The weekend news of the first poll pointing to a possible Yes vote in the Scottish independence referendum has dominated the headlines – and it may prompt those parties campaigning for Scotland to remain within the UK to commit irrevocably to further devolved powers to the Scottish Assembly. That was the strong message today from Lib Dem leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, speaking at a press conference this morning:
For the first time in my political lifetime, there is clear, unwavering unity on this question. Finally, everyone who believes in the United Kingdom believes in more power – more control for Scotland, in Scotland.
Further announcements will be made in the next few days.
But what will be abundantly clear by the time of the referendum on the 18th is that Scotland isn’t choosing between an unchanging status quo and the change of independence…
But choosing between the uncertain leap of independence, and a guaranteed safe path to more powers – delivering more in Scotland but with the back up of the broad shoulders of the UK.
An unstoppable process has already begun, if the Scottish people choose No, to guarantee that a further substantial transfer of powers will occur. Change is on its way.
And of course this substantial transfer of powers wouldn’t be limited to Scotland if the party had its way. The Lib Dem pre-manifesto published today commits the Lib Dems to:
Introduce ‘Devolution on Demand’, enabling even greater devolution of powers from Westminster to councils or groups of councils working together (for example to a Cornish Assembly).
Power to the people, indeed!
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
41 Comments
Oh dear so Nick has come out in favour of the union. Alex will be breaking out the Champagne (or maybe whisky)! and poor Michael Moore and Alistair must despair.
Please can we follow this with a similar commitment towards the devolution of power to Wales, Cornwall and the English regions. Westminster needs to take on board it not only being the Scots who are thoroughly disenchanted with rule from Westminster, excessive centralisation and the dominance of London in our national life.
Every time Scotland is offered more powers, the offer provides evidence that supports the Yes campaign’s message that Scotland has been hard done by in the past, and that the only way to be treated fairly is to threaten to become independent.
Well, why stop at the threat, why not just be?
“An unstoppable process has already begun”
No, it hasn’t. Do we officially think Scotland’s voters are st.upid?* Parliament is supreme, sovereign and cannot bind its successors. Even the Scotland Act 2012 can be repealed; and if he means the latest panic announcements somehow represent an “unstoppable process”, words fail me…
*(I mean, they might be; but it’s not smart to make it official.)
Why does Clegg not keep quiet, he has probably added another 50, 000 votes to the Yes side today. See there is a poll out tonight from TNS-BMRB, last one was No 45 Yes 32 undecided 23. It is not an On Line effort, more to face contact.
This might be more significant, it will certainly be interesting. My best guess No 48 Yes 42 undecided 10.
This has rendered the referendum a complete farce. Those who are happy with things as they are now have no option to vote for, so might as well stay at home. If there is a large call for further devolution within the UK then the referendum should have offered this as a third option, or had two separate questions as with the 1997 referendum.
If – as is still perfectly possible – the referendum produces a large majority in favour of the union, then what mandate would there be for further devolution without asking the Scottish people first?
Stephen Hesketh – ‘Westminster needs to take on board it not only being the Scots who are thoroughly disenchanted with rule from Westminster, excessive centralisation and the dominance of London in our national life.’
This seems to get trotted out an awful lot, but more and more it just feels like knee-jerk comment rather than argument. How many Liberal Democrats would give short-shrift to an argument from UKIP about excessive centralisation and domination of Brussels? Some liberals just seem to have put a lot of faith in the idea of devolution without recognising the real possibility that all devolution does is shift problems around. As a narrative I’d love to believe that a localism would float all boats – but I am sceptical. For Scotland I can most certainly see why they would feel that a federalism wouldn’t really matter.
This whole, ‘London dominance,’ has started to become a whipping boy of convenience. Bad enough, but what’s worse is that it totally glosses over the issues of corporate dominance which are the real matter at hand in our politics today. Whether Scotland as an independent country can overcome corporate interests, time will tell.
Certainly Devolution on Demand looks a recipe for chaos.
This last minute love bombing of Scotland by the unionist ‘bitter together’ campaign look like an over-reaction.
