There’s a phrase that goes “Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.” I have sometimes said to Willie Rennie that I think he’s being too safe and that he needs to take more risks. He’s taken a pretty big one this morning by saying in no uncertain terms that Liberal Democrat MPs at Westminster will vote against a Section 3o order, the mechanism that would allow the SNP to hold another Scottish independence referendum. Certainly, the Tories will no longer be able to say, as they have been falsely alleging for the past year or so, that we have gone soft on independence. Showing Scots that they have a progressive pro UK party prepared to stick by its word is a good thing.
So why is this a risk? Well, there’s nothing more likely to get Scottish backs up than being told by Westminster that they can’t do something. If that actually happened, it might drive people to support having another referendum, even if they didn’t want to leave the UK. At the moment, though, every poll suggests an increasing number of Scots who don’t want to go through the divisive trauma of 2014 all over again. Willie’s announcement is very much in keeping with both our principles and public opinion. That’s actually a point that the didn’t make in his Sunday Politics Scotland interview, but worth pointing out.
Our party is and always has been a pro UK and pro EU party. We are against leaving the UK for all the same reasons that we are against leaving the EU – we believe in partnership and collaboration and see nationalism and isolationism as a recipe for disaster. We explicitly ruled out supporting another referendum on independence in our Holyrood manifesto last year and there is no way we could go back on that. Reneging on key manifesto promises has not gone so well for us before. It’s therefore entirely logical and consistent that we would oppose independence at every opportunity to do so.
The Tories have resolutely not said what they would do in the event of the Scottish Parliament voting in favour of an independence referendum. We will probably not find out until it happens. By laying out what Lib Dem MPs would do now, Willie is taking a bold step, calmly leading rather than reacting to events.
This has all come about because Nick Clegg, in the midst of an excellent visit to the Conference, gave an interview to the Herald in which he said:
I think it would be very difficult for any government of any composition in London to try and impose a fatwa on any move towards a referendum, if that was something which was being pushed, however unwelcome that is.
At least Nick was clear that the referendum was a bad idea, unlike Jeremy Corbyn, who said that he was fine with the idea of Indyref 2. Honestly, we have the Leader of the Opposition not really giving a damn about keeping the UK together now after he so famously didn’t give much of a damn about our place in the EU and actively voted against staying in the single market. I really do feel for my friends in the Scottish Labour Party, which is much more actively pro UK and pro EU when they are undermined like this.
So we had to say something. We could have waffled and prevaricated, but politics is conducted in primary colours with clear lines these days. What is there really to lose by being clear, especially when you are also being consistent with everything else you are saying?
There has been some super coverage of the Scottish Conference this weekend. Lib Dem’s job is to turn back the tide of division, said Holyrood magazine. His “emotional” case for the union was highlighted by the Scotsman. The BBC’s Brian Taylor, after perhaps a longer than necessary introduction on curling, said:
But back to the Lib Dems. They too appear curiously content, as if they had spent a few valuable minutes on the rink rather than squabbling with their chums about the wording of a rule change in standing orders.
They think they are relatively well placed in these troubled times, offering a combination of supporting both the UK and the EU. Those were, remember, the verdicts of the Scottish people in two plebiscites.
Not content with these glories, they seem to be anticipating a rerun in both cases. With different degrees of fervour. Willie Rennie, he who leads the Scottish party, says that indyref2 is unwanted and unnecessary.
Yet his speech was founded upon the presumption that such a ballot is coming reasonably soon. Perhaps he took his clue from the interview with me in which the first minister agreed that indyref2 was now “all but inevitable”. Or the many other interviews in which she has deployed comparable comments.
Either way, Mr Rennie says his party is ready for the fight. The economic case for independence, he said, is now less impressive, particularly in the light of oil figures.
But, he said, there was an emotional case for the Union too. He, Rennie W, was ready to deploy said argument. It was, he said, about “family, community and destiny”
Willie has made a pitch to be the standard bearer for the majority of the Scottish people, who favour being in the UK and the EU. We will have to wait and see whether that makes a difference to our still stubbornly low opinion poll ratings.
* 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
No Carry Ons: Kenneth Williams's other films
Could Hitler have won?
Say hello to the Act that successfully set rules 1,050 years into the future - Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
Indecision costing the taxpayers millions
Steve J Smith
David Warren
John Barrett
Nonconformistradical
Chloe
60 Comments
I think it is a gamble for the reasons Caron names, that nothing will wind up the nationalists more than being told no by Westminster, and we knew really that Nicola Sturgeon would jump on Brexit if we voted to leave. But we we’re also assured despite this, from Nicola Sturgeon that the referendum was going to be a once in a generation thing, and so I think (and so do the Scottish people it seems) that this is too soon and I’m in favour of Lib Dems telling her that.
As for whether this will get through parliament that is uncertain. Our MP’s will vote against, I expect the Tories to remember the full name of their party and vote against as a majority. I expect the SNP to vote for it of course but what of Labour, Corbyn doesn’t seem bothered as Caron says but he is incapable of controlling the PLP so who knows what they will do?
Perhaps someone could explain how it’s possible to have fish, chips and peas – when only fish and chips – or – fish and peas are on the menu ?
