First, a clip from last night’s Newnight
“Well the tectonic plates of British politics are shifting.”
Lib Dem leadership contender Ed Davey says he believes “the Liberal Democrats are now the political home for many people who have been politically homeless”#newsnight | @EdwardJDavey pic.twitter.com/eGOy71nUj3
— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) June 6, 2019
Like Jo, he rules out Indyref2.
He signed a letter calling for an enquiry in to those who were denied their votes last night.
And then it was on to Aberdeen, 500 miles from his home in his Kingston constituency.
Great to be in Aberdeen to speak to @scotlibdems members at #LibDemHustings
If you’re not yet a member, you have until midnight tonight to join #LibDemSurge and back me to be the next leader of our party👇https://t.co/sbxVOFaohG pic.twitter.com/uHClvBIClO
— Ed Davey (@EdwardJDavey) June 7, 2019
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Brechtian television: Leo McKern in Galileo (1964)
Good news on political donations?
Conference booked
Are Labour going to cross another red line?
David Garlick
Tristan Ward
Joey Vimsante
Nick Baird
Tara Foster
22 Comments
I think the ultra Unionist stance of the Lib Dems on Scottish indepence was a big error in 2014, and still is now. I thought we were supposed to believe in self determination??
It is also hypcritical in the extreme to want another referendum on Eurooe but reject one for Scotland, especially if Brexit goes ahead.
Andrew McCaig – we do believe in self-determination. In 2014 the people of Scotland voted to remain in the UK. That is self-determination. It turns out that our ‘Remain in the UK’ policy – which we have had for decades incidentally – was in line with what the Scottish people wanted. And polls show it still is.
As for the difference in our approach to the two referendums, the reason for that is that the two situations are quite different. The Brexit referendum resulted in a decision to change the status quo; a process of negotiation had to begin, and a bill has been created with the aim of taking us out of the EU. But my God it’s a mess. So we are arguing for a peoples vote on that bill. Not a re-run of 2016, but a confirmatory vote on the bill that has emerged.
In contrast the Scottish referendum resulted in a decision to retain the status quo. There was no process of negotiation, and no bill. Therefore nothing for people to endorse or reject, so no need for a referendum.
The status quo mentioned by TonyH was for a UK inside the European Union. While the Lib Dems may still believe Scotland should stay in both unions, the result of the 2016 EU referendum made this look unrealistic. One or other ‘nationalist’ outcome seems to be where we are heading with the British variety firmly in the ascendancy. The Scottish party has never explicitly taken a position on which union it would prefer but it has been clear since June 2016 that maintaining the UK takes precedence.
When it comes to the crunch, my European citizenship comes first. Scottish civic nationalism gives me the chance to retain (or more probably now, regain) that status. Populist UK nationalism does not.
I recognise that the Lib Dems hope to change enough minds to reverse the 2016 vote before Britain actually leaves the EU. But this is far from guaranteed, and it could be ‘game over’ by Hallowe’en. By pitching so vehemently against Scotland’s right to an escape route, the party’s ultimate default position is effectively the same as that of the Brexit and Conservative parties.
Voters in Scotland chose to stay in both unions. When that becomes impossible, they should be allowed to decide between them.
The Libdems are not ‘ultra unionists’, we believe in federalism and actually want the devolved government at Holyrood to work effectively.
We’re also a party that supports being honest with the public, which means that just as we refuse to pretend that any kind of Brexit is better than the current deal, we don’t pretend that Scottish independence would be anything other than a disaster for the people of Scotland. More to the point, most Scots are against independence and a decent chunk of those who quite fancy independence are against another referendum on that over the next few years.
Those less familiar with the 2014 independence campaign are reminded that everyone campaigning for Scottish in dependence in 2014 were campaigning for Scotland to leave the EU in 2016. There were some claims then, as now, that it would be easy for Scotland to become an independent member, but that was dishonest then and it’s dishonest now. Scotland might apply to become a member, but it would not be a quick or easy process. Some conflate our right to apply and our already meeting certain requirements (such as on human rights) with us being ‘fast-tracked’, but there is no fast-track to us meeting the economic criteria, and I urge everyone to research what that means before proposing it as an easy option.
