The Scottish Liberal Democrats adopted a targeted strategy in its 11 held seats at the General Election. We faced a drop in the popular vote by more than half compared to 2010 and a Scottish Nationalist insurgency. The approach taken was to appeal to a Unionist tactical vote in those areas, hoping that the fear of SNP victories across the board would draw-in Labour and Tory voters in places like East Dunbartonshire, Gordon and West Aberdeenshire.
I want to acknowledge from the outset, that this was a less ineffective strategy for the Scottish Lib Dems than it proved for Scottish Labour. Though losing all mainland seats, the margins by which we were defeated were relatively close. Mike Crockart, for example, was much closer to holding his seat than most Glasgow Labour MPs. There is not zero merit in this approach.
On the whole, however, I think this strategy was ill-founded, and should be dispensed with, for practical, electoral and principled reasons. The future of liberalism in Scotland hangs by a knife-edge and more of the same is not going to cut it.
The tactical Unionist vote is not a viable long-term strategy. It relies on winning localised votes, of non-liberal voters, based on the constitutional question, for non-liberal reasons. As a targeted strategy, it’s not viable to return more MSPs to Holyrood. We need to mobilise broad liberal support to gain seats on the regional list. For every Labour voter we win, we push away at least one voter to the SNP. They won, let’s remember, over 50% of the vote in Scotland.
It must also be remembered that the SNP is a broad church. They court a significant chunk of liberals, and former Liberals at that. This vote will solidify, not soften, the more you agitate against independence. We are not getting through to these voters on issues beyond independence precisely because we have allowed it to become this generation’s defining split.
The Scottish Party must contemplate how it can reach out to the rest of liberal Scotland. Are we, first and foremost, liberals, or are we Unionists? Surely we are the former. There is nothing inherently liberal about Unionism (much of our experience of it is anything but). There is also nothing inherently illiberal about independence. I choose my words carefully here, because nationalism, even civic nationalism, is at least arguably illiberal.
What the Lib Dems have failed to recognise is that the drivers for SNP support are not uniquely nationalist in sentiment, at least no more so than it is for any other political party. I am determined in my criticism of a lot of their illiberal and centralising tendencies. It is pointless, however, to bang the drum about these issues if no one is listening any more.
It is my belief that the Scottish Lib Dems need seriously to consider adopting a “non-aligned” or “agnostic” position on Scottish independence. It is no longer enough simply to say that we will tolerate dissenting voices, as democrats, within our party. If we are to re-unite liberal Scotland, we have to take the sting out of the independence debate. This would present a unique opportunity to differentiate ourselves from other Unionist Parties, and allow us properly to represent our Home Rule vision as a genuine, radical alternative, to the status quo. We win the constitutional argument by changing the constitutional argument.
The main argument I have heard against this strategy has not been one of principle. It has been the fear that we would be ignored or marginalised in any future independence debate. I am left wondering exactly what kind of attention people think we attracted in the last independence referendum. As part of a cross-party group, we were anonymous in BetterTogether. Federalism and Home Rule as defining themes were firmly on the back-burner. When they did re-emerge it was not on our terms. A bold, brave, and public statement, which offers a hand of friendship to those disaffected by Westminster, is more likely to give us an authentic and distinct voice in this debate, and help us to advance liberal causes beyond the constitutional question, especially at Holyrood.
At the very least, we need to have this debate in a structured, decisive and prompt fashion. We have less than a year until the Holyrood Elections. Dithering and procrastinating on this just won’t do. Our pitch to Scotland’s liberals needs to be clear, determined and distinct. Anything less, and our fight won’t be to build on our five seats, but simply to retain them. That really would be a nail in the coffin for Liberalism in Scotland.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
theakes
Peter Martin
Chloe
Jana
55 Comments
I have suggested an agnostic approach myself, but not living in Scotland felt that perhaps I have been missing something. I really cannot understand why we were so pro union as to fully campaign on te NO side. It seems to me that a ‘devo max’ settlement could be achieved via either a YES or a NO vote. We could even have, and perhaps could yet put ourselves forward as the ‘devo max” party.
Accept the “agnostic” position, so how about what the rest of the issues? How to cut through?
I agree Graeme. More Lib Dems could see that pragmatism and principle are not necessarily two different things, as you have seen here.
Regards
Well said Graeme Cowie!
In particular can I echo your words –
“…It must also be remembered that the SNP is a broad church. They court a significant chunk of liberals, and former Liberals at that. This vote will solidify, not soften, the more you agitate against independence. We are not getting through to these voters on issues beyond independence precisely because we have allowed it to become this generation’s defining split.”
The Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Party before were never Unionist.
We were the polar opposite of Unionists yet somehow the party in Scotland (perhaps because of the Westminster Coalition) allowed itself to be lined up with the Unionists in the referendum and to do the Tories’ dirty work for them.
Some of us in England just could not believe how the party in Scotland walked willingly into this trap.
This is just as important for us south of the border. If we are not going to hand the Tories another scare tactic trump card for the next General Election — we need to sort out our position in Scotland. It needs to be the an anti-Unionist position.
I agree entirely.
I have no idea why the Lib Dems think that a Union is automatically better than two countries. I can understand why some Lib-Dem members do, but as a party, there seems to be no overriding reason why we should take a position on either side of the argument.