If the Scottish Parliament votes to have another referendum, then we should not oppose it in Westminster. I, gulp, agree with Nick.
Liberal Democrats are supposed to advocate the Claim of Right (to the extent that it is enshrined in our constitution). That mandate currently means being part of the UK and the EU. Any change in either circumstance needs the involvement of the Scottish people to resolve any disparity from their previously expressed wishes.
Had we followed this line of thinking it would have been truer to our roots, and allowed us a more solidly based attack on the SNP. If you believe in the Claim of Right then it’s not for the Scottish government to decide that e.g. being a member of the single market suffices to avoid the judgement of the Scottish people.
Precisely David. The time for campaigning for Scotland to be an integral part of a UK within the EU has gone. That particular ship has sailed. In the meantime, I suggest it does little for our cause to advocate a further referendum on the EU question while denying the same to the Scottish government.
Of course there are concerns I have with the independence question, not least the way in which the debate surrounding it is currently being framed. This particular strategy is risky, not only for the reasons Caron highlights but also because it makes us appear to be the very thing we claim we are not – a Unionist party.
Yes, Willie needs to take some risks, be distinctive and not be afraid of using emotional arguments. But they have to be the right arguments. It would also be a risk (to my mind one with a better potential for electoral success) to declare that Lib Dems believe in the right of Scotland to determine its own future, and re-emphasise our commitment to ensuring decision-making is done as locally as possible. Remember the Claim of Right, anyone?
As for the “economic case” – there’s some truth in it but the inescapable flip side is the rather obvious fact that the economic case for the Union is less impressive than it was in 2014. The Better Together case – that of Scotland’s economic future being safeguarded by the certainty of the UK’s EU membership – has completely evaporated.
As a Scot long away from Scotland but who keeps a weather eye on the place, I am hesitant to comment. But for what it’s worth, Willie Rennie’s strategy comes high risk. A recent poll produced a 50/50 split. Just one poll but the others have been broadly in the same territory. The Indy side moved its share from 35% to 45% in 2014 and has sustained that rating. Nicola Sturgeon will want a consistent run above 55%. If she gets that all others who stand in the way of a referendum will have the anti-democracy/will of the people argument thrown at them. And if the EU referendum means anything the Indy side can claim they, not the Liberal Democrats, stand for the 62%. Mrs May has let it be known that she will not block a referendum (but will want to call the date). Willie Rennie might be better focusing on the positives for the Union, which were very weak in 2014. My fellow Scots can be thrawn if they think there national pride is at steak and marginal voters could easily see the Liberal Democrats as standing in the way of self-determination. Andrew Page has the logic. How can we call for EURef2 but say no to the Scots in IndyRef2, particularly when they voted 62% on Europe?
Their. iPad frequently self corrects. It didn’t like thrawn at all.
Stake not steak. Good God, Miss McCurdy would be getting the twase out.
Why is the Party against Scottish independence, particularly if Scots are taken out of the EU against their will?
I thought we were in favour of Devo Max. In my opinion Devo Max can be achieved either from a position of Scotland inside the UK or by making common agreement on shared gvernance from a position outside the UK.
I would like to see Lib Dems take a much more agnostic position on Scottish independence.
Baffled.
Martin, I think Caron is far too gung ho on this issue. Liberals and Lib Dems have for well over a century been in favour of the maximum degree of “home rule”. Now where that tips over into independence is a fine line, but what we have always been totally against is Unionism, which has for many years ben associated with the Tories (as have the DUP and other Unionists in Northern Ireland). Many well-known Lib Dems, and others, in Scotland have been pro-independence in recent times. What we should not be doing is just trotting along with the Tories as Ruth Davidson’s poodle. As in England, recent results have shown that given a choice, voters prefer the “real thing”
Good to see islands of sanity
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d1Bvcq0TGE4
Whatever decision the Lib Dems make is irrelevant in terms of numbers at Westminster. We know that the SNP will vote for indyref2 and Labour will support them (at least as long as Corbyn is leader). If the Tories oppose it, then it is lost regardless of which way our 9 MPs vote; if the Tories support it, then it is carried regardless of which way our 9 MPs vote. The only way in which our MPs could make a difference is if there is a significant revolt from Tory MPs in favour of indyref2, which IMO is as likely as pigs flying.
Willie is quite right that we should oppose any move towards indyref2, again IMO at least until the terms of Brexit are settled and the UK has left the EU. To support indyref2 now is to place Scottish voters in the same situation that UK voters were put into over Brexit, where they had to vote without knowing what one of the outcomes would be. Had the voters been asked to choose between accepting the Cameron deal and a hard Brexit with trade on WTO terms, the EU referendum might well have had a different outcome.
@Caron – “we believe in partnership and collaboration and see nationalism and isolationism as a recipe for disaster.” – That argument might have worked for the first referendum but it won’t work for the second. The obvious response for a pro-independence supporter is that anyone who opposes Scottish independence is merely opting to support UK nationalism, rather than Scottish nationalism. In addition, they can legitimately argue that UK nationalism is heading off to pursue a Brexit driven policy of isolationism, whereas the pro-independence supporters are the ones championing partnership and collaboration for Scotland within the EU. Hence the pro-independence people champion partnership and collaboration while the anti-independence people are championing narrow UK nationalism and isolationism as support for the former is now ipso facto support for the latter.
