Last night, Shirley Williams spoke at the East Dunbartonshire Liberal Democrats’ Annual Dinner. Someone has slipped us a copy of her speech. She joins David Bowie in calling for Scotland to stay within the UK but had a little more substance to her argument. She made the point that both Scotland and the rest of the UK lose out if we leave. She talked of the opportunities Scotland’s had and the contributions its politicians have made internationally. Here is her speech in full:
It is a privilege for me to be asked to speak at your annual Liberal Democrat dinner, a privilege not just to be here in Scotland when the huge question of your future is being discussed, but also because you have an outstanding young MP in Jo Swinson, widely recognised as a rising star and now a mother as well.
She holds her constituency, as you know, by a very narrow margin. She is already one of the most respected women in Parliament. And for me, after fifty years in politics – I was first elected in 1964 – it is marvellous to see the emergence of a new young generation of women MPs. In the devolved parliaments of Scotland and Wales, a much higher proportion of members are women than is the case in Westminster.
That is also true of the European Parliament. Once again Scotland has been one of those leading the way.
Jo and her husband Duncan are Liberal Democrats, and as such within the coalition have consistently fought for a fairer and freer United Kingdom. They have supported the drive to take the poorest in our society out of tax; hundreds of thousands on low incomes no longer pay income tax.
The NHS now makes the wellbeing of patients its highest priority. And Liberal Democrats are perpetual guardians of civil liberties, amending laws to make sure our freedoms are protected.
Now you are engaged in a crucial debate about the future of your country, and inevitably the future of the United Kingdom of which you are a vital part.
This evening I want to talk about some of the issues you have to confront. But I also want to talk about why, as a citizen of the United Kingdom who is not a Scot, I have found Scotland and its people an inspiration ever since, as a young woman, I first scrambled up the Trossachs, Ben Ledi, Suilven and the Cuillins.
Let me begin with the issues – and they cannot be easily dismissed. Scotland’s First Minister, Mr Salmond, has repeatedly said that a Scotland outside the United Kingdom would want to be a full member of the European Union. I agree with him. Leaving the European Union which has extended democracy and the rule of law far beyond our shores, which has become a magnet of hope to the people of troubled European countries like Ukraine and Georgia, and which above all has established in western Europe a zone of peace for the last sixty years, would be an act of lunacy.
But the European Union has developed its own rules, and expects them to be respected. Among the rules are those regarding membership. Scotland, seeking membership as a separate nation, would have to accept them, or at the very least, negotiate any change in them.
At meetings of the European Council, where the governments of all twenty-eight EU members are represented, two conditions have been laid down for new members in addition to the Copenhagen principles regarding democracy and the rule of law. The first was that any new members would be obliged to accept the Schengen agreement which removes border restrictions on the movement of people and goods within the European Union. The second is membership of the eurozone, the currency area which uses the Euro. The United Kingdom is not a member of either, and negotiated an opt-out from both.
An independent Scotland would have to either accept these conditions of EU membership, or seek its own opt-out which would not be easy to obtain. Among our fellow members, there is growing resistance to any more opt-outs in a single market seeking further integration.
What would accepting these conditions mean? The Schengen agreement would require Scotland to establish controls along its border with England. Hadrian’s Wall would, at least in the bureaucratic sense, be re-established along the Cheviots.
The Eurozone requirement would mean a separate currency. Creating that separate currency alongside a currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom would be very complicated and probably expensive. Whether or not it is attainable is surely something that should be explored during the current debate.
Alistair Darling, the chair of the Better Together campaign, has pointed out that the Royal Bank of Scotland was bailed out of its financial crisis in 2009 by the Bank of England. Its debts were such that bailing it out would, he says, have bankrupted an independent Scotland. The Eurozone has had to bail out several of its members, in particular Greece and Italy, mainly because Germany has been willing to pay. But it has done so on pretty stringent conditions, not least reductions in public expenditure and serious restructuring of banks and the national taxation systems. Scotland would face similar requirements were its banks again to need help.
Let me turn to a different subject but one that deserves discussion. In his response of February 17 to the speech made by David Cameron on February 7 as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr Salmond, the First Minister, referred repeatedly to “ the Westminster establishment”. I was interested in what he meant by his use of the term. I assume it was something other than the obvious point that Westminster is the site of the UK Parliament.
After all Parliament, from Prime Ministers to Cabinet Ministers, officials and MPs’ staff, is drawn from all parts of the United Kingdom. There have been Scottish Prime Ministers, both before and since the Second World War, and many Cabinet Ministers from Scotland, often in senior positions. So Mr Salmond cannot have been speaking simply of geography.