I believe that the people of Scotland should be able to be governed in the way that they, as a group, think is best. That seems the most liberal, and democratic, approach.
Unless someone can show me that smaller countries are necessarily either more, or less liberal, democratic, happy, etc. than larger ones (or vice versa), Independence seems to be something the party could be happily indifferent towards.
The harsh reality is that Voters wanted change – we offered more of the same – now if pushed most of the Voters wouldn’t know exactly what sort of change- but they simply were fed up with the same old way of doing things – The SNP ran with one Slogan – A Stronger Voice For Scotland in the London – given the choice between two Oxbridge Grads with a PPE Degree running the Country the Scottish Voters looked for the Party who would give them a Voice – the perception was the SNP
We relied to heavily on the ” local MP ” loyalty and hoped ” Hard Working Constituency MP ” would save the day – harsh reality is most people never come into contact with there MP and never will
Now the Policy bit – they were weak as Dishwater – at best a Wish List of vague promises – exactly what were you voting for if you voted Lib Dem – the Brain to Labour and Heart to the Tories simply screamed we don’t actually have any ideas of our own
The Radical Liberal Party of the past who would challenge convention is gone .
In Scotland Voters wanted change and a strong Voice for that they voted SNP – In England they wanted the status Quo – for that they voted Tory
One key factor in Scotland is we let MPs stay on for too long – they should have been replaced long ago – the SNP had a wide array of talent from across the Social Spectrum – how many of our new candidates in target seats had worked outwith Politics or lobbying Companies – how many had ever had a real job – ran a Business – how many sitting MPs were Glasgow University or Edinburgh University Graduates – so we cant really say to much about the concept of an Oxbridge Elite –
The SNP offered change to the Labour placemen and our Professional Politicians – they had real people with in the main -real jobs – Voters could relate to them and in turn could put there trust in them – to put it simply down to a desire for Independence in Scotland is far too simplistic – that is simply saying its wasn’t us who didn’t pick the right candidates – put forward the best Policies – get the right strategy – it was in effect not our fault – it was all the fault of Voters wanting independence
Are you seriously proposing that the Scottish Liberal Democrats should have nothing to say on an issue of such fundamental moment as the unity of our country? How much credibility would the party have left if we bowed down to our opponents on an issue of such huge importance?
One of the few really courageous and principled things that the three party leaders did in the last Parliament was stand firm on the union. Are you suggesting that we throw all that away and surrender our country to Alec Salmond’s separatists?
We have to stick with our core beliefs or we are nothing. This isn’t student tuition fees, this is the union.
Yes, you are right when you say that Scottish nationalism can be viewed as inherently illiberal. It can and is. Scottish nationalism is about driving people apart and finding differences where there are none. Liberal democracy is about bringing people together. That is why we uphold the union with Scotland, and why we support international institutions such as the EU and the United Nations.
Surrendering to the SNP will leave us with no seats and no votes in Scotland.
I agree entirely with Graeme’s observations and indeed also his prescription.
We claim not to be a Unionist party, yet are content to campaign as if we are.
For some time I have advocated a similar approach. I have maintained that voting “Yes” was a perfectly legitimate Liberal option – and if Scotland is to be healed a party is needed that can reach out to those on both sides of the divide; Yes voters as well as No voters.
The electoral strategy we adopted suggested that we have abandoned Yes supporters to the SNP. That for me is not acceptable. The Liberal Democrats should be the one party with the capability of uniting Scotland, of transcending the divisive political discourse and being able to appeal to a genuinely broad church. Unfortunately, at present, we do not appear to have grasped what potential opportunities await us if we can communicate the “agnostic” position Graeme calls for. We should be the single best chance of facilitating an intelligent constitutional debate..
People like myself, who saw independence as an infinitiely better option than the constitutional status quo, do not merely want to be “tolerated” by the party we love and serve. The plurality of views should be welcomed. Part of our problem inevitably, has been in too closely identifying ourselves with Better Together – it will take some time to distance ourself from association with its tribalistic negativity, but it is far from Mission Impossible. Let’s talk more boldly about the things that are supposed to matter to us – in particular Home Rule and Federalism.
As Graeme points out, there are many liberals within the SNP. In too many cases, they are there because we’ve moved away from them. I want these members and voters back. The real question is: will our leadership be sufficiently bold to reach out to them?
If I had been living in Scotland (and I have done – I know the Scots quite well) I would probably have voted for independence. It was obviously a very emotional thing and I think I am not alone amongst liberals in resenting government from afar.
What you say here Graeme is exactly what I was thinking. The Lib Dems in Scotland need to accept back the Yes voters with open arms and say the 2016 Holyrood election is NOT about independence, but about the record of the SNP in Scotland. By the sound of it there is plenty to campaign on. My instinct is that Scottish people will react against the one party state and the SNP vote will unwind somewhat, giving parties that welcome those voters back a chance. Of course the current situation suits both Cameron AND Sturgeon, so they may do their best to offend each other in order to keep it going!
