somehow by sleight of hand following the Clegg Coup our party has been turned into a Unionist Party. Why?
@JohnTilley
Unionism and belief in a Union are different things. Are the United States not a federal system? I see nothing incomptiable with devolved power, national parliaments and a Union. Are we not supporters of a federal European political Union? If we can believe in a federal union for Europe, why not one for our island?