Perhaps he had in mind a group of men (and a few women) who share common values and common objectives. But that won’t quite do either. If I take the most contentious issue in recent British politics, the war on Iraq, I am proud, as then the LibDem leader in the House of Lords, of sharing the passionate opposition to it and its disastrous aftermath with our inspiring Party Leader in the House of Commons, Charles Kennedy, and his wise successor Sir Menzies Campbell. I honour too the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, one of only two senior Cabinet members to resign (the other was English).
I still remember the rumble of approval from the people who lined the street outside St Giles Cathedral when his funeral cortege passed.
Scotland has a global vision. It belongs to the world and must remain part of it. I can remember the excitement generated at the one European Council to be held in Scotland in 1992, when the churches and meeting rooms of Edinburgh were opened to a great civic debate on the European Union, one in which Jacques Delors, then President of the Commission took an active part. From the Edinburgh Festival to the international reputation of Scottish composers and choreographers like Kenneth Macmillan, from the great artists and poets , the engineers and doctors, the missionaries and scholars, Scotland has always moved out from its borders to embrace the wider world.
I believe a separate Scotland would be a diminished Scotland and would leave behind it a diminished United Kingdom.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
46 Comments
The trouble is, saying the Scotland’s departure would leave a diminished UK just gives grist to the Scottish Nationalists’ mill. They actively *want* and rejoice in the idea of a diminished United Kingdom (i.e. diminished England) and in fact that is one of their major aims, hence their determination to use the insulting term “rump” UK, even though the “rump” contains eleven twelfths of the UK population. They rejoice in the problems the departure of Scotland would cause for the UK’s defence with Trident and glory in the idea that it would supposedly result in some kind of balance of payments “crisis” and “currency meltdown”. They even claim absurdly that the UK would no longer exist and therefore we would have to seek EU re-entry. In short, the sad thing is that there is no end of nose-cutting some people will not indulge in in order to spite their own face if they can at least do some damage to someone else’s.
At the moment, the problem we face is that the hit to living standards caused by the 2008 crisis and other factors like higher food and oil prices, plus a Europe-wide labour market has left voters all over in a peculiarly vengeful mood. The climate is one of “blaming the other”, so Scots Nats blame the English, UKIP voters blame other Europeans, Greeks and Italians blame the Germans and on an on.
My only hope is that by this autumn we can see enough of an improvement in the direction of people’s living standards that allows people to raise their sights to see their true, long term interests and shifts them away from short-term, blame-based, destructive voting patterns. It will be a close-run thing.
Interesting speech by Shirley, a respectable member of the House of Lords who is there on merit rather than wealth. I note in particular her praise for former party leaders Kennedy and Campbell and her pride in taking part in the march against the illegal Iraq War. Of course she cannot praise Clegg in the same way because he was missing from that march. As on so many key political decisions his own rightwing instincts put him on the wrong side of history. In comparison Shirley Williams has more often than not been on the right side of history. I disagree with her on Scotland, so maybe I am wrong. She is probably the best woman poitician of her time.. All of which is perhaps a pointer that a woman of a later generation should be chosen as our next leader, and sooner rather than later. Best of all Shirley can string more than two coherent political thoughts together in the same speech. Not a skill shared by all of her colleagues.
Re the whole Scotland-in-EU question: this is not a question of Scotland “seceding” from the UK. Let’s remember that the independence referendum has no legal effect in itself; it is merely an advisory indication of the sentiments of a majority of Scots. Legally, Scots independence has to come from legislation passed at Westminster, whose effect would be to split the UK — splitting, as well, its international rights and obligations.
If it were in fact true that an independent Scotland were ipso facto out of the EU, then the implication is that any country could pass legislation to *expel* part of itself from the EU. For instance, the Spanish Cortes could unilaterally redraw its borders to exclude the Basque Country — thereby excluding the Basques from the EU. The idea that a minority can be expelled from the EU by the vote of a legislature representing an alien majority is fundamentally contrary to the principles of human rights and self-determination.
@JohnTilley
“I note in particular her praise for former party leaders Kennedy and Campbell and her pride in taking part in the march against the illegal Iraq War. Of course she cannot praise Clegg in the same way because he was missing from that march.”
I note in particular that her speech doesn’t mention her taking part in the march (whether proudly or not). Sorry to undermine your (latest) attack on Nick.
@David-1
“If it were in fact true that an independent Scotland were ipso facto out of the EU, then the implication is that any country could pass legislation to *expel* part of itself from the EU. For instance, the Spanish Cortes could unilaterally redraw its borders to exclude the Basque Country — thereby excluding the Basques from the EU. The idea that a minority can be expelled from the EU by the vote of a legislature representing an alien majority is fundamentally contrary to the principles of human rights and self-determination.”
