Guest Post: Lib Dems - supporting a referendum?

Another guest contribution, this time from Linlithgow's favourite Liberal Democrat, Stephen Glenn. He is a Lib Dem, so be gentle with him. But he is writing about an interesting subject, so get torn in!

Malc has kindly asked me write a guest post looking at the role that Ross Finnie has undertaken, looking at the position the Liberal Democrats in Scotland on the question of a referendum. Some have pointed argued it is a sudden change in direction. This being Malc’s blog I thought I’d best do some research into the historical context to see if that argument holds water.

A Scottish Parliamentarian once rose from the green benches of the House of Commons and said:

“The demand exists, and is becoming so urgent that it will no longer be ignored. That demand is reasonable. I do not know that I should need to make that point, for the simple reason that the Scottish people themselves are so reasonable that you could not imagine them taking up such a demand unless it were itself reasonable...

“The Scottish people never voluntarily renounced their ancient Parliament. It was filched from them by methods scarcely less discreditable than those which accompanied the parallel transaction on the other side of St. George's Channel at a somewhat later date.”

No it wasn’t Alex Salmond. It was however someone who in their career represented Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire (no, not Nicol Stephen!). It was in fact William Cowen, the Liberal MP for Aberdeenshire Eastern, moving his Government of Scotland Bill in 1913.The move was a step to fulfil Grand Old Man William Gladstone’s promise from the very start of his Home Rule campaign:

“I will consent to give to Ireland no principle, nothing that is not upon equal terms offered to Scotland, and to the different parts of the United Kingdom.”

But before the Nats jump up and down and cry out for a Scottish Free State that wasn’t on the table at the time but came in subsequent legislation. Cowen cited the backing for his bill from the Liberal Association in Scotland. In 2007 there was no discussion with the membership, which led to the refusal of the Lib Dems to even enter talks with the SNP.

Many in the membership, myself included, believed it was possible to allow a referendum without supporting the same side in that campaign as the SNP. Others considered it was possible to not have that as plank of coalition governance but leave room for the SNP to bring a bill forward. Yet the decision was taken and many in Scotland - Malc included - saw it as the Lib Dems being undemocratic and failing to live up to our name.

To 2009 then, and a new leader is in charge but the same position. A debate on devolution saw questions asked, dilemmas posed. First Kevin Lang (Lib Dem PPC in Edinburgh North and Leith) then new Lib Dem MEP George Lyon both called for a referendum in Scotland on the question of independence. I could have got up and said the same thing.

Tavish Scott was clearly flustered. In last year’s leadership campaign, one of the key separating factors between the three candidates had been their willingness to listen to the membership on key issues like this one. In fact Mike Rumbles had promised to revisit this very question with the membership in very clear terms - just as Tavish is doing now. It is not going against party policy: there wasn’t really a firm policy on the issue, and there hadn’t been a discussion about the possibility of a referendum in many leading members time within the party.

So is this discussion in Liberal/Lib Dem circles sudden? Looking at the historic context no, we’ve been having it for over 100 years. Will it, as some online Nats have been suggesting, bring down Tavish Scott? No. He’s called for the formalising of the discussion, maybe as a result of the wake up call provided in Bournemouth, maybe at the behest of others. But Lib Dems are a forgiving lot. However, what he does with the resultant consensus going forward will be the key.

The big question of course that everyone is asking is ‘What will the outcome be?’. I really don’t know. One thing I do know is that post-Bournemouth and post-announcement of this consultation more people are coming forward saying that the time for the referendum is right. There is certainly a feeling of let’s get it over with. I don't know what the outcome will be, but what I do know is that when we gather in Dunfermline on Saturday (31 Oct) to start that process, it will be an interesting session. I’m prepared to be shocked this time, if that is possible, unlike the time I was sitting in the hall back in September.

If a week is a long time in politics, how much more six of them?

Read more...

Guest Post: What price t'union?

I've asked a few folks to write a couple of guest posts over the next couple of weeks. This one is from fellow blogger Arnie Craven, formerly of The Right Student and now writing a solo project at Another Brilliant Blog. He's a Yorkshireman, a Unionist and a Twit too. A unionist writing on a nationalist leaning blog... what is the world coming to!

From what I can gather, Malc and I share a lot of common ground, politically. Look at his political compass result, mine was exactly the same. Reading his posts, I don't find a lot to disagree with. As such, when he asked me to write a guest blog, I had to think long and hard about what to discuss. I didn't want you to think you were reading one of his blogs, after all.

Eventually it dawned on me though, I was an English unionist and I had been asked to post on a Scottish nationalist's blog. Really there was only one thing I could talk about.

I believe in the union. But I also believe that, the way we are going, the union is destined to end in divorce. A pessmistic view, you might think. But I have to look at what the SNP have achieved in Scotland, and when I do look I see something quite extraordinary. Something made all the more extraordinary by the fact that it is hidden in plain sight.

