On Friday night, Danny Alexander, Willie Rennie and Charles Kennedy held a public meeting in Inverness on the independence referendum. A key theme was what would happen in the event of a No vote. For Highland communities, rule from Edinburgh is every bit as dangerous as rule from London. Nowhere has this been as keenly demonstrated as through the centralisation of the Scottish police force. This has now led to armed police being present on routine duties on the streets of peaceful Highland towns and communities with the wishes of residents and the local authority being casually disregarded.
I was quite impressed to see even a central belt Labour MP get the need for making the A9 dual carriageway the other week. Michael Connarty and I were on the panel at a Better Together event in Bathgate and he was slating the SNP’s centralisation agenda so you can tell how bad things are getting up here.
While the specifics of Danny’s speech were Highland related, there is a lot in there for anyone who’s interested in the general question of more powers. He used the F word, too, saying that federalism was much more radical and liberal than independence.
I think we are definitely within touching distance of being able to get a good bit down the road towards the Federal UK that Liberal Democrats want. It’s clear that the outcome will be close enough that if there is no noticeable change, we will be here again within a decade. Obviously full federalism needs the rest of the UK’s agreement but there is much that could be done, as set out in the report of Sir Menzies Campbell’s Home Rule Commission.
This is what Danny had to say on Friday night about what happens after a No vote:
A lot of the debate has focussed over the last few weeks on the clear commitment to more powers for Scotland. We Liberal Democrats were at the forefront of setting up the Scottish Parliament, and under Willie Rennie we are leading the campaign to empower that Scottish Parliament with real financial and money raising responsibilities.
That is already on its way thanks to the recent legislation passed by the House of Commons, and the clear commitment from all parties means that the Scottish Parliament is guaranteed to get more money raising powers in the event of a ‘no’ vote. ‘No thanks’ does not mean no change – far from it.
But our philosophy of federalism does not stop at further empowering Holyrood, important thought that is. A federal approach means distributing power to the most appropriate level – Europe, UK, Scotland, and local. Federalism means devolution from Edinburgh, not just devolution to Edinburgh.
I believe a fundamental part of a new settlement in Scotland after a ‘no’ vote must be more powers held and used here in the Highlands and Islands, and in other local communities in Scotland.
The nationalist philosophy means deliberately trying to airbrush out the different identities and communities that exist within Scotland and instead centralising as much power as possible to themselves and the Holyrood elite.
Of all the regions in Scotland, the Highlands and Islands has the most distinct needs, challenges, ideas, and indeed culture and identity. So it no surprise that the massive centralisation of power that the SNP have presided over the last seven years has generated the greatest anger and frustration here.
In that time, we have seen Northern Constabulary abolished – and their distinctive community policing approach replaced with a one size fits all model designed for the central belt. There is simply no need or support for armed police officers on the streets of communities in the Highlands. If other parts of Scotland want that – and I doubt they do – then fine, but we should be able to do that differently here if that’s what our communities feel.
You could also look at the centralisation of fire services, the removal of local control rooms, and the reduction in autonomy of local government. And especially here, the emasculation of Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
When Russell Johnston first proposed the creation of a board to foster the economic and social development of the Highlands, the idea was precisely to be able to meet and respond to the very different economic development needs of the Highlands and Islands. That’s what the HIDB was able to do, and HIE was too in its early days. But increasingly HIE is simply an arm of Scottish Enterprise, implementing strategies dreamed up in Edinburgh. It has excellent people, who do a great job, but the shift in power is palpable from an SNP government that wanted to abolish HIE back in 2007.
As Charles Kennedy has observed, if these changes had been made by the Tory government in the 1980s, SNP supporters would have been up in arms. Instead, they have pushed these damaging changes through without a murmur.
We Highland Liberal Democrats want a different approach. We want those powers to be handed back to the Highlands and to our communities. Stronger local government, with more power and a general power of competence to take decisions that are right for their area. And we need to think about whether there needs to be a forum with more clout that the convention of the Highlands and Islands to bring together elected representatives and all levels of government to make sure that decisions are being made in the best interests of our area. The University of the Highlands and Islands, the fulfilment of a decade’s long vision, should be central to this too.
We particularly need greater influence over Scottish infrastructure priorities. Transport investment in the A9, A96, and A82 is vital for our area yet has been given a low priority by the SNP government. I believe nothing would boost the economy of the whole of Scotland more than the rapid dualling of the A9. Yet instead we have the imposition of average speed cameras that no-one locally wants and which will not make the road more safe. We need to keep up the campaign to remove them, and to accelerate the dualling instead.
In Government, Scottish Liberal Democrats have delivered for the Highlands and Islands. With strong support for renewable energy, funding the roll out of superfast broadband, fuel duty discounts for islands and – hopefully – for remote mainland communities, support for mountain rescue teams, investment in sleeper services, support for the ski industry, a new regional air connectivity fund, a coastal communities fund that reinvests marine revenues from the Crown Estate directly into projects in the Highlands and Islands, as well as freezing fuel duty and cutting income tax for thousands of people here.