Not really.
If Spain legally decided to “exclude” the Basque Country then that area would logically have to become a new country, unless it became part of (say) France. It seems to me to be incontrovertible that this new country would need to apply to join the EU.
What is arguably contrary to the principles of human rights and self-determination is the forcible exclusion of the Basque Country from Spain, not from the EU.
A good article but “The Schengen agreement would require Scotland to establish controls along its border with England.” If England joins Schengen, this won’t be an issue. If England won’t do so (despite Schengen having operated successfully for years),, then the existence of border controls is at least as much an English choice as a Scottish one. And, in that case, why should a newly independent Scotland seek to facilitate an England that won’t facilitate Scotland?
@Simon Shaw
So that nobody can accuse either of us of nit-picking or trying to divert discussion into a cul de sac, can we just agree that Shirley said this? —
“…. If I take the most contentious issue in recent British politics, the war on Iraq, I am proud, as then the LibDem leader in the House of Lords, of sharing the passionate opposition to it and its disastrous aftermath with our inspiring Party Leader in the House of Commons, Charles Kennedy, and his wise successor Sir Menzies Campbell. I honour too the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, one of only two senior Cabinet members to resign (the other was English).
I still remember the rumble of approval from the people who lined the street outside St Giles Cathedral when his funeral cortege passed….”.
Being such a stickler for the facts Simon you will acknowledge that she says she is proud of sharing her passionate opposition to the war on Iraq with Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell?
@JohnTilley
Well done there – unlike previously you have managed NOT to misquote Shirley this time.
I’m still not completely clear, though. Are or are you not apologising for misrepresenting her earlier?
I think it is very clear that Shirley was opposed to the war in Iraq. She was certainly in support of those who did attend the March. Simon, you are splitting hairs.
@Caron
Are you saying Nick WAS NOT opposed to the war in Iraq?
On BBC’s Question Time in November 2007 Nick Clegg said he opposed the march against the Iraq War. This was in the week before the leadership election. The programme revealed Clegg’s anger that Kennedy and Huhne went on the march. This was reported in The Guardian, Friday 16 November 2007.
Simon Shaw There have been several indications since the formation of the Coalition that Clegg had taken the same side as Cameron over Iraq. Rather like his position over his early membership of the Tory Party, however, it has always seemed he is a little evasive over this, as it was such a litmus paper issue for Lib Dems at the time. He obviously didn’t go on the march, which his fellow MEP Chris Huhne did, apparently.
“I honour too the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, one of only two senior Cabinet members to resign (the other was English).”
I assume Shirley Williams was mis-quoted. Robin Cook was Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001. When he resigned from the Cabinet in early 2003 he was Leader of the House of Commons.
As somebody who attended the anti-war march on a freezing day in Feb 2003, I consider Cook to be an honourable man.
I’m not sure who Shirley is referring to as the other Cabinet member to resign. If she means Clare Short then no – Ms Short backed the war and only resigned after the ground war had been completed.
@JohnTilley
”On BBC’s Question Time in November 2007 Nick Clegg said he opposed the march against the Iraq War. This was in the week before the leadership election. The programme revealed Clegg’s anger that Kennedy and Huhne went on the march. This was reported in The Guardian, Friday 16 November 2007.”
Are you quite sure about that? My Google search didn’t turn up anything from the Guardian in November 2007. It did however turn up the following comment by Chris Huhne on the BBC Politics Show on 18 November 2007: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7093206.stm
“I think the party has to have a really hard anti establishment edginess about it and I think, for example, there’s a very good example of what I mean with the anti Iraq war march, where Charles Kennedy decided to go on that march and Menzies was clearly not happy with the decision to go on that march because he was happier with parliamentary opposition”
Have you got two (some time) Party Leaders mixed up here? Because, according to that BBC transcript, it was Menzies Campbell who was “angry” (as you would put it) at Charles Kennedy going on this march. That’s the same Menzies Campbell whose praise by Shirley you referred to.
Simon Shaw I think both you and John Tilley are right, although I believe Ming did oppose the War itself, he was just a bit worried about the company being kept on the march. Over the years he could be quite conservative like that! But Nick, being an MEP at the time, was never forced into a decision, and my memory and instinct tells me he was pro-War, at least at that time.
The ides that the EU would consider Scotland no longer part of the EU is very fanciful. I know it has been given credence by Barroso’s speculation, however we only have to imagine what Barosso would have said if the SNP were presenting exit from the EU as an advantage of independence – he would be much more likely to be saying the very opposite. and that if Scotland wanted to leave it would have to negotiate an exit under the Lisbon Treaty prescriptions. Even considering Scotland as having in principle taken itself out of the EU would be very damâging for what the EU stands for. It is clear to me that anyone who pushes the argument that Scotland would no longer be in the EU is simply making mischief.