Why did Cameron (and by implication Clegg) refuse to have Devo max on the ballot, if that is what theyare promising if there is a NO vote? Clegg may be sincere in baking more devolution, butthe Labservatives zre certainly not.
oldLiberal reminds us of Michael Moore, whom Clegg sacked because his “style ” would not be suitable for the tough battle of the referendum campaign. Another Clegg master-stroke. Knees-up in a brewery anyone?
Little Jackie Paper 8th Sep ’14 – 6:46pm
Setting aside my underwhelming interest in your London-centric sympathies, I will add that I share your apparent views concerning one of the other pillars of centralised wealth and power – the corporate multi-Nationals.
I believe the two objectives to be thoroughly compatible and inline with a true Liberal Democratic society.
As a Scot who is a little worried about independence and not really up for it please keep Clegg out of it. I don’t want his unpopularity to rub off on the No campaign.
You might think the Lib Dems are popular in Scotland given that they have about 10 MPs here out of 59, but honestly, they’re not. The results from the last Holyrood election will be repeated at the General Election in Scotland if we are still going to be a part of the Union then.
Tell Clegg to put a sock in it.
@ LJP
I normally have a lot of time for your considered comments, but on this occasion I think Stephen Hesketh is much closer to real feeling on the ground.
I find one of your comments interesting :
“As a narrative I’d love to believe that a localism would float all boats”
When an country’s economy is ‘good’, all boats get floated. However, when it contracts as it did from around 2008, it would be great to think that all boats sink (proportionately), at the same rate ( i.e. We’re all in this together ?). But it is a lie. It simply doesn’t work that way. (And hasn’t!!)
The ‘gated community’ of London and the South East are determined that their boats will *not* drop under any circumstances, and that the rest of the UK must *pay* the price of recession with their sinking boats. And that is how it feels beyond Watford.
Scotland is just the beginning. Their desire for devolution has clearly come to fruition for the Scottish, because no matter what the outcome of the Scottish vote, Scotland will end up with *more localised power*. Seriously,.. What’s not to like ??
Perhaps we can look forward to the fight with London, for the newly devolved country of *Lancastria?*
Don’t say you weren’t warned.
Stephen Hesketh – Sorry, have I offended you somehow? Presumably your shoulder must be hurting.
Once Scotland has voted Yes, there will be negotiations about how to separate, including how to equitably share the national debt. We will then begin to find out what Yes means.
Once a draft agreement is reached, will LibDems argue for a referendum about it, this time with both the Scots and rUK? Both would have interests involved, and have rights.
Presumably the only fair agreement would be one that both electorates accept, the Scots and rUK?
Little Jackie Paper 8th Sep ’14 – 8:19pm
Ha! No wonder so many Scots feel the way they do!
John Dunn – Thank you for your kind words – appreciated. I am, of course, mindful my slightly sceptical approach to localism is perhaps out of step. Yes, it may be feeling on the ground that London is somehow, ‘dominant.’ I’m not for a second denying that there is a problem. However to my mind it is seriously oversimplifying things just to lob around, ‘London,’ and take the applause of the talkboard gallery. It is the same as the unthinking Eurosceptic line that tells me that Brussels is this great centraliser. Indeed one of the better arguments in favour of the EU is that European coordination is needed in an age of global corporatism.
First, London is not the only, ‘hotspot,’ in the country. Not even close. That is a much overlooked point. Indeed, there are significant parts of the South East that are not in any way well-to-do (including my own locale). But more significant that is the fact that devolved power, seductive though it is, is not enough ALONE to be meaningful.
Power is great – I’d love more power, who wouldn’t? My point is that power is nothing if it is not backed up by agency. Think of the Big Society which fell flat because the agency needed to back it up just isn’t there in large parts of the country, including parts of London. If we do not consider the centralising effect of corporate interests and the power of corporates then we are not thinking deeply enough. If power is to be devolved then it has to be more than a paper-exercise, being starry-eyed isn’t enough. Do you think that the, ‘ordinary,’ citizens of London are in any position to take on corporate interests?
Personally I’m not bothered one way or the other about Scotland’s referendum, if they stay then great, if they go then I say good luck. But if I were there I’d probably vote YES precisely because independence at least gives a real opportunity for local agency. Whether it would actually happen is another matter.