Laurence (Cox)
Did you read that before you posted it?
It is OK to vote in an undemocratic manner because we don’t have very many MPs and therefore it will not influence the outcome. I would stand on my own and be defeated 500/1 before I would compromise my values.
It’s worth remembering that a recent poll showed that 75% of Scots do not want another indy referendum prior to the conclusion of the EU dramas. The constant talk of whether or not there should be another one, and if and who would “stand in its way” is just another way for the SNP to keep the nationalists angry at other people.
Independence would cause huge problems for Scottish people, even if we were guaranteed back into the EU. To ignore this, or to allow a referendum that isn’t given the proper time and space to discuss this, is irresponsible.
It all sound nice and jolly, to “let” people have another referendum, but it would be damaging and we all know that, so why do something we all know to be damaging? Yes, the SNP would accuse of us this, that and the next thing, but they are doing that already, and would continue to do so. The constant hints at a referendum are designed to stir up trouble for pro-UK parties, and Corbyn has fallen into their trap. I feel sorry for Dugdale. She’s not the most competent of politicians, but she’s still young and IMO been getting better and superior to Corbyn (not hard), but then he opens his mouth without thinking and undermines her credibility. It seems that loyalty only works one way.
And a referendum on the terms of leaving the EU is not the same thing as re-running the Scottish referendum. If we were to be consistent, then in the case of “Yes” winning a future referendum, we’d be demanding a referendum on the final deal once it became known.
How can Westminster Lib Dem MPs block a 2nd Scottish referendum but push for a 2nd EU referendum?
Brexit is a clear change of circumstances for the union, so I think it’s hard to block a referendum. If it is unpopular then give the SNP enough metaphorical rope to hang themselves with it. Yes, there is a danger of Scottish Tories saying we are going soft on the union, but there’s no point in competing with the Tories for die-hard unionism.
Fiona
Can you give me a link to that survey.
What is risky about this, it just confirms to the average elector that we are just like the Conservatives and Labour, ie pro Union. They will not get out of 5th place and 4-6% with this sort of approach. I will keep saying this, the Scots party has to be viewed as strategically and policy wise different to the others in some way. Is Mr Rennie the person with that sort of vision? I hope so.
Caron comments that she believes the reasons to oppose Scottish independence are supposedly the very same reasons to oppose leaving the EU but that claim makes absolutely no sense. The reasoning for Scottish independence is so Scotland can determine its future, according to the internationalist, progressive values of the majority of its voters- and not be dictated to and outnumbered anymore by Tory voters outside Scotland.
@Fiona: I actually really rate Kez Dugdale. She’s probably the best Scottish Labour leader since Donald Dewar. That bar isn’t very high, admittedly, but she’s someone whose heart is in the right place on so many issues. I’m just sorry that her moment as leader has coincided with the disaster that Corbyn has inflicted on the Labour Party. If the Scottish Labour party had any chance of recovery, which I don’t really think it had, Corbyn has extinguished it.
The LibDem leadership in Scotland needs to ‘wise up’ quickly on where Scotland is regarding independence. The key focus of the case for independence is around the stark democratic deficit that Scotland’s people suffer – and the EU issue is a clear, current example.
Recall the ‘story’:
(1) a Tory Prime Minister in a Coalition Government that Scotland didn’t vote for decided that, faced with an upcoming general election, his party should put a commitment to an EU referendum in the Tory Party manifesto. This was widely accepted as done to address two key Tory concerns: their Eurosceptic backbenchers (none existed in Scotland) and competition from UKIP (no UKIP threat in Scotland);
(2) it worked, the Tories won the GE – but of course not in Scotland (again) : Scotland’s majority made no difference in the FPTP system
(3) the Bill to enact the EU referendum was voted through despite the vast majority of MPs from Scotland voting against – Scotland’s MPs made no difference (again)
(4) the EU referendum result in Scotland was strongly in favour of Remain – Scotland’s vote made no difference (again)
(5) following Cameron’s resignation, a new Tory PM was anointed, as per the UK system’, with Scotland’s one Tory MP (not even Tory members in Scotland) representing Scotland’s interests – and this new PM and her new cabinet decided, arguably without a detailed mandate, on the form of Brexit they want to pursue
(6) in the Article 50 debate in the House of Commons, all amendments proposed by MPs from Scotland are voted down by the Tories – Scotland’s MPs make no difference (shades of the Scotland Act)
(7) in the House of Lords, peers appointed by Tory PMs Scotland has rejected have a voice and vote, together with bishops/archbishops of the Church of England but no other faith leaders from Scotland .
And then, in this clear circumstance of embedded, pervasive democratic deficit, the LidDem leadership in Scotland seeks to deny an Indyref2 even when the party in power at Holyrood (the SNP) made a clear, prior manifesto commitment to respond if Scotland was to be taken out of the EU against the wishes of the electorate in Scotland.
Time to reflect.