I know this will be hard, but I think the Scottish party needs to look at the lists and see if any of the defeated MP’s would like to be MSP’s. This would require some sacrifice, I suspect, but the symbolic commitment to Scotland could be helpful
I am a Scot, do live in Scotland and campaigned vigorously for a ‘No’ vote. Yes, we need more devolution, but in the early 21st century I don’t see the point in ‘independence’, as with globalisation many smaller countries actually have very little say in many matters, being very much influenced by one or other of the major powers. I want the Calman and Smith recommendations to be given a chance to work, rather than throwing them out regardless.
While I wouldn’t equate the SNP with some of the nastier Nationalist parties, it is an unfortunate fact that nationalism tends to attract some very undesirable types. I recall a Bosnian refugee back in 1999 saying that Alex Salmond was dangerous. When I protested that the SNP were not like that, she replied that they in Bosnia had thought the same, and that their nationalist movement started in similar fashion but ended up with people killing their neighbours. The view of someone who has gone through such a dreadful experience like that cannot be lightly dismissed.
There were many on the doorsteps who were extremely worried about separating from the rest of the UK. My English husband detects an anti-English current in much of the nationalist rhetoric, not of course from the leadership, but from some of the ordinary members. He has seriously suggested we move to Gloucestershire if there is a vote for independence, and I have heard several other people make similar statements.
Andrew, I think there would be serious problems with re-opening the lists (so to speak). The candidates for the top 3 places were democratically selected last year. I would be seriously concerned at the idea of ‘fiddling’ with the results of a one member one vote selection, (and not because I am on the Mid Scotland & Fife list, as at No. 3, I know I have no chance of being elected). The last time the wishes of our membership were over-ridden in this fashion was when 25 members, who happened to be MPs (including Clegg, Farron & Lamb), deposed the leader, which I thought was very wrong indeed, and marked the start of our recent decline.
I don’t know how many constituencies have selected MSP candidates, though at least one has. If others are still vacant, they might be suitable niches for our former MPs.
Jane,
I do not want to interfere in the MSP lists – that would be up to the people on them. But I am sure no-one on or off the lists imagined we would lose all but one of the MPs. As you say though, the worst thing would be something imposed from above.
Regarding the Union, I understand how some people are passionate about it, but I really don’t see why the Lib Dems have identified themselves as a Unionist party. As an Englishman I think it is entirely up to the Scots. Individual candidates can take a view one way or the other but the party should not have done. Doing so did us no good in England and a lot of harm in Scotland, I would say…
Surely there is a Third Way that could help bring back disaffected Yes-voters back from the SNP camp? Many people who turned to the SNP since the Referendum have done so as they feel they are shackled to an unrepresentative and out of touch Westminster system. Rather than purely dangling a Devo Max promise before them again, would not a proposal for a Federal Union allow Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English Regions not only set the Scottish Liberal Party apart from the other parties in Scotland but allow the best of both worlds?
The SNP did not win over 50% of the vote. And surely as an internationalist party, which looks to work together with others to fight problems which don’t recognise lines drawn on a map nationalism; however you dress it up is self defeating?
Some of those commenting on here should join the SNP. They aren’t Liberal, thats for sure.
@Cogland
“go and join the SNP if you don’t agree with me” You illustrate the problem the Lib Dems have in Scotland perfectly!
Our constitution: “…We believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and commit ourselves to the promotion of a democratic federal framework within which as much power as feasible is exercised by the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. ”
And “….Our responsibility for justice and liberty cannot be confined by national boundaries; we are committed to fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur and to promote the free movement of ideas, people, goods and services. Setting aside national sovereignty when necessary, we will work with other countries towards an equitable and peaceful international order and a durable system of common security.”
There are more important things out there than preserving the Union if the Scots do not want it… And if England votes to leave the EU, they will not…
Federalism – certainly. I don’t call myself a Unionist (like Michael Moore), as that smacks too much of Ireland, as in Conservative & Unionist, Ulster Unionist, Democratic Unionist.
Certainly, if most Scots really want to secede, then it will happen. However, there would be no going back after a split, as the rest of the UK would have ‘moved on’ in the interim. And, while 50% plus 1 would achieve such a split, it is unlikely to be an amicable one. Already families and friends are divided by this subject – not a healthy state of affairs, and no basis for a new country. Norway, often cited as an example, was at least 95% in favour.
I can’t help remembering Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ and seeing horrible parallels with his dystopian vision of a newly-independent state, and fervently hope it does not come to pass.
@Jim Alexander,
“One key factor in Scotland is we let MPs stay on for too long – they should have been replaced long ago ”
One of the things that the SNP does well is that they don’t throw talent away. Case in point, John Swinney and Alex Salmond as contrasted with what David Steele wrote in the Guardian the other day. Steele felt that he had to keep quiet, and not get in the way of Nick Clegg as he ran things. He wrote: “I never interfered with any of my successors: former leaders should be seen and not heard.”
Both John Swinney and Alex Salmond didn’t have to do that; Swinney found a much more suitable role as finance head after his not-so-successful stint as leader of the SNP, and Alex Salmond looks set to become the SNP bulldog in Westminster, leaving Angus Robertson with the more diplomatic task of keeping the Westminster group together. It is a much better use of talent, and it means not throwing away people who have been successful before.
