See if you can spot the flaw in The Scotsman’s reasoning

LDV reported this week on the Scottish Lib Dems’ decision to open talks with the SNP, following the casting vote rejection by the Holyrood parliament of the nationalists’ £33bn budget. In its budget analysis, The Scotsman poses the question, Why did the Lib Dems change their tune?

The article begins by mounting a fierce attack on the Scottish Lib Dems for ditching their principles:

Why had the party, which had adhered to its principle of a 2p cut in income tax throughout the process, suddenly thrown it all away to offer the SNP its support in getting the Budget through? In short, why had it ditched its principles? One opposition MSP offered a succinct response: “Because they are Liberal Democrats: it’s what they do.”

It then continues by mounting a fierce attack on the Lib Dems for standing up for their principles:

Senior Liberal Democrats explained their change of heart by arguing they had put forward their proposals for a cut in income tax, and the parliament had rejected that idea so they were now moving on. … However, that does not really stack up. If it was really the case, the Liberal Democrats would have backed down on their 2p income tax cut after it was clear it commanded no support in parliament, maybe even as early as after the initial stage-one vote on the Budget.

But they did not; they carried right through and caused the defeat of the Budget bill on Wednesday night purely on a point of principle, even though they knew the parliament did not support their tax plans.

Thanks for clearing that one up, The Scotsman – perhaps next time you can work through the distinction between principle (what Tavish Scott and his colleagues displayed) and dogma (what Tavish and his colleagues are avoiding).

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News and Scotland.
Advert

3 Comments

  • You’re misrepresenting what the article is saying. It’s not “mounting a fierce attack on the Lib Dems for standing up for their principles”. The author is simply saying that he doesn’t believe the reason given by “senior liberal democrats” is consistent with the party’s previous actions.

  • Personally, I wouldn’t get too concerned about what the Scotsman thinks – it’s trying (and failing dismally) to turn itself into a tartan Daily Mail, and hasn’t been on a centrist platform since Andrew Neil adn teh Barclay brothers came along – it hasn’t chanegd since they left.

    Funny though. The Scotsman ditches the political views of its main readership, and then wonders why its circulation is falling off a cliff? (And no, I don’t work for the Herald!)

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarDoug Chisholm 26th Jan - 9:52am
    Disagree profoundly with the assertion that revoke 50 only cost us a few votes. First of all our poll ratings went south after this policy...
  • User AvatarDavid Evans 26th Jan - 9:47am
    Great choice of song John. is it an aphorism for some recent events that have hit the Lib Dems?
  • User AvatarPaul Walter 26th Jan - 9:14am
    Peter, it is the person who speaks locally for the party on parliamentary matters - whether it be with the media or via visits, door-knocking...
  • User AvatarJohn Marriott 26th Jan - 9:01am
    @John Roffey Thanks, John, and, now that he is performing again, he still is. Let’s hope that Anton lives up to the name.
  • User AvatarPeter Watson 26th Jan - 8:43am
    What exactly is a parliamentary spokesperson? Does the party have one of these in every constituency where it does not have an MP?
  • User AvatarJohn Roffey 26th Jan - 8:25am
    Doesn't the problem of democracy in the US go back even further than Reagan? I understand Eisenhower, who by tradition, should have given his 'Military-Industrial...