I agree with you Caron. Willie was right to hammer a number of “nails” right on the head. The UK out of the EU is NOT yet a done deal and those, Liberal or otherwise, who think otherwisevare doing the people of Scotland a great disservice. I for one will happily join Willie Rennie and the other 16 million who voted to Remain alongside the 62% of my fellow Scots.
Fiona @5.47pm
Not sure what poll you’re referring to but I hope you’re not relying on the Unionist press’ headlines as your only source of information! This may be relevant if you are a searcher after balance if not ‘truth’: http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/this-will-shock-you-but-it-turns-out.html
Recommend this same site as a useful place to get another view of polling results on Scottish politics.
In the last few weeks, the constitutional status of Scotland, whatever it is, nation, region, parish has been hung out to dry by the consequences of the Brexit referendum. It is very clear that there is to be no credibility given to the vote of the people of Scotland who voted far more definitely to remain within the EU than it did to remain within the UK. While of course we know that the SNP is primarily interested in independence, there has been more creativity from the Scottish Government than from the rest of us about how our position within the EU and the single market could be retained.
I’ve never been either a nationalist or a unionist. I believe in subsidiarity and that power should lie at the best level for it to be exercised for the best of those it affects. I believe that Scotland should have as much autonomy as it needs. Deluded I may be but I am also a believer in the European project and on balance I think I would rather stay in the EU than in the UK. Many — probably most? — people in the party would grudgingly accept a hard Brexit to remain in the UK, and that is their absolute right. I think I’d rather loosen the ties with the UK to remain an EU citizen and if we are going to have hard Brexit imposed on Scotland we should have the right to have a vote to opt out.
Of course Brexit may not be a certainty; I believe that as the complexity emerges and the real cliff edge approaches there is a chance we will pull back from the brink, or that we remain in the EU and the single market in a transitionary state for a very long time. So I would not endorse any kind of referendum before we know for sure.
What disappoints me about the position that we are taking in Scotland is that we, the party who has led so often on Home Rule and federalism, is not the party putting forward new ideas about how we might change the relationships within these Isles to accommodate all its peoples but rather one sitting on its hands.
I also agree with Caron about Kezia Dugdale. The very fact she is now promoting a Federalmsolution tomour current constitutional mess is another sign that she is prepared to break out of the tribal loyalties so long dominant in the Laybore Party.
Garen Milne @9.28pm
And your evidence, or basis of hope, that the Westminster elite, and England’s political classes, have any interest whatsoever in pursuing true federalism? (You do know that in the federal USA, the smallest state and the largest each have two members of the Senate?) Did you listen to the PM’s speech recently in Glasgow?
With respect, sounds a bit like LibDem’s commitment to House of Lords or electoral reform – a LibDem denial of realpolitik in this UK! Time to make a difference and in a reasonable timeframe, perhaps?
If there is to be a referendum on the terms of the deal, and remain is to be slipped in as an option in an attempt to overturn the June 23rd vote perhaps it should not take place until the E.U. has determined its own way ahead in regard to the five options for the future.
‘nothing but single market’ or ‘ do much less more effectively ‘ and even I might vote remain, any option from ‘stay the same’ up to ‘ do much more ‘ and I would stick with leave. Personally, as I voted for the sovereignty of parliament I’d be happy for the parliament to have the final say. Let MP’s vote the deal down if they believe that is best and then let them face the electorate in the 2020 election.
Illiberal madness from people who claim to be liberal. Let’s just work out the political consequences north of the border for a party that uses its Westminster MPs to block the democratically expressed wish of the Scottish Parliament (elected by PR)?
I agree with Caron!
We are not supporting a second referendum , we support a fist referendum on the deal agreed.
We are for the United Kingdom and devolution in it.
If the people of Scotland had voted for leaving the UK by a narrow majority and no definite vision of what arrangements a new independent Scotland may be governed under, this would be a reason to then support the idea of the Scottish people having a chance to approve that deal.
Then it would be the similar scenario to the referendum on the deal to leave the EU, we as a party advocate as a policy.
Lorenzo Cherin @11.27pm
Are you comparing the status of Scotland in the UK with that of the UK in the EU? Are you comparing the power of Westminster over Scotland with the power of EU institutions over the UK? Are you comparing Scotland achieving self-determination through independence with the UK leaving the EU? I’m sure you cannot be!
This makes no sense to me at all. The Scots voted in Indyref 1 to stay within the UK within the EU. Now that vote becomes meaningless because staying in the UK means leaving the EU. So it really only makes sense to have a re-run.
Of course it is now a harder choice for the Scottish people. They can either retain their UK status and sacrifice EU membership, or they can lose membership of the UK in order to keep EU membership. All the more reason to let the Scottish people make that hard choice.
What the Scottish Lib Dems should do, if they believe it, is to campaign for a No vote, and argue that the UK link is more important than the EU link. That would be fair.
In all probability a second Indyref would in fact do Sturgeon no good at all. She would probably lose it very badly, and that would bury the idea of independence for good and all.
(Mind you, I’d be tempted to say “wait until you see the Brexit deal”. That deal might be so dreadful that the least worst option for the Scots might still be independence, even though that too would be economically a huge challenge!)