But the next phase of the challenge for us will be to make sure that after a ‘no’ vote politicians in Holyrood act as decisively to pass power back to Scotland’s communities as the UK parties will to ensure more powers for Scotland. There is nothing radical or liberal about independence – the really radical liberal approach is federalism –and here the rallying call for that must be ‘more power for the Highlands.
* 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
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
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
19 Comments
OK, great, but I still believe that a strong showing for No will see all these worthy plans simply shelved or kicked into the long grass, never to be seen again. We voted No to AV, did we then get offered a different reform? Nope, we were informed that everyone bar the obsessives is fine with things as they are. Nothing has been said or done that leads me to believe that this referendum will be any different.
While I accept that some members of parliament might want change, I can’t square that with the idea of sending a signal against change in the hope that those members might somehow become influential enough to deliver it anyway.
We voted no to AV but nobody really loved AV, least of all the Liberal Democrats. I still think it was the most massive mistake to insist on a referendum, particularly in Year 1 when we could have guessed what was coming our way.
All the pro independence people aren’t just going to give up come September 18th. If more powers aren’t delivered and people don’t become more satisfied with the way they are governed, we’ll be back here again.
This is not 1979. Scots are used to exercising their own power and it’ll be very much more difficult to deny us a solution that works for us.
This would be the same Danny Alexander who effectively caps Councils in England to no increase in council tax while preaching the same double devolution/localism as Eric Pickles.
Apart from being the right thing to do, this could give the Liberal Democrats a distinctively positive campaign message for the general election north of the border. Hard to see anything positive from Labour and, hopefully, a No result will take the wind out of the SNP sails.
“Federalism means devolution from Edinburgh, not just devolution to Edinburgh.”
It’s statements like this that lead me to believe that many in the party don’t quite understand that devolution and federalism are two separate and distinct beasts.
Would you please expand on that, Allan?
I very much concur with T-J and would suggest that Nigel Cheeseman‘s hope that “a No result will take the wind out of the SNP sails” is 180° off course. I think it far more likely that a NO vote will rebound strongly on those who were active in the uncompromising tone of the NO vote, particularly with regard to a shared currency. Paradoxically, so it might seem to some, I think a YES vote would set a highest tide mark for Scots Nats support.
Danny Alexander’s effort to make a positive pitch is welcome, though I fear that his pleas for the Highlands and Islands is likely to be swamped by an emotional embrace of Scottish Nationalism in the wake of a NO vote. Best of luck to him of course, but I think he will have a hard task in convincing people of his case.
I would still prefer not to send a dampening signal against change. The bigger the No vote, the more justification the forces of stagnation have for complacency and the more likely we are to find ourselves back here again in ten years time.
The ideal outcome is that Yes falls one vote short of winning independence. If it ends up being the case that Yes wins by one vote, it’s not the huge disaster that some fear. Indeed, such narrow outcomes might end up simply resulting in a renegotiation of the constitutional foundations of the Union, rather than independence or status quo.
The trouble is, No hasn’t been able to offer a credible vision for voting No. Even the most radical ideas there seem to fall a long way short of actually establishing Scotland and its parliament as co-sovereign equals under a modern constitutional Union. That would also be the big difference between federalism and devolution. Indeed, I expect that even suggesting that such a thing should be done would hit a lot of small-c conservative opposition, primacy of Parliament, Westminster and Crown in Parliament is sovereign etc.
Liberal Democrats have tried, and if as I expect we end up with a No win, I do hope that the more radical voices in the party can help get the ball rolling again. The challenge will be in re-engaging the pro-reform yessers and persuading them that we mean what we say when we call for change. For me, that does mean voting in favour of an admittedly second-best (at best) option for change now.
Martin – Is the NO campaign, ‘uncompromising,’ or is it just to the point? Perhaps it’s a bit of both. But certainly there are very, very good reasons why the rest of the UK would want some pretty serious political union with any currency union. And it is not entirely theoretical that they would want a referendum too on a currency union. Independence means independence from the institutions of the UK, that’s not uncompromising, it’s a statement of fact.
TJ – Referendums are not supposed to be neverendums nor are they something where someone gets a second prize. By their nature, it’s YES/NO. Indeed, it is one of the better arguments against the EU that it has liked to ask till it gets the answer it wants. There is, I accept something to be said for reviewing the whole UK arrangement, but that does not mean that the Scottish Government can not also bring about, ‘change.’ There is nothing to prevent the Scottish Government doing things itself if its communities so wish – that was the point of devolution.
For my part, I’m not particularly fussed one way or the other, Scotland stays, fine, Scotland goes, fine. But ‘Change,’ is not just a stick to hit. ‘Westminster,’ (whatever that means) with.
OK, so what specific powers are being promised immediately after a no vote? The problem for me is whilst I’d take devo-max over full blown independence I have no idea what (if anything) is actually being promised. What is being promised if we vote no?
This really is the problem with our leadership. We are not close, or even remotely close to a Federal UK. It is not on the radar for either Labour or the Conservatives and wishful thinking will not change that.
