The beginning of September saw squeaky bum time in the Referendum went ahead in one poll. What, I wondered, could the pro UK do to pull it back?
There is very little chance of this vote now being decisive enough to put the issue of independence to bed for a generation. If the UK doesn’t deliver on not just more powers but greater social justice as well, then Scots will insist on another referendum. Nicola Sturgeon has already talked about doing it all again in 5 years if we vote no. We need to get those people back who want a Federal UK but are voting yes. It’s important that these people believe that the chance of achieving that goal is better after a No vote. It certainly isn’t after a Yes vote which is irreversible. The likely narrow no vote is the option which gives people the most power. Voting yes would be handing it over to an SNP establishment which is very comfortable with power and for all the talk of a written constitution, is unlikely to want to cede much. The fact that it’s centralised everything that sits still for more than two minutes shows that. The very last thing I want to do is to trust them with more power. Imagine what Clear Desk Kenny MacAskill would do with counter-terrorism measures.
As much as those on the Yes side need to accept that they lost, those on the No side aren’t yet properly feeling the imprint of the boot on their backside yet. I’m still not convinced we are out of the woods on his. Without serious changes in attitude, we’ll be doing it all again inside a decade.
This was the month Liberal Democrat Ministers decided to back air strikes against ISIL in Iraq, but what did our readers think?
Remember Ed Miliband, his stroll in the park and Gareth? What would he have said about you, I asked? Some of the answers were hilarious.
In the wake of an Ashcroft poll that headlined dismal news for the Liberal Democrats, Stephen Tall tried to quantify the incumbency factor in favour of our MPs.
At the Tory Conference, Theresa May had a bit of a go about the Communications Data Bill that the Liberal Democrats blocked. She said we’d put children at risk. Julian Huppert took her to task.
The Liberal Democrat position is clear: we do not think that the proposal to store a record of every citizen’s internet browsing for 12 months is compatible with our basic civil liberties. We also do not think it is right to force UK companies to keep track of everything people do on Google, Facebook or other websites. You appear determined to push ahead with the scheme at all costs, regardless of widespread public concern. I’m more than happy to continue to have that debate as we approach the general election.
But there are limits. I was utterly dismayed by the suggestion in your conference speech today that my party has put children’s lives at risk.
That is an extraordinary claim, and one which must be backed with compelling evidence. Instead, you cited figures from the National Crime Agency which were entirely misleading. You said:
“Over a six-month period, the National Crime Agency estimates that it had to drop at least twenty cases as a result of missing communications data. Thirteen of these were threat-to-life cases, in which a child was judged to be at risk of imminent harm […] The solution to this crisis of national security was the Communications Data Bill. But two years ago, it was torpedoed by the Liberal Democrats.”
The National Crime Agency cases you cite were, I understand, unable to proceed because it was not possible to connect the IP address used for the communication to a particular device. ‘IP matching’ is a genuine problem, and as you know, Liberal Democrats have supported and continue to support action to solve it. Following our vetoing of the Communications Data Bill, we supported including proposals to resolve this problem in the Queen’s Speech.
Since then, nothing has happened. No such proposals have been brought forward by your department.
Responsibility for the lack of data in the cases you cite, and the risk thereby caused to individuals, including children, therefore lies exclusively at your door. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Liberal Democrats.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social



5 Comments
As the Pollster Nick Sparrow has pointed out, the Poll that showed Yes ahead was based on an online panel of volonteers & likely to have exagerated shifts in opinion among Voters as a whole. The whole Political debate was distorted by a piece of “Voodoo Polling” which only a decade ago would have been seen as invalid.
paul barker 3rd Jan ’15 – 12:17pm
“Voodoo Polling” — is this a reference to Lord Ashcroft of Belize ?
@Paul barker
So you think a 55/45 vote was a ringing endorsement of the Union?
Hireton: Given that the Tories were in power, albeit much held in check by the Lib Dems, and the No campaign was one of the worst campaigns in the history of politics, a 55/45 margin was pretty amazing.
@caron Lindsay yes of course it was…..