There are many lessons to be learned from the SNP here. Whether one likes them or not, they ran a hugely successful campaign that knit together everyone from the ludicrously rich of Aberdeenshire to the dispossessed of the backstreets of Glasgow. Why? They mainly ran a positive campaign that “change is possible”. When I was up there, the first thing that popped out of my cousin’s mouth when I asked him was “Time for change”. I’ve never heard that down here in England.
To the best of my knowledge, as things stand there is absolutely nothing to stop any future UK government with a parliamentary majority from simply voting to dismantle the entire Scottish settlement and withdraw authority from Edinburgh. It may not be likely, but it is a possibility under Parliamentary supremacy.
I cannot see that any final settlement, federal or otherwise, can be acceptable unless that possibility is ruled out — that is, that it is grounded in law that the authority of the Scottish government and parliament comes directly from the people of Scotland, is not delegated to them by Westminster, is independent of Westminster, and cannot be nullified by Westminster.
Sense, and an out break of preamble based Liberalism at last!
I had been asking here since Tavish nixed co-operating with Salmond’s first administration because the LDs opposed a referendum (something I maintain was neither liberal nor democratic!) how it could be that the affirmation to support self determination could not apply in the case of Scotland.
Politically this also made no sense, although an entente with the SNP might have been valuable in itself, because it left the ‘Liberal and Unionist’ party scrapping with Labour, the Tories and lately the kippers for the pro union half (ever diminishing as it is).
David1 – hmmn, I think the Claim of Right would trump that.
A good idea but 2 years too late.
Lets remember a few things.
The Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie has referred to Devo-Max/ federalism as “ultra-extreme”
http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/willie_rennie_speech_to_the_david_hume_institute
Politicians and the media often describe terrorists as “extremists”. To dub supporters of devo-max as “ultra-extreme” i.e. worse than terrorists, is clearly highly inflammatory. Why would those who have left want to go back to such a party?
It was Willie Rennie who squandered the opportunity to promote federalism through the second question on the ballot paper that Alex Salmond offered (he didn’t have to). Willie even called on the chief executive of the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations to resign simply for choosing to discuss the idea of having such a third option on the ballot paper. If it is federalism or devo-max you want, let alone independence, then the Scottish Liberal Democrats are not the party to be in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19275201
Yes supporting liberals were banned from even having a stall at Scottish Liberal Democrat conference. The Scottish party may have Liberal in its name but it is not liberal by nature.
http://scottish-liberal.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/yes-scotland-set-up-virtual-stall-for.html
As for nationalism, there are many forms of nationalism. One of these is British nationalism; the nationalism that unionist No supporters embody even if they don’t like to admit it. British nationalism is a nationalism that has a violent history about dominating others right up to the present day. It is far more illiberal than the Yes movement, a grassroots movement of Scots of all origins and walks of life, which claims Scotland’s right to self-determination, loves freedom and seeks to join the european family of nations in it’s own right, to cooperate with other nations as equals, neither to dominate or be dominated by them.
We have yet another government that Scotland did not vote for and this time one that got in on a campaign that openly demonised Scots. The depictions of a Scottish pickpocket on the posters in England are frighteningly reminiscent of the depictions of Juden in 1930s Germany. There is nothing left for liberal minded Scots to want to stay in the union for.
There is a bit of me that wonders what would have happened if Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Jim Murphy and Willie had called the Tories out for their ridiculous Labour/SNP scare stories and had refused to rule out working with them. Could it be that their ruling out any sort of deal legitimised what Cameron was saying?
I get that if you are positioning yourself as the alternative to a party, then there is a need to keep some distance. And I know that the last time Nick stood up against prejudice to Nigel Farage it didn’t end so well, but I wonder if we should have allowed Cameron to change and dominate the game like he did.
It is sounding as if it is time to embrace our federalism (which I *thought* we were already committed to). Devolution is not independence-lite. It offers a rich alternative way of being — for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and for the English regions. Our commitment to making decisions as close as possible to the people they affect should make this feel very natural. If people in Scotland feel the only way to be heard is to vote SNP, then we are very well placed to offer something else — and better.
I think the best thing would be for the Scottish Lib Dems to declare their own independence from the UK party much in the same way the Scottish Greens are separate from the E&W Greens, and the Liberal Party in Quebec is separate from the Liberal Party of Canada. Of course, they would still be members of Liberal International, etc. It may be the only way back for Liberalism in Scotland.
I agree with James.
James, that solution could work too. I have thought that in the past. Whatever the solution it seems something needs to change.
I am not lecturing the Scots, I just like to offer support to good ideas.
Agnosticism on Scottish independence and a separate Scottish party both seem like good ideas.
The political problem then is how to be relevant: ‘we don’t mind either way’ is not much of a message. Should there be Lib Dem groups campaigning on both sides? What then happens to individual candidates who have an opinion, one way or another, on the defining issue of the time? Do they have to commit to being agnostic?
I find this post quite interesting. As a former Lib Dem (even a council candidate standing in an area that elects a man who is happy to be called a communist – http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/-sp-britains-last-elected-communist-councillor-willie-clarke) I despaired at the Scottish Lib Dem response to the rise of the SNP. I totally agree with Graeme and Andrew Page and I really do think that there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in the language used to decry SNP and many peoples Scottish nationalism.
Jane Anne Liston and so many others highlighted how small Scotland would be and how little power we would have. Is the acquisition of state power a Liberal ideal? I didnt think so…..