So Lorenzo, if a referendum on the terms of the deal were to go ahead and remain were to be an option, this would be very similar to the initial leave / remain vote with a little more clarity on what it would mean to leave. Given the demand for clarity and the need to know what you are voting for that has been the basis for a vote on the terms of the deal, do you think we should wait until the E.U, has resolved which of the recently published 5 options for the future it intends to follow? or do you think we should ask people to vote without knowing which of the very different future’s they may get if they vote remain.
StewrartB Tynan
I am merely saying that whuch should be said. The UK voted to leave the EU. It did not vote for where to next.
So a say on where to next is sensible.
The Scottish did not vote to leave the UK.
If the people of Scotland had a say on where to next would be sensible.
Many types of Brexit may have been and may be considered.
Many types , or more than one , of independent Scotland could exist.
To vote the detail of a departure of great significance is not unreasonable.
For an outward looking party there is consistency in the description given in my comments
Few, if any, countries which became independent were certain about their future when independence was fought and won or granted. I assume that Scotland will be no different and that those who demand certainty on such issues are not living in the real world.
The same may be true for the EU, in that the future and full impact of BREXIT will not be known for years or possibly decades. It does neither side any credit to claim that the future of either decision can be detailed now as a fact. The electorate will always be taking a risk, regardless of which way either decision develops and the results which might have unfolded if a different path had been followed are as unpredictable.
The certainty which many are convinced they possess is something which is often built on hope or fear, more than anything else.
So depressing to imagine an rUK without Scotland and outside the EU. Please stay Scotland! It’s your choice, but we’re losing so much, tearing identities apart like this.
On the pure politics, at least two unions is a distinctive and coherent position. Equivocating about the biggest issue of the day, like Corbyn, is electoral suicide.
I think the party in Scotland has to be very careful. It is not without the bounds of possibility that within 2 years we will be out of the EU in the worst possible circumstances. Let’s say we are out of the EU, the single market, the customs union and the government is busy repealing the human rights act and turning the UK into a low tax bargain basement sort of place – as Hammond has threatened the EU he will do – would it then be in Scotland’s interest [or indeed Northern Ireland] to remain shackled to the sinking ship of the United Kingdom?
The issue of Sottish independence and the reunification of Ireland, though not necessarily desirable right now, might suddenly seem very necessary in order for those two nations to survive economically following the UK crashing out of the EU without a proper agreement.
It is a cardinal rule that one should never say never in politics. Sure, there are things we, as Liberals, would never want to do, but circumstances alter cases. There must be a danger of Rennie W. being so adamant about independence that there may be no way back if it suddenly becomes an attractive option compared to the status quo.
Tread with much more caution and leave a way out.
John Barrett – ‘Few, if any, countries which became independent were certain about their future when independence was fought and won or granted. I assume that Scotland will be no different and that those who demand certainty on such issues are not living in the real world.’
I think that the argument here though is that Scotland would have some level of certainty in that it would be orientating itself to be a member of the EU. That is there is some level of confidence about the direction it would take.
Now it has been some years since I lived in Scotland, and I’m probably out of date. However in relation to England, Scotland always struck me more as ‘less anti-EU’ rather than ‘greatly pro-EU.’ Whether Scots would vote for what would likely amount to a ‘hard remain’ with Schengen, monetary union and so on remains to be seen. I would think at a minimum that having been burned once bending the rules the EU probably would not be keen on deviating too far from those rules for Scotland. I would certainly expect that to involve an independent lender of last resort in Scotland. My own view on this is perhaps coloured by the experiences of the region my wife is from. From that perspective I don’t see any sign that the EU is planning to ‘soften’ entry rules that were probably too soft in the past decade. Some on the internet (hardly a cast-iron source) seem to think that Scotland is some sort of special case, but it’s far from clear to me where that view comes from.
I guess to some extent the question would be what exactly May could offer. At one extreme the EU may well be an attractive option from the perspective of stability. At the other an OUT UK could offer Holyrood competence over a raft of things previously done by the EU (notably fish and agriculture). That is a devo more max than was possible within the EU. I don’t know how that would stack up.
To the person asking about the poll, I realise that it was 25% supporting another referendum, with 51% opposing, and the rest in the “Don’t Know” category, which I still take to be not actively wanting another referendum before the terms of the Brexit deal is known.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/838395128511410179
It’s not clear why people who might have previously voted for independence, and still like the idea for the future aren’t keen on another referendum now. It may just be that they are fed up, and recognise the divisiveness is too damaging for us to cope with at this time, or maybe they are genuinely keen to hear the results of the eventual deal.
Regarding Kezia, I fear I may have sounded more harsh than intended. She gets a lot of criticism, much of it unfair, but I think it comes from her being promoted too soon. I think she would have benefitted from another few years in a supporting role before becoming leader. However, unlike Corbyn, she is very clearly getting better at handling the tricky interviews, and has worked at it. I feel she still has a way to go, but considering what she inherited, and her age at that time, she is doing well.