What I want is a localism that means something, not something that just satisfies some innate political approach. It is not liberal to have a localism that swings the balance to corporate and/or monied interest. None of this of course is to say centralised government produces better, or even good, outcomes. It is to say that I’d like my localism to be meaningful and that means more than just spitting at some over-simple idea of London, and to include agency over corporate was well as public sector concerns.
Richard Dean
“Every time Scotland is offered more powers, the offer provides evidence that supports the Yes campaign’s message that Scotland has been hard done by in the past, and that the only way to be treated fairly is to threaten to become independent.”
I agree that is the impression given by the current haphazard behaviours of the political parties.
If someone were to come out with a coherent cross UK approach for devolution that at least would look like it was not some great unfairness to Scotland but a proper change in approach for all citizens.
John Dunn
” The ‘gated community’ of London and the South East are determined that their boats will *not* drop under any circumstances, and that the rest of the UK must *pay* the price of recession with their sinking boats. And that is how it feels beyond Watford.”
In what way? How is “The ‘gated community’ of London and the South East”
1) not dropping?
2) preventing them selves from dropping?
3) sinking the rest of the UK?
John Dunn
To help you in your answer, a couple of facts:
The population of the south east is 8.6 million
The population of London is 8.2 million
Perhaps these will allow you to set the context.
John, as someone who moved to London and happens to quite like it here, I would kindly ask that you take your prejudices elsewhere. There is a massive difference between London, the South East, Westminster and the ‘City’. The fact you do not know that and just treat it all as the same thing undermines any credibility your opinion could have. As Matthew can attest to, not everyone in the South East, or in London, is some rich banker out to ‘hustle’ you.
This may be a masterstroke by Clegg… wait, hear me out. He knows just how unpopular the Lib Dems and the Tories are in Scotland and has decided to cut his losses there by using his unpopularity to ensure they leave the Union, thereby ensuring continued Tory dominance of Westminster. In reward for his actions, Cameron will surely make him a Lord.
I think it is a theory worthy of David Allen. Haha.
theakes – way off 41:41 with 18% undecided among certain to vote.
And yet again Clegg and his coterie of callow incompetents have got this wrong. On every ocassion since 2010 – when Clegg has had the chance to demostrate he’s still the political outsider fighting for radical reform he’s flunked it. His line today is again that of the political establishment – comfortable with the blandishment of Westminster power.
The only way to get any meaningful political reform in the UK is a Yes vote – it will bust the cosy consensus in Westminster and lead to proper decentralisation. No is the establishment choice and will allow them to carry on as before.
LJP :
Thanks for the reply. ( What of Localism?).
Even with evolving technology and expanding social systems, over the last half century or so, I often wonder about the human mind’s ability to cope with events beyond ‘the local’? It would have seemed incredulous to my grandmother to be able to fly thousands of miles to any country of her choice, or even to consider to have a thousand or more friends on social media.?
And I still wonder if our version of reality is too unnaturally stretched, by technology beyond our evolutionary capability, and that perhaps her version of reality was not closer to the truth.?
A chap called Robin Dunbar (an evolutionary anthropologist), came to a conclusion after studying past societies and historical village structures that the maximum number of people we (humans), can ‘mentally accommodate’ as a community of friends and acquaintances is around a ‘maximum’, of 150 people.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/mar/14/my-bright-idea-robin-dunbar
Even though I can find no studies to substantiate my notion, I’ve often wondered if there’s an equivalent ‘distance limit’, to the evolved human mind? In the same way that we appear to have a ‘maximum’ Dunbar number of 150 acquaintances, perhaps we have a maximum ‘localism distance’ of (for example), ‘a day’s horse ride away’?
Perhaps ‘localism’ is more evolutionary, or even genetic? Some people are able to fool themselves into thinking they really do have a thousand Facebook friends, when it is in fact humanly impossible.? Equally,.. might it be also be humanly impossible, (in evolutionary terms?), to accept that a body of authority that resides beyond a day or two’s horse ride away, can seriously govern and or even care for our existence, at ‘our locale’?