Perhaps this sounds a bit cryptic, but that is my point exactly. Unless you really pay attention, you don't see it. The best way to explain is by studying the remarks made by someone who should be leading the fight against Scottish nationalism, Jim Murphy, in The Scotsman:

"For the Scottish banks it was Britain or Bust. The recapitalising of the banks cost £50 billion – that's £10,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. And the Asset Protection Scheme..which equates to six times the annual value of the Scottish economy...In a global economy there is nowhere to hide. The best protection is integration into a strong economy."

I ask you, on what is his argument focused? If you follow the link, you will see he devotes a couple of words to monarchy, embassies, things like that. But ultimately, it is all economics. And that is what is so amazing about what the SNP have done, they have come to completely dominate the Scottish political discourse.

Unionists are dancing to the SNP's tune. Could Iain Gray better Alex Salmond in a debate on economics? No, and it would be a waste of time trying. More than that, who can get enthused about the union when political leaders, who claim to support its continuation, allow themselves to be restricted to an economic debate? The SNP have the economics and they have 'freedom!', and people like that. If I were a Scot, I would.

Unless unionists regain control of the political debate, I see no way back. The march foward of Scottish nationalism will become irreversible. I give it maybe five, ten years. But when the economy picks up again, what will the unionists have to offer?

I believe in the union because I believe the Scots and the English have more in common than we don't. Sure, our accents are a bit different, and yes we do slightly different things at Christmas. But we are the same people, really. When I am in Scotland, do I feel like I am in a foreign country? Absolutely not. In fact, I feel more at home in Edinburgh than I do in London. If Scotland becomes independent, we will start to drift apart. It is a natural product of not having any civic nationalism to bind us together. Perhaps it might not happen straight away, but it will eventually come. Just look at the Irish Republic.

I like not feeling like a foreigner in Edinburgh, and I hope Scots don't feel like foreigners when they go to Berwick. Lets hope that wont change.

Read more...

Guest Post: Politics: Why Bother?

A question I've been wondering about for some time. But given I have a vested interest in the answer (student of politics) I wasn't sure I should answer. But then I was emailed this argument. I don't know if I agree with all of it - but there's plenty to think about...

Guest post by Wendy Fraser (aka PJ)

I’m asked this question all the time by friends and family, bemused by my fascination with all matters political and bewildered by my addiction to Question Time, Newsnight, Andrew Marr and various (numerous) other political programmes. Their argument is often ‘it makes no difference what people outside government think or say’ or the all-too-common ‘all politicians are just out to get as much out of the system as they can’. So are they wrong? Well yes and no, and here’s why I think that.

There are two divisive topics regarding politics and politicians that, to me, define the lack of motivation to engage with the political process – empowerment and integrity. If the electorate do not feel empowered by our current political process to influence positive change then why would they bother to engage with it? If they don’t believe in the integrity of their political representatives then who can they believe in?

Now I don’t agree with either of those viewpoints but neither can I say that they are just misconceptions because they are so much more than that. At best they represent a lack of knowledge/belief but at worst an abdication of responsibility.

It’s so easy to blame someone else, to point the finger and say “It’s not my fault it’s their’s”. Sadly, we see this all too often in the public outpourings of frustration and anger directed between political adversaries (I was going to say parties, but that would have ruled out all the infighting!) The endless negativity, the personal attacks and backstabbing, sleaze and gossip – it does nothing to show politics in this country, or any other for that matter, as the immensely important arena that it actually is. I get tired of listening to it, and I’m a politics geek!

Having watched the endless tittle tattle and schoolboy bullying is it really surprising that the public have responded with such fury and revulsion to the expenses scandal? When the perception of politicians is already so low there wasn’t exactly a pool of public goodwill to tap into! It is my hope that the expenses debate will be dealt with swiftly and effectively, those who abused the system should be punished, those who did not should be able to continue untainted by their association with a flawed system. Can we get back to solving the problems with the economy, poverty and the environment now please?

But we need to do more than just renew faith in our individual politician’s integrity we also need to renew faith in our political process. A more positive approach isn’t exactly a new appeal but it certainly would be a good start. Engaging with people at an individual basis is the key to success here I believe. I know many political activists from different political parties who are doing just this, wearing through shoe leather pounding the streets and knocking on doors to talk to people directly. I’ve never had anybody knock on my door (perhaps I’m blacklisted...) but I know I’d be pretty impressed if they did, and I am in awe of the activists who give up their time to do this for their parties.

I also think that mediums like blogs and Twitter have tremendous power to connect and inform people but at a more important level they also empower people to speak directly to those in positions of influence, and sometimes they even answer! I still remember being a bit stunned when Jo Swinson the Lib Dem MP for East Dunbartonshire sent me a tweet regarding a blog and Twitter debate I was involved in, how fantastic to be able to engage directly with someone who wasn’t even my MP but was significant in highlighting the issues at the centre of that particular debate! Jo is particularly adept at using Twitter to engage, and more and more MPs and MSPs are recognising its benefits and following suit. However, as has been found out the hard way, there are some inherent dangers for politicians who tweet without due thought and consideration...