I am sure Simon is right about opposition to the Iraq invasion. I recall that it was Nick Clegg, then as deputy PM, who pronounced the invasion of Iraq as illegal, so I very much doubt that Clegg would, in 2007, have been critical of those who took part in the march. Besides Nick Clegg was an MEP at the time, so any involvement in parlementary party discussions would have been at best peripheral. I cannot be sure, but I would be very surprised if the Liberal group in the EU parliament would have supported the war. If there were any evidence that Nick Clegg had been pro war I am certain we would have heard a lot more about it!
I think it was Southampton MP John Denham who resigned from the Labour cabinet along with Robin Cook. Shirley is using understatement when she says “the most contentious issue in recent British politics”, I would replace ‘contentious ‘ with ‘disgraceful’.
At the time of the Iraq war Nick Clegg was my MEP. I used to see and read virtually all of his press releases and many of his statements at that time, as well as meeting him fairly regularly during that period. I do not recall any occasion when he made any comment in support of the Iraq war. I would suggest that those relying on conjecture and innuendo produce any evidence of any statement that Nick made that could suggest support for the Iraq war. Who else would people like to accuse of being pro Iraq war simply because they were not on the march?
I remember Nicks first Deputy Prime Minister’s question time in 2010 when he described the Iraq war as ‘illegal’ causing much huffing and puffing from Tory and Labour benches at that time. But some people’s obsession with Clegg bashing will lead them to forget that.
I have had a quick google and see the July 2010 remarks of Nick Clegg, as a result of which I withdraw my earlier comments about his possible stance. I certainly wouldn’t accuse anyone of being pro the war merely because they were not on one of the marches, but have relied too much on faulty memory.
Richard Church,
“At the time of the Iraq war Nick Clegg was my MEP. … I do not recall any occasion when he made any comment in support of the Iraq war.”
So presumably Clegg didn’t make any contemporaneous comment against it, either. True, in 2010 he clearly aligned himself with the position which Kennedy and Ming Campbell had adopted, several years after the event. That was only sensible. To have taken issue with what his predecessors had done would REALLY have made news, and earned a lot of bad publicity for re-opening old quarrels. Quite what Clegg’s true feelings were wasn’t clear, at the time. It could have been heartfelt, or it could just have been tactical: I don’t think we actually knew.
I fear that after Syria, we now know better. Syria was, once again, a question of whether the West should claim occupation of the moral high ground and go into the Muslim world with all guns blazing. Clegg was deaf to the entreaties to give diplomacy a chance, just as Blair had been deaf to the entreaties to give the weapons inspectors a chance. Both got it wrong. Both did so for comparable reasons.
Clegg a natural anti-war campaigner? Pull the other one.
Thank you Tim13.
David Allen, it isn’t up to me to produce evidence that Clegg opposed the war in 2003, it’s you who are making the allegation that he didn’t. And your only evidence is that he didn’t attend a demo. Neither did 50 million of the UK population.
The comparison with Syria is irrelevant, the proposal last year was not an armed invasion to occupy and bring down the regime of a foreign country using British troops.
All a bit off topic really, but someone has to respond to this nonsense.
Agreed, Richard Church.
It’s a pity that people like David Allen don’t do a bit of basic research before engaging in “smear by innuendo” (worthy of the best traditions of the Daily Mail).
For instance the BBC reports as follows in July 2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10715629
As regards the government’s official position on the legal basis for war, a spokesman for the deputy prime minister said “it awaits the outcome” of the Chilcot inquiry looking into the background to the war.
“The deputy prime minister was expressing his long-held view about the legality of the Iraq conflict,” he added.
“His views on the matter are very well known and widely documented.”
The accusation that Iraq was an illegal war has always struck me as being childish and meaningless. In the lead up to the war different lawyers gave different opinions as to the legality, so the issue is hardly as binary as Clegg makes out and to make such a statement misses the wider, more complex arguments that were the real issues at the time. Attacking Labour for their ‘illegal’ war is effectively a cop-out from actually debating whether the reasons we went to war were just and if the objectives of defeating the enemy and re-building the country were feasible. I was opposed to Iraq because (a) the claims being made about Iraq’s WMD capabilities were very clearly absurd, (b) Saddam Hussein was the enemy of Al-Qaeda and many people rightly pointed out that his defeat would given Al-Qaeda a foothold in Iraq and (c) the chances of a stable democracy rising from the ashes were remote.