One of the problems of the indyref for the No side was that Devo Max (however defined) was not on the ballot paper. I still think this was a huge mistake of party destroying consequences. For two years, by default, the SNP got to be positive about Scotland and the Lib Dems/Tories/Labour *had* to be negative. There was no alternative vision that was positive for Scotland. For most of the campaign it was basically “wait to see what happens after Calman” until the panicked creation of “The Vow” as the polls had tightened. This offer was not a positive alternative to independence, it was a last second offer to stay. Kind of like couple counselling when someone is at the door with a suitcase about to leave.
What is the Liberal vision for Scotland? Where is the Liberal voice for Scotland? The SNP, as a party, has enacted illiberal policies but independence is not illiberal just as unionism is liberal (as Graeme says).
I also wonder about Willie Rennies approach to the SNP. To me it generally smacks of tribal hate (although not as bad as Tavish Scott in full flow). Above, Al links to a number of insulting actions/comments by Willie Rennie. Even those who want to stay in the Union are viewed with suspicion if they want it on terms that Willie disagrees with. The SCVO thing was just embarrassing (did you know that the Institute of Chartered Accountants Scotland, an organisation that published several papers outlining a lot of financial problems with independence also internally discussed other options such as devo max? Should they be castigated as well?) and not letting Yes liberals at conference was both illberal and actually more akin to animal farm thought control than anything the SNP have done Jane Ann Liston.
Caron makes the interesting point that instead of saying Scottish MPs didnt count if they were SNP MPs. I think Caron is right in that it made people think Cameron was correct. It also appealed to the Scottish “hell mend ye” approach to things. I am willing to bet SNP MPs got a lot of votes just because they had been attacked by Westminster politicians and the unionist media.
Douglas, I beg your pardon for not making myself clear. ‘Jane Ann Liston and so many others highlighted how small Scotland would be and how little power we would have. Is the acquisition of state power a Liberal ideal? I didnt think so…..’ The point was that many nominally independent small countries have restricted room to manoeuvre, because they have a much larger country influencing their policies. That’s all.
I don’t think thought control was actually in Animal Farm. It was episodes like: rewriting the Seven Commandments (history); the promise of extravagant pensions which in the end were not forthcoming; the threat of Farmer Jones (Thatcher) coming back; and the implication that lack of food didn’t matter because being free was the main thing, that all struck a chord.
Alex Salmond once said that Scotland and Qatar had a lot in common, believe me they don’t! What he meant that Scotland had oil and all its people could live in leisured ease.There is a good case to make that economically the Scots will be worse off in an independent country. There is equally a good case to make for decentralising economic decision making.What is good for SE England isn’t always good for Scotland.
Scotland has a long tradition of liberalism. indeed the word Whig comes from the Scottish Whiggamores. What is needed is to revive and strenghen that tradition.
Somebody had to invoke Godwin’s la w and our winner is Al. Perhaps the cuddly Scottish civic nationalism is the same one which daubs Nazi symbolism over people’s doors? Perhaps that self same unifying movement is embodied when there are “spontaneous” marches on media HQ’s for the impertinence of questioning the dear leader. This of course is under the aegis of a government which the majority of Scotland didn’t vote for in 2011 and whose policies are increasingly illiberal. And finally the decrying of British nationalism, a violent past which Scotland itself ( and let’s be honest here) took a full part in. Who benefitted by economically.
To the other issues. I was under the mistaken impression that there was a binary choice on the ballot paper (yes\no) to save fudge. If devo Max ( which as pointed out at the time and is increasingly becoming apparent is anything but as the SNP run away from FFA screaming) or federalism was offered as a choice then we could have had 40\40\20. Or a 33\33\33 split. I remember that the Scottish government agreed. If there was a vote to stay in the Union then let’s talk about federalism. Why should we stay in the union, perhaps as a recognition that there are very close economic and social ties and the cutting of those would leave Scotland the poorer. And so forth. Perhaps it is liberal to recognise that the problems we face cross borders, that interdependence is growing with our neighbours and by pooling sovereignty we gain. The latter of course means that political structures are required to reflect that. Weirdly our constitution which recognises self determination also recognises this need as well. Thank you Andrew.
Finally I finish on this note. The European family of nations is not equal. It is increasingly structured on size, weighted voting pipers and tunes. And if you hadn’t noticed some are per animal farm more equal than others. If you don’t believe me, look at Greece.
Al
Some inconvient truths. Things haven’t changed that much.
The Irrawaddy Flotilla Company (IFC) was a passenger and cargo ferry company, which operated services on the Irrawaddy River in Burma, now Myanmar. The IFC was Scottish-owned, and was managed by P Henderson & Company from Glasgow.
Where’s me glasses?
Inconvenient Truth
Caron Lindsay 14th May ’15 – 10:45pm……………..There is a bit of me that wonders what would have happened if Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Jim Murphy and Willie had called the Tories out for their ridiculous Labour/SNP scare stories and had refused to rule out working with them. Could it be that their ruling out any sort of deal legitimised what Cameron was saying?…….
Just now…After his meeting with Sturgeon Cameron announced that “Scotland will have massive tax and spending powers”
The prime minister has said Scotland will be free to “raise more taxes and spend more money” when new Scotland bill is passed.