The fact that specific powers have not been agreed in advance of a No vote merely underlines the fact that the UK leaderships don’t really have their hearts in any major new constitutional change. Haven’t the debacles of AV and House of Lords reform proved that.
After a No vote there would be worthy promises but eyes will be turned to Clacton and to next years General Election.
Caron says “It’s clear that the outcome will be close enough that if there is no noticeable change, we will be here again within a decade” . But the fact is that the referendum only happened because the SNP achieved what was thought impossible, an outright majority under Scotland’s PR system. Lets not forget that our party turned its back on a coalition government with the SNP in 2007 because we would not back a referendum.
A Federal UK isn’t on the ballot paper the choice is whether Scotland should become an Independent country , or not.
So far Scottish Liberal Democrats backing YES include a variety of activists as well as a former Convenor (Sandra Grieve), Chief Executive (Andy Myles), Treasurer (Denis Sullivan), MP (John Barrett) and Council Leaders (Dr Michael Foxley, John Ross Scott)
Why risk having to wait another 10 years when we can have the chance for real change on 18th September 2014.
jedibeeftrix, to quote Vernon Bogdanor…..
“Devolution is not, of course, the same as federalism. Federalism involves dividing the powers of government between a central government and various states or provinces, between a federal government in Washington or Berlin and state governments in, for example, California or Bavaria. In a federal state, the legislature, Congress in the United States and the Bundestag in Germany, is not sovereign but subordinate to the constitution. The constitution is sovereign, and in most federal states, the courts can declare void federal legislation that is contrary to the constitution.
Devolution, by contrast, preserves, in principle, the sovereignty of Parliament. The Westminster Parliament can, in theory, continue to legislate for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland even on devolved matters; and it can, if it wishes, simply abolish the devolved bodies by a simple Act of Parliament, as it did with the Northern Ireland Parliament in 1972.”
Alex, I think it’s stretching what actually happened in 2007 to say that we didn’t back a coalition with the SNP because we wouldn’t back a referendum. That was an excuse, but it wasn’t the reason.
The SNP would have been happy to have bartered away the referendum and used us as the excuse for it’s absence. We could have allowed them to put it to a vote but on the premise that we wouldn’t support it.
However, none of these propositions was ever tested as no negotiations ever took place. This was, frankly, despicable and a betrayal of the type of politics that we are supposed to represent.
I believe there was a thought that an SNP minority government would not last six months. As it was, they played a blinder and swept to a majority of 2011.
As many of our politicians weep and gnash their teeth over the fact of the current referendum, perhaps a moment of quiet reflection on our role in making the SNP’s 2011 victory happen might be appropriate. That applies to every MSP that sat in that parliament but particularly Nicol Stephen and Tavish Scott. And we can throw in Ming Campbell’s role as being less than edifying as well if the story of his meeting with the two others named is correct. (I’ve seen this mentioned often, and seen nothing to refute it)
LJP, the Scottish Government can’t bring about the ‘ ‘change’ ‘ I’m talking about, because it lacks the powers. It cannot reform the British constitution at all, let alone to the degree I’m talking about, and in any case the powers it has to make any difference policywise pale in comparison to say a Canadian Province or one of the German Lander.
The point of devolution is that any decision the Scottish Parliament makes can be arbitrarily overturned, because Westminster, and by that I mean the House of Commons, Lords and the collected civil service supporting them, with the full support of what passes for constitutional law around here. It’s not good enough. If No wins, then we liberals have a golden opportunity to see that devolution is remembered as the halfway-house towards federalism. If we fail or if Yes wins, it’ll be remembered as the halfway-house on the path to independence. But either way, it’s not a long-term solution.
I wanted to say something here, but then it turned out that T-J had said exactly what I was going to.
@ Allan Heron
You’ve produced a good dictionary definition of federalism but I suspect you’ve missed one of its key points. The quote ““Federalism means devolution from Edinburgh, not just devolution to Edinburgh.” is a good description of the point of federalism, namely to deliver bottom-up government where genuine power is held at lower levels and sovereignty is shared between each layer of government.
The mechanics of this require a constitution setting out the limits of power for each layer of government, in order to protect lower levels of government from higher levels, as Vernon Bogdanor points out.
One point though – I don’t think a federal UK would need to be “neat”. For example, if we have a Scottish and a Welsh parliament I don’t think that means we have to have an English parliament, to balance it out. I guess most people would see an English parliament as an unwanted and needless level of bureaucracy. It should be based on what people want, not some top-down neat model.
“think we are definitely within touching distance of being able to get a good bit down the road towards ”
Well thats reassuring…..
thank you, Allan. much obliged.
@Julian Tisi
The point about moving beyond Edinburgh is well made, but it would remain fundamentally flawed in a devolutionary structure which remains, at heart, highly centralised.
And there does need to be an English component whether that is an English Parliament or a (complete) structure of regional government within England. The “unwanted and needless level of bureaucracy” would be the Houses of Commons and Lords. The former would need to be slimmed down to reflect the more limited powers that it employs, and a federal structure would beg the question of the existence of the House Of Lords at all.
That’s also a message that the Liberal Democrats need to learn internally as well.