@Frank, did you know that far more people in Scotland voted to remain in the UK than voted to remain in the EU? The percentages are misleading, because voter turn-out for the Scottish referendum was much higher. 16 and 17 year olds were allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum, but even accounting for that, more Scots voted to stay in the UK than to stay in the EU. The largest single group of voters are those who voted for both the UK and the EU, and there is a sizeable chunk of those who voted for Scottish independence who voted for the UK to leave the EU.
The nationalists unsurprisingly like to talk in percentage terms, but in claiming this means the Scots gave a more clear mandate for the EU than for the UK, they are misrepresenting the figures.
The “democratic deficit” is a powerful argument against the UK, but much of this could be solved by the UK adopting PR. We should challenge the idea that independence is the only solution, and ensure that electoral reform is advocated whenever that complaint is made. As I’ve said elsewhere, I think we should be more vocal about our support of electoral reform, as I am confident that would be more effective at addressing the concerns that nationalists claim can only be solved by independence.
Honestly, who the Gods destroy, they first make mad. If the Scottish Parliament votes for a second Independence referendum no one can justifiably prevent it. ( you can argue about date, who votes, the question etc) As an SNP Leaver, I do not like our approach but the mandate is clear. Exiting the EU against our will ( even if our will was for the UK to remain) is a decisive change in circumstances. It is fair enough for the Unionist parties to oppose this in Holyrood, I would expect no less.
But to use Lib Dem MPs in Westminster to vote down a Section 30 order IN OPPOSITION to Theresa May is simply crazy. It makes the Lib Dems uber-Unionists and centralists and it would never be forgotten in Scotland. The only small comfort for Lib Dems is that there are too few of them to matter anyway.
Not even the Tories are capable of making such a devastating mistake as this. How Nicola wishes they would!
Today Nicola Sturgeon is placing a Scottish independence (in the light of Brexit) referendum on the table.
Holyrood is:
SNP: 63
Conservatives: 31
Labour: 23
Greens: 6
Lib Dems: 5
Other: 1
Either the Greens, the Lib Dems (or both) could tip the balance. In fact all either need do is abstain.
What are the arguments for voting against a referendum once Article 50 has been activated? I see the arguments for in voting for a referendum. There are clear reasons of political principle as well as sound tactics.
Where does the Party go in Scotland if it votes against?
If we are so against leaving the European Union then it makes sense to back a Scottish Independence referendum, a Yes vote in Scotland would be one of the strongest reasons not to Leave, only die hard right wingers would say the opposite.
The best thing is to support a Referendum, that would be the radical, courageous and politically sensible thing to do, allowing the Scots to say again what they want.
I might add that if you support a second referendum on Brexit ( to check out what the deal/no deal looks like) you must also support a second referendum on the deal reached in Independence referendum negotiations. On what grounds can the RUK voters be excluded from such a vote?
Oh if only there were more Lib Dem seats to lose……
Madness!
Why don’t we use this opportunity to promote a Federal future for the UK and distinguish ourselves from purely either backing the Tories or the SNP?
Theakes, I can only assume that you don’t realise just how devastating Scottish independence would be to the Scottish economy right now. The problems from Brexit are tiny by comparison.
By the sounds of things, you are happy to sacrifice the welfare of Scottish people just to make a point about the EU. I understand that from hard-core nationalists, for whom the ideology of FREEDOM is greater than having a functional welfare state, but is that really the route the LibDems want to take?
I’ve not polled all Scottish LibDems, but I’d guess most are against independence, and most will be against another damaging referendum. The link I gave above (not from unionist media, nor from a nationalist blog) shows that only a minority of Scots of any political persuasion is in favour of another referendum at this point in time, so I’m at a loss as to why people from outside of Scotland are so in favour of forcing this onto us?
Little Jackie Paper – I agree that in the future the EU is unlikely to want to repeat the Greek experience and give Scotland any special treatment. With a large financial deficit it is likely the EU will demand spending cuts, higher taxes or a combination of both, if Scotland was to apply for EU membership and as you say, there are many other issues such as immigration to a spearate state with a land border and many direct transport links to England, which is often the destination of choice for many on the move.
As someone who voted Yes to independence last time, those reasons and more are why, in the event of a second Independence referendum, I would now vote No.
Polls in recent years have consistently shown Scots to be more pro-EU than the English. I have always thought that this goes back to people being part of something larger (the UK) and understanding that on our own we do not run things or try to tell others how to run their countries. Something that is much more of a problem for the largest UK nation and former Empire leader.
The problem now is that the economic case for remaining part of the U.K. outside the EU is much weaker than it was when the Better Together argued that only as part of the U.K. could Scotland’s economic future be assured.
I still think that economic predictions are more often wrong than right and the only thing now certain is that economists are useless at foretelling the future.
All of which presumes that the UK can be held together indefinitely. I would strongly favour a radically federal UK but, as a nine-year Glasgow resident, I’d take independence over the status quo. I see no value in blind or sentimental unionism. Rennie’s position should be pro-federal but with an open-mind to independence if, on balance, it is a risk worth taking. Unquestioningly hanging onto a post-hard-Brexit UK as the right-wing basket-case May seems intent on turning us into strikes me as infinitely risky and of dubious benefit.