Following talks with SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon, David Cameron said he was committed to implementing the Smith Commission proposals for Scottish devolution in full.
Cameron denied he had stoked nationalism during the campaign.
He said: “I certainly didn’t do that. I’ve always stood for the United Kingdom, for bringing our countries together. I simply pointed out the danger of having an alliance between one party the SNP who want to break up our country and another party Labour that I believe would bankrupt our country and that was a powerful and important message.”
So Cameron will work with Sturgeon (who will get everything she wanted) and as far as not “stoking nationalism” goes…I must have been seeing a different election
A good piece by Graeme and I can’t disagree to any material extent with what he says. Although I voted No and, indeed, both delivered leaflets and knocked on doors for the pretty lamentable Better Together campaign I was deeply uncomfortable with the Party’s stance in the Referendum. I know a lot of good Liberals (not just Liberal Democrats) who voted Yes and while I disagreed with them in the context of this referendum it is absolutely clear to me that there are sound liberal reasons why someone might see an independent Scotland, especially if within the wider international context of the UN, NATO and the EU as a good thing to aspire to.
Early in the process I thought that Willie Rennie put a good case for our long standing position of Federalism (and I said so at the time) but this was soon lost as we managed to position ourselves as bit-part defenders of the Union in what became a straight fight between what were seen as the populist separatists and the Westminster establishment. We became, by default, a Unionist Party, which we had never been in the past, and forgot our many years of opposition to the British unitary state. Even now, we laud Smith as Home Rule, when clearly it is not. We have succeeded in making Scotland’s most constitutionally radical Party an irrelevance in the constitutional debate. Whether Graeme’s approach would work, I do not know, but we need to move from our current position. Although it is not ALL about the constitution our current constitutional position is impacting negatively on our ability to play a meaningful part in any Scottish political debate.
As a former member of the Lib Dems and a member of the SNP since 2011, I must say that I totally agree with this article, although it might now be too late.
The way leading Liberal Democrats demonised the SNP and its perfectly legitimate civic nationalism (or sovereigntism, as one could also call it) pushed me out of the party, and I was welcomed with open arms in the SNP. However, if the Lib Dems had been truly agnostic with regard to independence, I would most likely have stayed.
I think however it might now be too late to do this, and it might be more realistic to form a liberal network inside the SNP to make it adopt more liberal policies.
The Irish question dominated late nineteenth century politics and the Conservatives and Liberal unionists played the ‘Ulster card’ to bring down Gladstone’s government.
In the 1910 election Asquith’s Liberal government lost its majority and became dependent on John Redmond’s 84 Irish MP’s.. A coalition that brought about the removal of the Lord’s veto and the passing of both Lloyd George’s peoples budget and the Irish home rule bill.
With the outbreak of WW1 in 1914, home rule was suspended for the duration of hostilities. The heavy casualties in Gallipoli and on the Western front were a cause of anguish across Ireland as they were throughout the British empire. As the war situation worsened a new conservative-liberal coalition government was formed. This was to spell the end of both Home rule for England and was the death knell for the liberal party in England.
The Easter Rising of 1916 in Dublin was at first seen as an act of treachery by much of the Irish public with many families having young men fighting overseas. However, the execution of the rebel leaders turned the public mood against what came to be seen as an Imperialist and brutal British government.
I(n the 1918 elections immediately after the war, the Irish PR voting system was replaced with ‘first past the post’. Redmond’s Irish party were swept away by the much more militant Sinn Fein republican party. A war of independence and civil war followed. It would be fifty years before Ireland would be able to diversify its economy from total dependence on exports to the UK, when it became a member of the European Union in 1973.
This potted history of the Liberal Party, the Irish question and the conservative-liberal coalition during a time of national emergency, should serve as a warning of how not to treat Scottish aspirations for self-government. whether that take the form of Home rule or Independence.
I wonder if the talents of Charles Kennedy could be best used as leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats?
Looking back as drafter of the motion that tried to persuade the
Scottish Liberal Democrats to take ownership of the offered extra option of
devo-max on the ballot paper, which would have given us a positive
distinctive stance in line with our long term policy – and with a good
chance of winning – it gives me little pleasure to say “I told you
so”. The outcome in Scotland could have been so very different.
I agree strongly with Graeme that we should take an agnostic view of
independence. As I said at the post mortem Lib Dem meeting in Edinburgh last
Sunday, we can’t just go on adding small unbalanced bits to devolution,
the Smith Commission being the latest such attempt. We should be
discussing dispassionately the relative advantages of “devo-max” – a
proper federal system, and of “indy-lite” – a confederation of
independent countries that work together as far as they can. If you
approach this discussion with the view that we seek the best
government for a small country in an interdependent world, where
government also reaches downward to local authorities and communities
and upward to Europe and the UN, there is not a huge difference
between the two.
Finally, as regards suggestions by commenters about next year’s
Scottish elections, we are for the first time going to have to
prioritise the list/regional campaign rather than constituencies; this is
quite a challenge given that our constituency vote in 2011 was 7.9%
(not that different from our Westminster vote last Thursday) whereas
the list vote that earned us our 3 mainland MSPs was only 5.2%.