The SNP already exists for Scots who want independence. We shouldn’t go against our own principles or lie to the public just to pander to their members.
There’s a lot of mental gymnastics going on in that post Tony – so if the vote should be confirmatory on the deal, it should be a Deal vs No Deal choice? That’s not what most people I know are expecting from a new vote. Let’s at least be honest about what we are calling for.
The positions are inconsistent. If we argue for a new vote on the EU because we think public opinion/circumstances have changed, we should be open to a new independence vote if public opinion/circumstances change – particularly if the Tories take us out of the EU.
Sorry Fiona, but I must take issue with your assertion that “everyone campaigning for Scottish independence in 2014 (was) campaigning for Scotland to leave the EU in 2016”. The SNP and Greens were both on the remain side in 2016 and the most prominent leave supporters were right-wing UK loyalists.
You may be right that EU accession would be more complex than some people claim, but I doubt if the other member states would make it too difficult for Scotland given that it is currently inside the EU, has been applying the “acquis communautaire” for 45 years and wants to remain. It is particularly difficult to imagine that we could be kept out for a failure to respect European human rights norms.
Political discourse nowadays seems to be dominated by superlatives. You say with absolute confidence that Scottish independence would be “a disaster”. I wonder why you think that Scotland is uniquely unqualified to look after its own affairs?
A lot of people think leaving the EU will also be a disaster… tending towards apocalyptic if there is no deal.
I hope you’re not all right! If you are, then the future is pretty bleak.
TonyH 8th Jun ’19 – 12:15am………………As for the difference in our approach to the two referendums, the reason for that is that the two situations are quite different…….
The reason for a rerun of the EU referendum is that now we know that circumstances promised by the result have failed to materialise. In the Scottish referendum the Scots were told that ‘continued EU membership was only possible within the union; that has failed to materialise.
In all honesty the only difference between the two referendums is that this party agrees with the result of one and doesn’t agree with the result of the other.
Andrew/Simon/Dan/expats – You are all arguing that if Brexit happens that will be a huge change of circumstance so there should be a second indyref. As it happens, I don’t entirely disagree with that.
But the point is, it hasn’t happened yet! The UK is still in the EU, and some of us intend to keep it that way. So let’s argue from the current circumstances, which are that we are still in the EU, and that the appetite in Scotland for another indyref is very limited. If Brexit does happen, I think all kinds of things will need to be re-appraised. But let’s deal with that if it actually happens.
PS I also agree with Fiona: our position is not ‘ultra-Nationalist’. I’m not really sure what that means, tbh. But in terms of our policy, Charles Kennedy’s great line sums it up best: “I’m a Highlander, and a Scot, and British, and European. All four are in the blood that courses through my veins. I can’t separate one out and discard it even if I wanted to – which I don’t.”
I agree with most of the arguments advanced by Andrew McCaig, Dan MB, expats – and particularly Simon Horner. Whilst my personal preference would be for Scotland to retain its union with the U.K., within the EU, I also recognise the right of the Scottish people to change their minds on independence, particularly if Scotland is forced out of the EU contrary to the wishes of a clear majority of its own citizens. Surely, democracy would then demand that Scotland should be able to choose between the two unions that they currently belong to – continued membership of the U.K. outside the EU, or the opportunity to apply for readmission to the EU as an independent nation.
In those circumstances, it would be politically unwise for the Lib Dems, or our aspiring leaders, to stridently oppose holding any further Scottish independence referendum – we should at least keep the door open and be careful not to totally burn all our bridges with the SNP whose support may be needed, in the meantime, for any future UK coalition government.