Syria is a fitting parallel to judge Clegg with, and he fails miserably. However, Syria was was worse than Iraq because we weren’t prepared to deploy ground troops – the plan was nothing more than to fire missiles at the country in petulant rage from a safe distance. At least Blair’s plans for Iraq showed some commitment to deploy resources that might have provided a post-war solution.
Steve, just to be clear, you are condemning Clegg’s demand that there should be a vote in parliament before any military action?
@Joe Otten
I didn’t make any reference to a demand by Clegg so my comment can hardly be described as condemning it. Could you expand your argument please and explain how you managed to come to that conclusion?
I can’t see how the issue of having a vote in parliament is related to (a) the legality of a war or (b) the government making a persuasive and rational case for going to war.
Steve, I was just trying to clarify what your complaint was about Clegg. You seem to be saying troops should have been sent. And as this didn’t happen because parliament voted against it, you therefore seem to be saying that parliament shouldn’t have been asked. By all means clarify.
My complaint about Clegg with regards to Iraq is that he argues against it on a technicality and one that was a very grey area at the time rather than the simplistic black and white manner he describes. He does not seem to engage with the substance of what happened in the run up to the decision to go to war in Iraq (unless you can point me to somewhere where he does so?).
With regards to Syria, the overwhelming problem with the government’s plans was the lack of any military objective to what they were going to do. They were simply planning to do something for the sake of doing something. If it had a greater commitment then it would have had more legitimacy in terms of the prospects of achieving something useful – e.g. setting up safe areas, setting up no-fly zones, putting peace-keeping troops on the ground to ensure the safety of the safe areas, etc. Part of the problem with some of these terms is that they have been corrupted – no-fly zones were first used very effectively in the aftermath of the Gulf war, but when Cameron argues for a no-fly zone in Libya and then immediately bombs numerous targets that have nothing to do with a no-fly zone, the expression becomes meaningless.
What annoys the electorate about Iraq is the fact that they feel they were lied to. Many people who were convinced by the arguments put forward by the government (I certainly wasn’t one of them) later came to the conclusion that it was a mistake based on the fact that no evidence of WMD were found in Iraq. I’ve never heard anyone, outside of political circles, criticise the decision to go into Iraq because of the legality of the war. The ‘Labour’s illegal war’ thing is just comes across as a piece of cheap tribal party-political yah-boo.
Simon Shaw, You had a problem googling and could find nothing on Nick Clegg’s opposition to the march against the Iraq War. So to save you any further stress here is the link —
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/16/comment.politics2
I do not know why you often avoid the central issue but instead go off into a cul de sac. I fear there might be a danger that you will present yourself as someone whose case is so weak that you wish to divert discussion away from the matter in hand. You surely do not want to do that? Here is a reminder of what I actually said .
JohnTilley 23rd Feb ’14 – 11:52pm
On BBC’s Question Time in November 2007 Nick Clegg said he opposed the march against the Iraq War. This was in the week before the leadership election. The programme revealed Clegg’s anger that Kennedy and Huhne went on the march. This was reported in The Guardian, Friday 16 November 2007.
John Tilley, yes you have found a comment piece that claims Ming Campbell and Nick Clegg were angry. Just because a commentary makes a claim, does not make it true. Why did those of us who watched the QT programme not pick up on this “anger”? – Probably because it was not there. In any case Nick Clegg just was not in the Westminster bubble at the time. Ming was the foreign affairs spokesman at the time, so he would be concerned with the latitude he felt he needed to comment, but this certainly did not apply to Nick Clegg. I doubt anyone in the media gave any thought to asking Nick’s opinion at the time.
And John, if you really fancy yourself as Simon Shaw’s nemesis, do pick him up on issues with more substance. At least then others reading here can appreciate a worthwhile debate.
Richard Church,
“David Allen, it isn’t up to me to produce evidence that Clegg opposed the war in 2003, it’s you who are making the allegation that he didn’t.”
No I’m not. I think Nick hid away under his MEP hat and studiously avoided committing himself one way or the other. Stealth was his basic modus operandi in the years before launching the Clegg coup. He was well aware of the dangers of revealing his true colours.
It was you who opened this debate with the remark that “I do not recall any occasion when he made any comment in support of the Iraq war.” I merely pointed out that Clegg had neither supported nor opposed the war at the time when it happened.
The march is a bit of a red herring. Ming did oppose the war and said so at the time, but he may very well have wanted to keep clear of the Stop The War march, which he thought (misjudging the event) would be flirting with dangerous lefties. It really doesn’t matter what Clegg might have said about the march. Basically Clegg did his best to keep stumm, avoid commitment and take no personal risks.