John Barrett – The closest I can think of to Scotland would be Montenegro which has used the euro since it was introduced. Now obviously there is a world of difference between Scotland’s relationship with England and Montenegro’s relationship with Serbia. I don’t think anyone would say the politics are the same. But see:
http://www.dw.com/en/montenegros-peculiar-path-to-eu-membership/a-16583842
As far as I can see the EU has been very reluctant to bend the rules for Montenegro despite it using the euro. Scotland would probably be treated along those lines by the EU. I would note in passing that Montenegro has seen severe austerity in recent years.
I guess that it would be open to Scotland to try to do what Poland and other countries have done which is to drag out euro adoption. And there is always the Sweden style nuclear option of having a referendum which votes down the euro. Those options wouldn’t exactly make Scotland flavour of the month however and as you say as a minimum condition of joining the EU Scotland will need at least to have established and stable institutions like a lender of last resort. I can’t imagine any circumstances where that isn’t enforced.
I really don’t have much feel for how the Scotland situation will play out.
Fiona 13th Mar ’17 – 1:58pm
You state: “…. I can only assume that you don’t realise just how devastating Scottish independence would be to the Scottish economy right now. The problems from Brexit are tiny by comparison.”
Wow, this is some assertion. Is this based on forensic, comparative analysis of the finances of the UK and Scotland, pre- and post-Brexit? Is it based on forecasting of different economic/fiscal policy scenarios that may be adopted by the government of a newly independent Scotland (SNP, Labour, LibDem, Tory, ANOther party – alone or in coalition) to optimise all assets that Scotland undoubtedly has (and without including oil & gas)?
If this ‘devastation’ judgement is so soundly based, you should really manufacture your ‘certainty’ crystal ball – economists and governments the world over will beat a path to your door! The Office for Budget Responsibility would be at the front of the queue.
(And if Scotland is really so unequipped to be a small independent country like Norway, Denmark, Iceland etc. , despite all its assets – given the very limited economic and fiscal policy levers available to date to Holyrood – what an indictment of Westminster rule! )
Candidly, I think you will find the economic arguments against Scottish independence will require much more substance than the ‘easy’, ‘tiered’ dismissive assertion you make here if they are to be credible.
And just in case you are concerned, after Scottish independence, the rUK (or whatever its called) given that it plans to be the global leader for free trade, including with Commonwealth countries, will trade perfectly ‘normally’ with its newly independent closest neighbour and ally, Scotland.
How about this for starters?
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/836920338415935490
The Scottish Government publishes their own figures, known as GERS. A few years ago, when the price of oil was high, they and all of the nationalists thought they were great. Now they show Scotland faces approximately a £9bn deficit should it leave the UK and become independent.
Scotland does trade with the EU, and the UK as a whole, including Scotland will suffer from the severing of those ties. However, Scotland does substantially more trade with the UK, so severing those ties in favour of EU is not good for business. If there is a damaging trade barrier between the UK and the EU, then there would be the same damaging trade barrier between the rUK and Scotland within the EU.
Some nationalists like to compare Scotland to Norway because of the oil. What they overlook is that Norway’s oil is easier and cheaper to extract, and they extracted twice as much as us last year. In spite of this, they have much higher taxes, and have to pay to see a GP.
If Scotland is to join the EU as a new member as suggested by the EU rules, then we’d be expected to join the Euro and be obliged to reduce our deficit to 3% of our GDP. How do you think we’d to that?
You are right that the economic arguments require consideration. As yet, the single issue SNP are still unable to say which currency an independent Scotland would use. Is this the kind of “more substance” you are hoping for?
Sorry, wrong link!
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/ifs-indy-scotland-would-need-to-hike-taxes-or-cut-spending-1-4391002
Fortunately, the other one was to an excellent video of our newest MP doing us proud at PMQ, and well worth a watch. (Could have been much worse).
I should add that no-one says that Scotland couldn’t be an independent country. That was one of those myths put about by the nationalists to make proud Scots angry. The reality is that everyone knows Scotland could be independent, but we would have to accept a huge cut in our living standards and/or a huge hike in taxes, and/or an unprecedented increase in our economy. The kind of levers suggested to date included cutting corporation tax, and aviation duty, which sounds a lot like a race to the bottom.
I think our position in this is very difficult. What we are saying to the Scots is “if the rest of the U.K. cant be in the E.U. then you Scots can’t be either”. We are putting unionism ahead of our belief in the European ideal and the economic benefits of belonging to the E.U. I fear for our future north of the border if we stay stubbornly unionist whatever the circumstances. Increasingly the choice in Scotland is between the real unionists in the Conservative Party and the SNP.
I’m sure someone has said thus but how can we defend a position of supporting one second referendum and not supporting another
Why should we be against Scottish independence, for the same reasons we should be against Brexit. Both are driven by a sense of self entitlement, which when reality sets in we will all find the only entitlement we have is to be smaller, poorer and less well respected due to the decision we made.
Fiona @4.51pm etc.
Not the place (probably) to give you a point by point response to your economic points so I’ll restrict myself to two comments specifically on GERS and leave things there.
There is now a lot of research and debate around the nature and utility of GERS plus other new research into a future Scotland’s economy. Many are ‘enlightening’ but I’m firstly going to share with you a cautionary statement from one source which has no ‘skin in the game’ …. unlike, I’d suggest, some sources you quoted!