And sadly for those who like me would like to see Charles Kennedy, Jo
Swinson et al in the Scottish Parliament we made the mistake of
selecting our list candidates some while ago. On Sunday I called on
Willie and the party to reopen the list selection process, but I’m not
holding my breath.
One thought: many people think that nationalism is about hate. It isn’t really. It is about compassion for other members of your own nation. Nationalism in Scotland is therefore an attempt to get people to care about people in the rest of Britain less.
And they have succeded. I’m not sure that is a thing to be encouraged.
ad –
Where’s the evidence for that? It’s Unionists that spread scare stories making it sound like we’ll never see our friends south of the border again if we’re independent. I have friends and relations all over the world, and my relationship with them is not affected a jot by the fact that they have different governments. And as to others in general, Scotland, perhaps because of its smaller size, is more outward looking than England – you don’t hear of “little Scotlanders” do you?
@Denis ‘… you don’t hear of “little Scotlanders” do you?’
Actually, yes one does.
@Roger Heape ‘I wonder if the talents of Charles Kennedy could be best used as leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats?’
Doubtless they could, Roger, but at present there is no vacancy.
I suspect that Labour’s fierce opposition to Scottish Independence was really all about all the Scottish MPs it was afraid of losing as a result. If so, the level of irony surpasses the merely poetic and reaches toward the cosmic.
Given the inequities of the Union, the best (though admittedly impossible) result would have been for Scotland to become independent and immediately negotiate with the other countries of the UK for a new federation of sovereign British countries which safeguards each country’s rights and independence, while allowing them all to contribute toward the common weal, with open borders, a common citizenship, and a common currency. Failing that, the question is how to arrange for quasi-independence within the existing Union.
Graeme recognised in his article that there is, in principle, an inherent incompatibility between liberalism with nationalism. This tends to put us on the unionist side of the argument but shouldn’t make us uncritical friends of the Union. Tactically, I think independence is much less likely to lead to home rule than our current approach of adapting the current constitutional arrangements. Lots have people have spoken about the need to become a lot more confident in our own political identity. I fear that adopting non-aligned position on one of the largest political questions we face wouldn’t help with that mission and only open us to the old “sitting on the fence” criticisms.
Denis Mollison 15th May ’15 – 11:59pm
” – you don’t hear of “little Scotlanders” do you?”
No, but I have heard mention of “wee Jocks”. 🙂
But I agree absolutely with what you say in your comment. Scotland’s internationalists are a far more interesting bunch that the snivelling Unionists and their inward-looking defeatism.
I found this article and the comments it generated very interesting indeed. It seems to me that part of the problem was the creation of a single “Better Together” campaign which, as some comtributors describe, lumped us into a single unionist block. Looking at this alongside the disastrous AV referendum campaign which was run along the same lines, I hope that when we come to the EU referendum we avoid this type of monolithic campaign. We need to make a liberal case for Europe, and Labour can make a socialist one, leaving business, unions, NGOs etc to make a case which is relevant to their own supporters. There might be a superficial appeal in the ” efficiency” of a single campaign, but if it isn’t effective in both the short and long term, then it isn’t efficient!
I read the article with interest and I certainly agree with many points. Being part of Better Together was, in retrospect, a joke. Going after the tactical unionist vote is just silly. We need to be going after the liberal vote, and promoting liberal values, in what has become a deeply iliberal Scotland. However choosing a ‘non-aligned’, ‘neutral’, or whatever you want to call it, position is absolutely crazy. It’s the largest constitutional question to have ever faced Britain, and the largest one to have faced Scotland since the act of union itself. To be non-aligned on such an important question would, once again, make liberals a laughing stock.
‘We win the constitutional argument by changing the constitutional argument’. Absolutely, the Lib Dems need to have a clear, strong voice promoting real true Federalism, but not ‘Home Rule’, or ‘Devo-max’, or whatever other lopsided devolution is next proposed by the Tories, the SNP and/or Labour. Our vision of Federalism needs to stretch across the UK – including the English regions, and must include that never discussed part of the UK – Northern Ireland. The current settlement drives an iliberal wedge between Scotland and England+Wales, and I see nothing in any of the current proposals for enhanced devolution that will change this.
I find it deeply disturbing that the two parties which won the 2015 election are pro one union while being opposed to the other. Many people say that the EU referendum could also be the end of the UK union. When looking at our views on the UK constitution, I am glad to see that it generally aligns with our views on the EU. We should be shouting about this from the roof tops.
As a Scottish Lib Dem voter, I could not believe the huge majorities the SNP over turned in what were supposedly rock solid Labour seats. I do not understand the SNP’s rhetoric- “a stronger voice for Scotland”. This election was not about Scotland- this election was about the UK as a whole- economy, the deficit, defence. Scottish domestic issues are dealt with at Holyrood. The SNP claim Scotland has no voice ,despite the fact our last 2 PMs were Scottish (Blair and Brown). Also, numerous Scots have been in cabinet posts in both the coalition and previous Labour governments, Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown, John Reid, Michael Moore, Michael Gove, Alistair Carmichael. The SNP represent the politics of division and selfishness, polar opposite to the internationalist, liberal values I share.