Sure, in 2010, long after it was all over, Clegg belatedly came out with a bold statement that Iraq was illegal. I can’t prove it, but I think that was pure posturing. Mind you, arguably it was posturing with the aim of closing an argument rather than anything else. Had Clegg said the opposite and declared that Kennedy had done the wrong thing in 2005, he would have stirred up an unwelcome hornet’s nest. By coming out on the left-liberal side of a finished argument in July 2010, he stilled rather than stirred up anger. He also usefully presented himself as left-liberal on Iraq, at a time when his attitude to the new Coalition and its alarming rightward shift was under intense scrutiny. So his posturing concealed his true right-wing views, as it has always done.
How can I prove that Clegg was just posturing, that his anger about the “illegal” Iraq war was synthetic? I can’t. It is my judgment. Disagree if you like, but if you disagree just because you want to push a loyalist line, you may not convince anybody.
And – as Steve and I have said previously – it is Syria which shows us Clegg’s true feelings. He is on the side of the 21st century Western gunboat diplomats. He was deaf (indeed, deafer than Cameron) to those who warned against starting a bloodbath in Syria. It is inconceivable that someone who was so gung-ho over Syria could have been the true peace-lover over Iraq.
@JohnTilley
”Simon Shaw, You had a problem googling and could find nothing on Nick Clegg’s opposition to the march against the Iraq War. So to save you any further stress here is the link – http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/16/comment.politics2 “
I now see why you didn’t provide that link in the first place (which would have been the obvious thing to do). It provides absolutely no support to your assertion which I queried you on.
Firstly, as Martin points out this is a Comment piece in the Guardian. In fact it is by Polly Toynbee. Why’s that? Couldn’t you find anything pertinent by (say) Melanie Phillips?
Secondly, when I asked you if you were sure about what you had said I was referring to this comment of yours: ”On BBC’s Question Time in November 2007 Nick Clegg said he opposed the march against the Iraq War. This was in the week before the leadership election. The programme revealed Clegg’s anger that Kennedy and Huhne went on the march. This was reported in The Guardian, Friday 16 November 2007.”
I repeat my question: where in the Guardian (or anywhere else) does it report that on Question Time in November 2007, Nick Clegg stated that he was opposed to the march against the Iraq War or was “angry” that Kennedy and Huhne went on the march?
As to your complaint about me “avoiding the central issue”, as a liberal and a Liberal Democrat I think the central issue is that people shouldn’t be allowed to make snide comments about other people without justification. That especially applies to comments about fellow Lib Dems on LDV.
David Allen, all you are saying is that irrespective of any evidence, you dislike and distrust Nick Clegg.
Even what you say on Syria is very tendentious. The proposal did not necessarily imply military engagement, in fact that would have required another vote. Furthermore the fighting in Syria had already been taking place, there was nothing like this in Iraq. Even as someone who is relieved that we are not embroiled in Syria, I can see a lot of difference and nothing “gung-ho” for war. You seem very keen to paint Clegg in the worst possible light.
Personally, I think the illegal invasion Iraq on a flimsy pretext, makes it more important that we stay out of Syria. Of course the illegality is the central issue and not a mere technicality (did you think that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was a technicality?) Moreover, given NIck Clegg’s position as deputy PM, his use of the term “illegal” is rather more significant than ‘posturing’ – how else would you have him describe the invasion of Iraq?
Martin, all you are saying is that irrespective of any evidence, you trust Nick Clegg.
Simon Shaw,
“I think the central issue is that people shouldn’t be allowed to make snide comments about other people without justification. That especially applies to comments about fellow Lib Dems on LDV.”
Pots. Kettles. If we took out all the snide comments, there wouldn’t be much left of your postings, Simon. For example, here’s one: “It’s a pity that people like David Allen don’t do a bit of basic research before engaging in “smear by innuendo” (worthy of the best traditions of the Daily Mail).”
I have meticulously documented here what can and can’t be proved. I have taken care to acknowledge that Clegg’s failure to speak out on Iraq until years after the event cannot be proven to be a question of cynical positioning and posturing, while explaining why I think circumstantial evidence points that way. You have relied on smear tactics. Quite why you think these tactics dignify the Liberal Democrats, I cannot imagine.
Martin 25th Feb ’14 – 12:06pm
One key error of fact in your comments. You say Nick Clegg was outside the Westminster Bubble at the time of the invasion of Iraq. In fact, he was lining himself up to be an MP and he wrote a weekly piece in The Guardian at the time. I would describe that as in the Wesminster Bubble. His pieces in the Guardian are available still if you want to,check what he actually wrote himself.