SOURCE: Deloitte (2017) The State of the State 2016-17: devolved governments of the UK (page 45) https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/public-sector/deloitte-uk-state-of-the-state-2016-report.pdf
“…. GERS data is produced for Scotland as part of the UK – it does NOT (my emphasis) model scenarios for an independent Scotland in which the Scottish Government would be enabled to make its own fiscal choices.”
And then there is this on GERS in the FT by Merryn Somerset Webb, editor-in-chief of MoneyWeek and widely known as an arch Unionist – indeed I believe an advisor to Scotland in Union. (SOURCE: https://www.ft.com/content/d92b483c-dce1-11e3-ba13-00144feabdc0 ).
“It (GERS) is, says Ferguson (an expert Webb consulted), a ‘pretty blatant case of starting with the answer and working out the more granular line-by-line estimates backwards.’ No economic figures are entirely accurate but this is different: the basic revenue numbers are more or less guesswork, to which is added an so far entirely un-negotiated share of UK oil revenues.”
So whatever you choose to rely on Fiona, be very wary of using GERS as a predictor of an independent Scotland’s public finances.
I intend to close my contribution to this thread here – perhaps I’ll come back to libdemvoice for some ‘civilised’ engagement in future.
I am not totally against Scotland having a 2nd independence referendum if that is what the people of Scotland want.
There is something to be said for the last referendum that was supposed to be a once in generation referendum, however, there has been a material change in the circumstances since then.
On the Flip side, Nicola Sturgeon says she has a mandate for a 2nd Independence referendum because of what they said in their manifesto, however, the SNP did not win an outright majority and they are governing as a minority government, so I am not so sure how much weight that argument carries.
One thing is for certain, there should absolutely be no 2nd independence referendum until AFTER brexit has taken place. The EU has confirmed that Scotland would not be able to retain membership of the EU by taking over the UK’s membership and that Scotland would have to apply for membership like any other country AFTER the Uk had left the EU, so to have a referendum before brexit is not only damaging to the UK’s negotiating position, but it is also entirely pointless and would not be in the interests of the people of Scotland.
Despite the name I have only a little Scottish blood, and I hesitate to join this deate having only lived in Scotland for one year in my life, but my mothers first husband was from Skye and I was brought up to think very warmly about Scotland and the Scots.
I would be a sad if Scotland decided to leave the UK, but given how undemocratic Westminster is, I can understand the desire. I am much more unhappy at the Liberal Democrats branding themselves in any part of Britain as a “Unionist” Party. We already have one of them in England and Scotland (and a couple of others in Northern Ireland), and I don’t like them… I am a Federalist – why are we hearing so little about Federalism from the Scottish Liberal Democrats these days??
In my view it was a big mistake to attach ourselves to the Tory coat tails in Indyref1, driving many natural Liberals into the arms of the SNP. It should have been left to individual consciences how to vote, and which way to campaign. That way of doing things served the Tories very well in the EU referendum. Now it seems Willie and Caron want to repeat that mistake of following the Tories in their rhetoric. I don’t mind at all if the MSPs vote against Sturgeon’s new referendum. But I really hope that the English MPs at Westminster will listen to Nick Clegg and not vote against the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament. Self-determination is a very important principle, and we should stick to it. I get the impression that Caron and Willie are lobbying for the opposite, and I do not like that at all..
If there is another referendum in Scotland, I really hope that this time we take a more nuanced stance and tell voters they can still be a Liberal Democrat and vote for independence, even if the Party leadership campaign strongly the other way
This article misses a fundamental point. The Scottish people were lied to. They were told that the only way they could secure their future within the EU was to vote against Independence. Quite the opposite has come to pass. I speak as an English Liberal Democrat with no axe to grind. It is also inconsistent to argue for a second Referendum on the outcome of Brexit negotiations whilst denying the Scottish people a right to vote again on their Constitutional status, in what are dramatically and fundamentally changed circumstances.
Aidan
You are completely wrong on your first point. That is pure Remainer myth. What the Scottish people were told by Better Together was that a vote for Yes was a sure way to exit the EU. ( and this was absolutely right and CONTINUES TO BE SO) As a Yes supporter and vigorous campaigner I am very familiar with the argument. There was no guarantee at all that a No vote would necessarily safeguard our place in Europe. Far from it, the Scottish Government warned the Scottish people that a “No” vote would endanger Scotland`s place in Europe. Cameron`s Bloom berg speech was made in 2013!
David Pocock – I have been saying this on LDV for some time and have raised this issue with Tim Farron and Willie Rennie. It appears hypocritical to take the stand the leadership in the party supports and I cannot support that line.
I suspect I am not alone.
The only reason to refuse to hold a referendum is because you believe you might lose it, and severel people above have pretty much said this is why they want to prevent one. Most certainly campaign for the outcome you want, but if you will not hold a vote then you are not a democrat. How anyone could square such a stance with asking for another EU vote is beyond me.
The views of scotland on independence are complex, but some of the analysis suggests that while they might not want independence, they want to be eternally dominated by England even less. Refusing a referendum is just another example of the same.