Maybe on a human visceral level, Westminster is too far away for the Scots to take seriously, and Brussels is just too far away for the UK to consider as authoritative? Just a thought.?
Interesting that tonights “Face to Face” Poll still had 18% of dont knows, even among those claiming to be certain to vote. My feeling is that most of those Dont Knows are really Nos in hiding, I hope I am right because I can see Independence turning into a disaster.
The Lib Dem pre-manifesto only covers England. Do people think we have time to read four manifestos? Or are we expected to only care about our little country?
Devolution isn’t all positive and it is time Lib Dems learnt it.
OK, I meant it only covers England on devolved matters, but still, I’m just not in a good mood over the state of UK politics, so I’ll read it another night.
Good night.
Charlie Brooker is in cracking form on Scotland in his article in The Guardian (he’ is – or would be – a “no” by the way). I’ve just snorted milk from my cornflakes all over the kitchen table while reading it over breakfast. If only the rest of the “no” campaign was as imaginative as Brooker’s article.
I visited the two campaign websites last night: yes gave me an Obama-esque hope/change thingy. OK so the Obama actualite didn’t live up to the rhetoric but the campaign was inspiring. The “no” website led with someone telling me in an earnest monotone that if I didn’t vote no then the sky would fall on my head. Hardly surprising that “yes” has caught up if those are the campaigning platforms.
First David Cameron hits the media on this, then Gordon Brown, then Nick Clegg.
Is Alex Salmond controlling he ‘No’ campaign as well as the ‘Yes’ one?
The only way to get any meaningful political reform in the UK is a Yes vote – it will bust the cosy consensus in Westminster….
Dan Falchikov hits the nail on the head. He is a Scot and has worked at all levels within the party. People should reflect on his advice. Why on earth would Liberal Democrats want the Unionist Status Quo?
Paul in Wokingham, is snorting milk a euphemism for some sort of gimmicky Clegg policy on drugs?
Clegg/Rosebery. Where’s the Party’s Campbell-Bannerman?
@ Bill le breton,
He’s switched back from Ukip to the Conservatives.
Liberal Al said:
“This may be a masterstroke by Clegg… wait, hear me out. He knows just how unpopular the Lib Dems and the Tories are in Scotland and has decided to cut his losses there by using his unpopularity to ensure they leave the Union, thereby ensuring continued Tory dominance of Westminster. In reward for his actions, Cameron will surely make him a Lord.
I think it is a theory worthy of David Allen. Haha.”
Well, that’s a despicable piece of personal abuse. Liberal Al’s crazy flight of fancy over Scotland is all his, not mine.
But since the abuse has been directed to me, I will answer it. Let’s talk about the “conspiracy theory”, which Liberal Al no doubt attributes to me. That Nick Clegg is a Tory “sleeper”, planted long ago within the Lib Dems, to hide in plain sight and make as successful a career as possible, all the time quietly doing the bidding of his Tory masters.
Well – It is probably not true. It can’t absolutely be ruled out. Stranger things have happened. Gunther Guillaume rose to become Willy Brandt’s right-hand man and concealed for two decades the fact that he was a Russian spy. Clegg did apparently join the Tories for a year while at Cambridge (there is evidence, but Clegg has apparently no memory of what happened). Clegg did work for a powerful Tory, Leon Brittan, and then suddenly decided to join the Lib Dems.
However – I think it is fairly unlikely that Clegg actually has a Tory “handler”! I think that the non-cloak-and-dagger explanation is more plausible – that Clegg is simply someone who could have joined either the Tories or the Lib Dems, given his basic political beliefs, and that he chose to join the Lib Dems. I think Clegg has always seen the Tories and Lib Dems as natural allies. I think his career has been based on promoting that alliance. I think that position is almost certainly one he chose for himself, not one which some shadowy figure at Conservative Central Office allocated to him.
And why shouldn’t he? you might ask. Paddy Ashdown made enormous efforts to align our party with Blair’s Labour. What’s wrong with Clegg adopting a comparable “project” to align our party with the Tories?
