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.

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

  • Jana
    “ …to fix Britain’s broken water industry” Accuracy matters. Andy Burnham should be producing a plan for ‘England’s’ broken water industry....
  • PM
    @ Alex, Of course when we were members of the EU the activities of all MEPs would have been of interest but this was only part of what should have been discu...
  • Matt (Bristol)
    The bottom line is here, there still needs to be a degree of mutual trust and some kind of parliamentary management / policy coordination between minority and p...
  • Simon Robinson
    This is a really good and well thought out idea, not just for how things might work for the LibDems in a hung parliament, but for how minority Governments with ...
  • Jason Connor
    I agree Andrew Tampion, it was a callous and spiteful comment. There should be a referendum on EU membership so that it's a democratic decision. I agree wit...