As a Scot living north of the Border I can tell you from experience that much of Scotland’s current vision of independence is anything but liberal with or without the SNP driving it. As a Lib Dem I believe in pragmatism and a respect for democratic processes and in this case they have served us well with a decisive outcome. The independence movement up here is based on raw passion, fear and an anti English (bordering on xenophobic) support base. Now is the time more than for Liberalism to fight back in Scotland but not by empathising with the independence movement but by keeping clear heads and sticking with our current policy of Home Rule and Federalism to create a stronger Scotland as part of a progressive and interconnected UK.
Dan, I’m not convinced that Liberalism and nationalism are by necessity incompatible – it really depends on the kind of nationalism you are invoking. If it is, as some have said earlier, a sort of ‘civic nationalism’ with the necessary decentralisation which goes with it (and some of the rumours at the time of the referendum suggested that the SNP were thinking along those lines at least in terms of how they structured local government) then they could and should be complimentary. If they go along the lines of nationalism which the SNP have actually put in place – centralisation of power away from local government, a ‘my country is better than yours’ approach and a type which a German journalist for Die Zeit called “national socialism” with all the undertones that holds, then it is incompatible.
We got to the position of supporting a no vote because that is what the Scottish Conference voted for at least twice – the last time unanimously. It’s party policy, proposed and voted on by members. If we want change, the best way to do it is going to be to change policy through conference. But we can’t simply be ‘agnostic’ – can you really imagine what the response would have been from both Labour and the SNP if, when asked his opinion on independence, Willie’s response amounted to “well, we don’t really have one”?
Devo-max was a no-goer at the time of the referendum for a number of reasons. Firstly, when Salmond was proposing it as an option on the ballot paper, nobody had really fully considered what it meant in practice, least of all Salmond. It would have suited him well to have it there – if it had been voted for and fell short of what people expected, as was likely, then he could still call for independence. At best, it would have split the anti-independence vote creating a confused message. Secondly, the proposal was for one question with three possible answers – resulting in, as others have said, the possibility of independence as a result of a 1/3 vote. (Personally, I think you could have done it as two questions similar to the 1997 referendum – “Should additional powers be given to the Scottish Parliament? – Yes/No” followed by “If additional powers were to be given to the Scottish Parliament, should this be further devolution (commonly known as Devo Max) or independence?” A ‘No’ vote to the first question kills the issue, a ‘Yes’ vote then triggers the count for the second question.)
Nineteenth-century nationalism, particularly in the 1848 revolutions (in Italy, in Germany and at the Pan-Slav Congress in Prague in particular) was absolutely driven by liberal values and supported by those who would form the Liberal Party in 1859.
The principle of self-determination is a liberal and Liberal principle – but self-determination is absolutely a nationalist concept too.
Wouldn’t the best proposiition be to promote a positive defined vision, one of PR and federalism, rather than try to straddle the independence/devolution/unionism fence? The Lib Dems need an identity
(sorry the phone rang and I pressed Post!)
I meant to finish with that the Lib Dems need an identity that is strictly theirs, that promotes a vision that is positive and is not a position taken to straddle political fences, but one to give hope for the future.
Regards
I joined the lib dems on the 19th September 2014, A life long Liberal voter but generally uninterested in politics I walked into the Scottish HQ and asked join. I said I felt, more than ever, that Scotland needed a strong liberal, centre ground voice. The Yes campaign was devisive and damaging, in attempt to win they sold a vision that the ONLY way to create change for good was by breaking up the Union, not wanting this was in some way ‘anti Scottish’. The Yes campaign was and still is phenomenally successful but that doesn’t make it right. The break up of the Union would be traumatic and tough… Scotland is sadly already divided and that wouldn’t change but it would also have a generation of financial burden to face from the turmoil of split.. Simple fact, you get nothing for free., independence and the market chaos it would bring in the short to medium term will cost a period of austerity plus in which the truly poor would suffer most. The Lib Dem message has to be that there is another way… devo max, federalism, more powers, call it what you like. We can be in control of our destiny AND be part of a long standing Union for which many of us is just who we are. We can create change for good without destroying ties with RUK, we should be ambitious and want a better life for 65 million people not 6 million. Stand for liberalism, fairness, openness , stand for targeting state funds intelligently to those who most need it, not arbitrarily to all, losing the most needy along the way. I honestly believe that Scotland in the medium to long term would do well with independence but the tone of the current SNP message has unpleasant undertones and lacks honesty, I don’t believe that’s compatible with the values of the Lib Dems.
Great article. I was starting to feel very alone in the party with my views regarding the independence debate.
I was actually going to suggest to my local party that should a second referendum happen, perhaps we could adopt a different stance, championing federalism over Yes or No, distancing ourselves from all other parties while supporting a position that the party has long advocated anyway – all the while uniting the Scottish Party in a campaign hopefully everyone could get behind. I’m so glad that other people already support this view!
However, I suspect that a lot of hard Unionist members wouldn’t support this, citing the importance of the issue as a reason to again back the No campaign.
I voted Yes in the referendum… then I joined the Liberal Democrats. Odd, but I’m an odd guy. My view is that whether Scotland is independent, part of the United Kingdom OR a state within a federal Europe or whatever scenario, I am and will always be liberal. I accept the democratic result, and I will accept the democratic result of any future referendum too.