The Independent carries an interview today with Jo Swinson, in which she appears to rule out ‘propping up a Labour govt’. Ruling things out now is the height of political irresponsibility. The SNP haven’t ruled out supply and confidence for this very reason and nor should the Lib Dems.
A party can keep its political independence and its identity with C&S in way not possible in a formal coalition. If the Lib Dems under Clegg had offered Cameron only confidence and supply arrangement in 2010; with annual or biennial reviews of compliance, you’d still hold the bulk of the 62 seats you entered talks with.
The Lib Dems should be prepared to drive a very hard bargain for such support mind: early HoL reform; PR for local govt elections and moves to strengthen transparency and protect civil liberties for starters.
Simply refusing to cooperate with like-minded progressive parties, resulting in the deeply regressive Tories returning for another decade in power, would be an unforgivable betrayal.
@Andy – totally agree; confidence and supply arrangements could well be a viable option in any future “hung parliament” (and would, in my opinion, also have been preferable to full coalition in 2010), but why only insist on “PR for local govt elections” and not for the HoC too?
@Sean Hagan.
The Lib Dems have to be realistic about what’s attainable. The PLP aren’t going to support the introduction of a proportionate system for Westminster without a fight . It’s like pro-PR Labour MP Austin Mitchell(now retired) once said in frustration: MPs think the best electoral system is the one that elected them. The Labour leadership afaik are quite pro-reform, McDonnell has previously supported and supports HoL reform as first step. it’s the PLP that need the nudge from the Lib Dems on this via C&S.
Introducing PR at all levels, should be the Lib Dems central aim, above all else, as getting above the 25% threshold – that really unlocks seats under FPTP – is a ridiculously high bar to clear. PR for local govt and HoL elections could be a means by which the public lose their fear of PR and indeed embrace it, eventually for the HoC. Much as the Scots have with their elections to Holyrood under the Additional Member System (AMS).
Simon, you can take issue all you like about the idea that those campaigning for independence in 2014 were campaigning for Scotland to leave the EU, but Scotland leaving the EU would have been an inevitable consequence of Scotland leaving the UK. If Scotland had left the UK in 2016 as proposed by the SNP, then Scotland would have been out of the EU in 2016.
Of course, Scotland leaving the UK would not have been as cheap or easy as claimed in the White Paper, so it’s likely that Scotland would be asking for a series of extensions.
The fact that the SNP and Greens then went on to (officially at least) campaign for the UK to stay in the EU doesn’t mean they weren’t doing it (by default) in 2014, just that either they didn’t notice, or didn’t care. Or care enough to notice. Those less familiar with Scottish politics might need reminding that the SNP spent less on the campaign to stay in the EU than they did for a by-election. The SNP previously held the view that Scotland should leave the EU and one of my neighbours is a long-term SNP voter and independence backer who would much rather be out of the EU than out of the UK. There’s a reason that the SNP’s “pro-EU” campaigning in 2016 mainly consisted of criticising the main Remain campaign, rather than going hard on the benefits of the EU. Until recently they were campaigning for a Norway deal in preference to a 2nd referendum. It’s because they didn’t want to alienate their EU hating voters.
And yes, leaving the EU will be a disaster for the UK, but it’s exactly the same logic that means that Scotland leaving the UK would be an even bigger problem. IMO, the mental gymnastics come from those who think that leaving the UK is all about sovereignty and the opportunity to do things better, but leaving the UK is all about arrogance, racism and economic disaster.
Fiona, I think you are not taking account of “realpolitik” when you say that Scotland would have been out of the EU in 2016 on leaving the UK. If Scotland had voted Yes in 2014, it would immediately have sought entry to the EU to coincide with the date of independence. Knowing how the European system operates (I worked in the Commission for almost 30 years), it is almost inconceivable that the rest of the EU – not even Spain – would have blocked Scotland’s accession since this would have represented the continuity option. A refusal would have been tantamount to expulsion.