I think what’s wrong is the stealth. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s a plain description of the facts. Ashdown was totally open about his aims. Clegg was not. The phrase “Clegg coup” was invented by a supporter of the way Clegg captured our party leadership, not by me. Clegg never openly declared his commitment to the Osborne project of shrinking the state. Instead he used the weasel words “big permanent tax cuts”. Clegg never admitted his aim to ally with the Tories. Instead he talked about first talking to the largest party (knowing that would be the Tories). Then he talked about an alliance of necessity to stave off financial disaster. Actually, thanks to Brown and Darling, that panic had already been averted. Clegg is adept at talking about progressive ideas like constitutional reform, and at every so often genuflecting toward the left of centre. Everything he actually works to get implemented is in line with the Tory programme.
Clegg probably isn’t a Tory mole – but he does behave like one.
Hope that clarifies things for Liberal Al. Oh and by the way – When will we see sense and chuck Clegg out?
LJP,
“This whole, ‘London dominance,’ has started to become a whipping boy of convenience. Bad enough, but what’s worse is that it totally glosses over the issues of corporate dominance which are the real matter at hand in our politics today.”
You echo Matthew Huntbach here. Both of you say you are from poor areas of London, and both of you hate to be told that all Londoners are stinking rich.
Fear not. I don’t think anyone is saying that. We are aware that “London” is a shorthand for “corporate, financial and City power based principally in London, though not exclusively”.
Hope that helps!
David, it would appear that I have offended you greatly. Please do forgive me, the comment was meant in jest – and not meant to be taken so literally. The joke was mostly at Clegg’s expense and I thought you would know that I was being serious about you.
I was NOT being serious about you. (stupid learning disability)
OK Liberal Al, sorry I had an SOH failure. Never mind, it gave me a chance to explain myself / rant…
A very accurate analysis from –David Allen 9th Sep ’14 – 1:54pm
……..Clegg did apparently join the Tories for a year while at Cambridge (there is evidence, but Clegg has apparently no memory of what happened). Clegg did work for a powerful Tory, Leon Brittan, and then suddenly decided to join the Lib Dems.
………Clegg is simply someone who could have joined either the Tories or the Lib Dems, given his basic political beliefs, and that he chose to join the Lib Dems. I think Clegg has always seen the Tories and Lib Dems as natural allies. I think his career has been based on promoting that alliance. ….
David Allen goes on to pin-point the dishonesty of the Clegg Coup. Clegg Coup being, as David reminds us, a term used by one of the coup conspirators. It is the title of a book, which has not sold many copies and I cannot recommend but it does provide a handy insight into the mindset of those supporting the coup.
My own view is that Clegg himself whilst not a victim of his class and upbringing is typical of the privileged public school boy, relatives in theRussian Royal family etc etc. Is it any wonder he did not spot the iniquities in the hated bedroom tax? When would family Clegg have ever been reduced to a one room council flat?
As for Clegg on Scotland’s need for self determination. He is as far from the YES voters in the Dundee Schemes as it is possible to imagine. Of course he is lined up with Cameron and Miliband to defend the establishment. Why would someone with Clegg’s pedigree do anything different. He is unionist to the core. He just happens to lead a party which since Gladstone has opposed the unionists.
No problem, David. 🙂 Sorry for the confusion.
John Dunn 8th Sep ’14 – 11:34pm re: ‘distance limit’
Whilst I suspect there is a limit as you suggest to what people regard as being local – a quick look at the mountain area’s of Afghanistan shows that the size of a ‘parish’ is effectively determined by how far someone can walk in a day.
But I have my doubts, particularly given that the enthusiasm for devolution/federalism/regional assemblies etc. has really taken off in very recent years, when we have deployed communications and transportation systems that have made the world a much smaller place. Comparing this to 1707 say is interesting, as effectively the union with Scotland was agreed before railways and hence ‘London’ would of been much further away than it is now.
I therefore suspect that much of what we see is more to do with changing psychology and the emotions alluded to in the phrase “an Englishman’s home is his castle” really means. Unfortunately, your point has reminded me that I have forgotten much the Toffler wrote on this matter in his book “The Third Wave”, which I think would be applicable here.
Oop’s I actually meant Toffler’s books “Futureshock” and “The Third Wave”.