Lib Dem party president Tim Farron has an article in the Huffington Post on the forthcoming Scottish referendum. In it he asks himself two questions:
“Do I think that Scotland could go it alone? Yes, it could. Should it? No.”
He then explains why – here’s an excerpt:
I do believe we have a shared culture and a shared history. I believe our victories, triumphs and disasters are not one nations alone, they are all of ours. We are a family, a family that rows on occasion but the bonds that tie us together mean that millions of men and women have fought and died together to protect the values and freedoms we all share.
So when I call my friends I will be asking them to reflect on that and vote to keep us together. I hope they will and we then can embark on the next chapter. Federalism is a journey, look at counties like Canada. We need to take a leaf out of our Canadian cousins and look at their model of flexible federalism. The asymmetrical nature of the country and political system, does have problems, granted, but it works.
My party does not want the status quo if we have a no vote. My friends and colleagues Alistair Carmichael, Ming Campbell and Willie Rennie have laid out a plan for Home Rule for Scotland. I hope with a no vote on the 18 September, we can deliver it.
You can read Tim’s article in full here.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Indecision costing the taxpayers millions
Back on the campaign trail
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
Matt Wardman
Andrew Tampion
Anne Williams
Steve J Smith
nigel hunter
8 Comments
The problem is it will though. I hoped that the bailouts during the banking crisis of 2008 meant that we wouldn’t just return to the status quo either but that’s exactly what we did. Bonuses and privatization continue and nothing of any real substance has changed.
After a No vote (which still looks likely) the 3 main parties will act like it almost never happened and try to go back to business as usual as quickly as possible. Any new powers for Holyrood will be token gestures. Name 3 specific meaningful new powers that David Cameron & Nick Clegg have promised to grant Scotland immediately after a No vote. Can you do this?
I heard that the SNP were in council estates in Glasgow yesterday trying to signup voters who’d never been registered to vote before. A wise move on their part I guess. Check this out –
“SUPPORT for independence in Scotland’s housing estates could secure a Yes victory in the referendum, a new survey claimed today.
Doorstep chats with more than 18,000 voters in 90 working-class communities across the country showed almost two-thirds of voters in favour of independence once the undecideds were stripped out.
The Radical Independence Campaign (RIC), which carried out the survey, said it was the largest public canvass sample in the referendum to date.
And the findings are in stark contrast to official polls, which almost all show a No lead.
The RIC snapshot found support for Yes at 44 per cent, with No on 25 per cent and Don’t Knows on 31 per cent.
But if the undecideds are removed, the split is 63 per cent for Yes and 37 per cent for No.”
From http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-working-class-boost-for-yes-1-3515052
That’s not as different a result to the official polls as it initially seems. We’ve never had a ‘proper’ poll where more than 50% have actually wanted independence and this survey is no different. But a lot of people are don’t knows and therefore ‘persuadeable’ because the system we have doesn’t work for them. You can’t back the Tories in introducing the bedroom tax and attack the welfare state and the poorest in society and then be surprised if they take a chance on voting Yes simply to end a system that doesn’t work for them. The Westminster system doesn’t work for those people. It doesn’t matter who is in government in Westminster their policies are largely the same and have been since Thatcher’s time.
People don’t really want independence, but a lot of people also need a reason not to take a gamble on it anyway since the status quo doesn’t help them. Oh yeah, and by ‘reason not to take a gamble’ I don’t mean scare stories or being told how weak and incapable Scotland is. Seriously, what reasons have you got that will mean something to the poorest 20% of society who could swing this? Give me three good reasons that will mean something to those people’s daily lives.
Canadian Federalism is much less asymmetric than ours. Even Prince Edward Island (which is smaller than Kingston-upon-Thames) has co-sovereignty and vastly more powers than Greater London.
My initial temptation was to write something negative and doom laden in the style of theakes or Chris, however I do fear for the consequences and particularly the consequences of a NO vote for Scottish Lib Dems. It seems to me that a good solution would be a YES vote followed by a negotiation for a new looser UK, but I doubt this is a real option, but there again, no less real than a NO vote followed by a negotiation for a looser UK.
The tone of coercion from the NO debate means could be fuel for resentment that will not dissipate in a hurry. Obviously it is up to Scottish Lib Dems to decide on the direction of the debate, but I really would urge them to retreat from entrenched positions on sharing currency, BBC, defence etc before the impending referendum and present a detailed vision of a more federal UK. So this is a start in the right direction, but will it be heard? If Danny Alexander could be persuaded to dissociate himself from Osborne and retreat a bit on the blanket refusal to entertain the possibility of a shared currency, that would be a headline hitting message.
How very confusing!
I suppose it’s a little bit like the Russian vote in Crimea then, but the opposite sense?
Be independent immediately, or after a short delay.
I note that after No won the AV referendum, all schemes of political reform, whether more or less ambitious than AV, were quickly tabled (as many people on the Yes side predicted would happen). In that case, the status quo not only won, but has successfully silenced proponents of a more democratic system for years.
The best way forward for the UK, I think, would be for the Scottish referendum vote to be so close (regardless of who the ostensible winner is) that neither side can be comfortable with the outcome.
Martin is right about what would be best. Sadly, he’s also right about the chances of that actually happening.
With the greatest of respect to Tim Farron, I cannot vote any way other than against the status quo in this referendum. I think we all know, really, that voting for it will be taken to mean that, actually, we’re fine with it and don’t want change. And that isn’t true for me. UK, yes, but not any UK under any circumstances.
I am glad that Farron is making these kind of statements, though. Because after the referendum, with the strong likelihood being that No will win by a fairly slim margin, we will need political leaders who can and want to harness the desire for reform, broaden its appeal and get people on both sides of the border enthusiastic about the possibilities. And who haven’t alienated the sizable Yes population here, too.
@ T-J “With the greatest of respect to Tim Farron, I cannot vote any way other than against the status quo in this referendum. I think we all know, really, that voting for it will be taken to mean that, actually, we’re fine with it and don’t want change. And that isn’t true for me. UK, yes, but not any UK under any circumstances.”
I’m the same. Do I really want to see the end of the UK? Not really. But I can’t vote for more of the same. It seems like no matter who wins we get the same thing from Westminster, Thatcherism with a different colour of rosette. I cannot endorse this again, if this means an independent Scotland so be it, if that is what it takes to change things here.
The Lib Dems behaviour on independence has been appalling in my opinion, they even refused to allow the vote to happen in 2007. Now they’re saying don’t you dare vote for this or you’ll lose the Pound. I don’t believe them to be honest…
It seems to me that the SNP’s appeal in Scotland is much like UKIP’s in England, something which can be whipped up using cheap sentimentalism, and some dubious political move with potentially disastrous long-term consequences, and one that can’t be reversed once taken, is put forward as the solution to everything – and as it is the solution to everything, the party doesn’t have to answer any deep questions, just wave its hands saying “get out of the UK/EU, and that will make everything so much better”.
The reality is that the power of the nation state has much diminished, therefore this sort of thing is much more token than used to be the case. Our real rulers are global big business, pulling out of the UK/EU won’t stop that.
The issue of England being much bigger in population than all the other UK countries put together seems to me to be insoluble. We Liberals were once desperate to solve it by splitting England into regions which would all be part of this federation, but that falls down on the fact that hardly anyone in England is interested in that sort of thing. So actually, on balance I think the only way forward if the Scots aren’t happy with things as they are IS Scottish independence. But I don’t think it will be the magic solution to all their problems that it is being put forward as by their “Yes” campaigners.