Fiona 9th Jun ’19 – 9:35am……….
I’m not a Scot but if the likes of Malta, Cyprus, etc. can be happy within the EU there is no overriding practical reason why Scotland couldn’t do well within that organisation.
In fact, because of Westminster’s (England’s) intransigence, I’m sure the EU would give them a warm welcome.
Most business leaders consider an ‘independent’ UK, outside the EU, to be a disaster especially in the short term, and investing a thriving Scotland to the north would be a more attractive proposition. A skilled workforce living both sides of the border would make the NE a far less attractive place to site manufacturing than a few tens of miles northwards.
Expats,
The Scottish economy doesn’t meet the economic conditions for joining the EU. Now the SNP will claim it will be the easiest negotiations in history, but in that they are as delusional as the Brexiteers.
The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP); and in case of having a debt level above 60% it should each year decline with a satisfactory pace towards a level below.
The deficit in Scotland was 8% including the North Sea, and excluding it was 9%. This compares to a deficit of 2.3% for the UK as a whole.
Apologies for not posting the links, I struggle on a mobile phone.
Now I’m sure the SNP and co will claim the need to srink the deficit to 3% from 8% (2017 figure) won’t apply to them because they are special, well they are not special enough to get away with that. I’m not even factoring in Barnet and the repatriation of government departments, if you include them, the figures will look worse.
Simon,
How would the EU have delt with the Scottish government running a deficit of over 10% of GDP on indepence, would they have expected the new government to raise taxes and cut to bring it down to 3%. Would they become Greece in the North sea? You see the problem polticians can promise the world but when reality bites, well it bites hard. Now to he fair even if the EU hadn’t forced through austerity on steroids the market probably with a hand from the IMF would. The reality is Scotland is a small aging nation which would struggle in the world. We are special they cry, so are the Brexiteers and look at what reality is doing to them. Safety in numbers may well become the watch phrase of the 21st century.
Have you ever lived, worked, studied – or even gone past Berwick or Gretna, Frankie ?
@David Raw – “Have you ever lived, worked, studied – or even gone past Berwick or Gretna, Frankie ?”
I don’t see the relevance of this question. But for what it’s worth, speaking as someone who agrees entirely with Frankie, I have been past Berwick and Gretna many, many times. On my way south. From Scotland. Where I have lived all of my life.
Really not sure why it is relevant though.
A lot of the discussion seems to be about the merits or otherwise of Scottish Indepence. I do not have a strong view on that, not living in Scotland.
However as some have pointed out, Brexit if it goes ahead effectively negates the result of the last Scottish referendum by changing what 55% of Scots voted for, the status quo. If the Scottish Parliament (which is a lot more representative than the UK one) votes for another referendum, Westminster blocking it would be a deeply illiberal act. Lib Dem MSPs can of course legitimately vote against a new referendum in Holyrood.
When i say “ultra Unionist” I am talking about the pitch for Tory votes which i notice even down here in England. Many people who used to vote Lib Dem in Scotland now vote SNP, and we should ask ourselves why. For me, pooling sovereignty in the EU is part of my DNA, but keeping Scotland in the Union if they dont want it is not..
Yes I have David many years ago I helped set up the Criminal Injuries Board in Glasgow. It is still there and
CICA’s office is in the centre of Glasgow and employs over 300 staff.
I think we can all safely say that in the event of Independence the lions share of those jobs wouldn’t be there anymore. I suspect many English or Welsh cities would be more than happy to see 250+ jobs arriving and they would; there would be no votes in being nice to the Scots after all.
To those that will claim but the UK government departments won’t move from Scotland, remember the Brexiteers claimed the same about the EU Pharmaceutical and Finance agencies, neither are now in London.
David Davis, Brexit secretary, does not accept that the two agencies and roughly 1,000 staff will have to move from London’s Canary Wharf,
Source FT
That didn’t age well, but I’m sure there are more than a few SNP polticians who will be equally deluded.