See this one from March 2003 —
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/06/politicalcolumnists.iraq
David Allen’s judgement of Clegg’s positioning is spot on.
Simon Shaw, you will have to tie himself in knots by himself.
@David Allen
“If we took out all the snide comments, there wouldn’t be much left of your postings, Simon. For example, here’s one: “It’s a pity that people like David Allen don’t do a bit of basic research before engaging in “smear by innuendo” (worthy of the best traditions of the Daily Mail).”
Pot, Kettle, Black.
Somebody who says (without any apparent trace of irony): “How can I prove that Clegg was just posturing, that his anger about the “illegal” Iraq war was synthetic? I can’t. It is my judgment” has clearly allowed his overwhelming personal animosity to cloud his judgement. If you look back at your postings on this thread in particular I think you will see what I mean.
Incidentally, are you currently a member of the Lib Dems? I haven’t seen you deny that you are now in fact a member of the Labour Party. Quite what your true feelings are aren’t clear, at this time. Your comments could have been heartfelt, or they could just have been tactical: I don’t think we actually know.
(And if you refer back, that is exactly the argument you used about Nick – what I call “smear by innuendo” – I am sure you don’t find it in the least bit objectionable)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ian-sinclair/iraq-war-syria_b_4787561.html
This piece by the man who wrote the book on the subject shows why the 2003 march against the Iraq war was so important in the long run.
The popular decision of Parliament last summer to stop the government bombing Syria is seen in the light of the march against the Iraq War.
My assessment is that it shows why Nick Clegg’s was wrong in 2003 just as he has been wrong on a number of key defining decisions since then, just as he was wrong on Syria.
Shirley Williams in her speech said —
” …. If I take the most contentious issue in recent British politics, the war on Iraq, I am proud, as then the LibDem leader in the House of Lords, of sharing the passionate opposition to it and its disastrous aftermath ….”
I am with Shirley Williams on this. I too am proud of Liberal Democrat opposition to the war and Liberal Democrat participation in the march of around 2 million ordinary people. I am also proud of those Liberal Democrats who opposed the bombing of Syria. What a shame that Nick Clegg was on the wrong side of history on that one too.
Simon Shaw: I am not a member of the Labour Party. I am still a member of the Lib Dems, and seek to restore the traditional Lib Dem principles which have been trashed by the current leadership.
Simon Shaw, in an attempt to get you to engage with the issue, can you tell us if you also share Shirley Williams’ pride in the Liberal Democrats opposition to the Iraq War?
Did you take part in the march against the war in February 2003?
Or did you do the same as Nick Clegg?
@JohnTilley
1. Not to the extent that she clearly does.
2. No.
3. If I knew what Nick Clegg “had done” I could answer you.
@David Allen
“Simon Shaw: I am not a member of the Labour Party.”
But until now you hadn’t denied it.
Do you now see how unfair “smear by innuendo” is?
John Tilley: you post an interesting link and not one that particularly supports your case. As you say it belongs to a series of articles from Nick Clegg when he was an MEP but also a PPC for Sheffield Hallam. I glanced at a few of the articles: it is not surprising given that he was then an MEP that much of the commentary has an EU slant, so where the then threat of an invasion is an issue, it is discussed in relation to damage of the relationship of the UK with the EU. The criticism of the invasion of Iraq is more implicit than explicit: this is clear in the article you link to where Clegg says that the way Blair ignored public reaction and protest was damaging for democracy, however a short glance at the list of articles suggest there is nothing there, for example, on Hans Blix and his UN team or on the government’s dodgy legal advice.
I am puzzled how you can justify why Clegg “was wrong in 2003” or that he was “on the wrong side of history”. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Nick Clegg was in the least pro war. Doubtless Clegg’s private office could supply a record of relevant statements.
Again if you were right, it would mean that Clegg was being very hypocritical when he described the invasion as illegal; this in turn would surely have been seized upon by his critics at the time. The fact this did not happen surely pours cold water on your speculation; furthermore had there been anything on Clegg showing that he supported the invasion, his bid to be Lib Dem leader would surely have been scuppered in 2007.
In criticising Clegg it is important to make sure the issues are substantive rather than fabricated or imagined as this only detracts from or nullifies the argument. Coalition politics has led to compromises that we may regret or oppose, so there is plenty of scope for criticism. My heaviest criticism and annoyance is for the way that Nick Clegg and other cabinet colleagues have not strongly defended the tuition fee arrangements since they were introduced. I regret the decision but the lack of follow up is unfair on Lib Dem supporters. The ‘Sorry’ performance was worse than useless. There is an argument in defence of the new system, but why should it be left to supporters on the ground to defend the policy, when the leadership fails to set the example?
Speak of the devil! It is as though Nick Clegg has heard my criticism (that I have written about here before). Not before time. You can read about Nick Clegg’s defence of the tuition fees system here in The Guardian.
Martin,
I too have read John Tilley’s link to the Guardian article of March 2003, and I would have to agree that it does show Clegg being implicitly critical of and saddened by the drift towards war. That is really news to me. I still can’t find anything anywhere in the archives which puts Clegg firmly in the anti-war camp at the time of the war. But yes, this particular article comes close to doing so. Then Clegg went silent, though by careful Googling I did find one reference to an anti-war declaration in 2008, and then of course the “illegal” statement in 2010.
Well – no doubt Simon Shaw will be surprised, but unlike him, I do take the evidence as I find it, and I would accept that Clegg in 2003 did reveal some visceral anti-war feelings, which by the time of Syria in 2012 seem to have melted away. I would however persist in my view that Clegg was being cagey, and that as often in his career, he carefully avoided making a commitment to a specific point of view that might bounce back to bite him later in life.
Actually, I now recall the series of articles which Clegg wrote for the Guardian in those days, and that I often found them very perceptive and, indeed, painfully honest. Clegg went into Europe as an enthusiast and came away frustrated at the bureaucracy. Just read the words again. It is a real genuine human being speaking, or in those days it was, before his leadership ambitions took hold. The humanity has long gone now.
Martin.
I say Clegg was on the wrong side of history in 2003 because he did not go on the March. It was a defining moment. Two million people everyone from the local branches of the WI to the Muslim Council of Britain, members of local British Legion Clubs, Trade Unions, famous people and ordinary people, school children and pensioners, all colours, all religions and crucially The Liberal Democrats whose leader Charles Kennedy was a speaker at th email rally. There were councillors, mayors, activists, supporters, MPs and MEPs — in forty years I have never seen so many Liberal Democrats together marching (or more often ambling ) along the Embankment and proud to be taking part in a political activity which had the support of the vast majority of the population. And where was Clegg?
That has actually been my point all the way through this thread from when I commented on the Shirley Williams speech where she praised Ming Campbell and Charles Kennedy. There have been some diversions in the discussion, and some cul de sacs but I have tried to steer discussion back to Shirley’s speech . Ming Campbell was also no fan of the march but clearly articulated hus opposition to the war in Parliament at the time and in the years since. Nick Clegg was an MEP but read what Graham Watson MEP said at the time, he did not hesitate in making the Liberal Democrat opposition to the war crystal clear.
You say that the link I provided does not particularly support my case. I think it actually backs up David Allen’s judgement that Clegg was being cagey. As David says if you google very carefully it is hard to find a clear statement from Clegg. I guess that one of the uber loyalists that haunt LDV would have provided chapter and verse by now if there was an explicit statement from Clegg. Which brings me back to Shirkey’s speech — she describes the Iraq War as “….the most contentious issue in recent British politics…,”, Everyone had a view. Views were polarised. People were passionate and strongly expressed their views. Except Nick Clegg.
His views perhaps surfaced when he sent a message to all Liberal Democrat members just before Parliament voted on bombing Syria. Clegg favoured an attack on Syria by saying well this time it is not Iraq. My interpretation of that is that it gives a clue to Clegg’s muted comments in 2003. I cannot of course prove what Clegg was thinking. But I think it is reasonable to assume that someone who did not explicitly condemn the invasion of Iraq, at the time or for some years afterwards was at best a lukewarm critic.
As in a very early comment in this thread with the reference to the Polly Toynbee article I can give my interpretation of what she wrote. People can make up their own minds. But my guess is that Polly Toynbee in 2007 probably had a good idea what Clegg her fellow writer on The Guardian had thought in 2003. It seems difficult to imagine that the subject had never been discussed when they had both been present. So that when she wrote about Clegg’s Question Time confrontation with Huhne (who went on the march along with other MEPs) why should she do other than write what she thought to be the case? After all, in the leadership election in 2007 The Guardian backed Clegg.
@JohnTilley
“People can make up their own minds. But my guess is that Polly Toynbee in 2007 probably had a good idea what Clegg her fellow writer on The Guardian had thought in 2003.”
Sorry, John, even for you that is a classic! I can only think you have this image of sundry Guardian writers congregating in some sort of apology for an Oxbridge College Common Room sipping warm sherry and putting the world to rights.
Keep convincing yourself you are right!
Simon Shaw, Some people in this thread and in other threads in LDV refer to you splitting hairs , making snide remarks etc Are they all wrong ? Why not discuss the subject rather than this constant personal point scoring?