My comeback to those who question my interest in politics is that I believe my vote is important and I’m not going to automatically give it to the party my parents vote for or my friends vote for, I want to make an informed choice. I get very angry with people who do not use their vote, who abdicate their responsibility to engage with our political processes. Yes, the system is not perfect but we have a responsibility to all those who have fought for our right to vote to use it and to use it well. We all have a voice that can be heard, although admittedly some are louder and more persistent than others....

Read more...

The SNP & Independence

(Text of yesterday's guest post for SNP Tactical Voting).

We've had an SNP Scottish Government for a little over 2 and a quarter years now and - for better or worse - we've pretty much gotten used to it. There's no doomsday, no massive fighting between Holyrood and Westminster and no vote on independence (yet). And the party have performed well, if not spectacularly, as Scotland's first minority administration. This new form of government is a learning process for all the parties in Holyrood - budget debates now actually mean something, the government is fairly regularly defeated in minor votes but forges loose alliances on an issue-by-issue basis. In spite of the challenges of minority government, the defeats, the compromises, the failure to deliver on some key manifesto commitments (thus far) the SNP remains a popular party. Take a look at these opinion poll figures:

May 2007 Election

Constituency Vote - 32.9%

Regional Vote 31.0%

Jan 08 YouGov/Express - 38%/30%

Feb/ Mar 08 MRUK/ Times - 39%/40%

Apr 08 YouGov/ Sun 40%/33%

Aug 08 YouGov/ SNP 44%/-

Sept 08 YouGov/ Times 42%/35%

Oct 08 YouGov/ Times 39%/32%

Jan 09 YouGov/ Times 38%/34%

Mar 09 YouGov/ Times 35%/30%

Apr 09 YouGov/SNP 37%/37%

2009 figures here (pg22), Sept/ Oct 2008 here (pg21), Aug 2008 here (pg56), Jan-Apr 2008 here (pg46)

For a party under attack for failing to deliver some of its policy commitments, the SNP have maintained and - in every single on of these poll figures - increased their vote share. That to me indicates a government that remains popular with the electorate. Of course you can debate just how popular, how much opinion polls matter, the accuracy and methods of pollsters etc, but how else can we measure their support? In the only actual poll of public opinion - with a real live vote at the end of it - the SNP polled well ahead of Labour in the European Parliament Election in June 2009. Again, those of you who want to will claim that this isn't a reflection of their popularity - its a third order election, low turnout etc etc - but I guess you'll never be convinced. The point is this - the SNP, as a government, are relatively popular.

But - and this is a point those of you who disagree with the first half of this post will have no trouble agreeing with - their main policy aim is not. If you look at the straight up-down figures below, the height of popularity for independence was in March/ April 2008 - at 41%. Now that - the shrewd of among you will note - is a minority. There were a considerable number (19%) of "don't knows" in that poll, but even so, as the preference of only 41% at its height, independence remains the constitutional preference of the few.

I agree/ disagree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state:

Aug 07 Agree 35% Disagree 50%

Nov/Dec 07 Agree 40% Disagree 44%

Mar/Apr 08 Agree 41% Disagree 40%

June/July 08 Agree 39% Disagree 41%

Oct 08 Agree 35% Disagree 43%

Jan/Feb 09 Agree 38% Disagree 40%

See John Curtice's chapter here for figures (particularly page 16).

Indeed, that analysis is borne out by the following Populus/Times Poll, which gave 4 options - independence/ more powers/ status quo/ less powers with the following result:

But - Populus/ Times Poll April 2009:

Independence - 21%

More Powers - 41%

Status Quo - 26%

Less Powers - 8%

(Same source, page 17)

That poll - as you can see - indicates that when several options are given, the constitutional preference of Scots tends to be for extended devolution over independence (albeit still a minority of those polled).

So, what does that mean for the SNP? Well, it's a problem. The SNP's strategy - devised at some point before the 2007 election - was to be in a position to govern Scotland effectively and efficiently, do what they could within the framework of the current constitutional settlement to implement policies which would improve Scotland - and demonstrate that improvements could also be made to other areas of policy were they granted extended powers. A simple strategy really - take the credit for what they could do, blame the UK Government for what they could not.

And it has worked - to a degree. The SNP have successfully delivered a number of key pledges which have proved popular with the electorate which has seen them maintain - or even increase - their poll numbers (as detailed above). However, the electorate remains unconvinced that the powers of independence are required for Scotland. This is the conundrum for the SNP - if they govern too well, they run the risk of people wondering why they need independence.

That, I think, is a whole other blog piece. Jeff - over to you.

Read more...

Guest post

I've done a (rather lengthy) guest post for Jeff at SNP Tactical Voting on the subject of the SNP Government and independence. He's expecting a debate, so pop over and give your two cents worth. I'm not sure about his description of me as an "independence academic" but I guess at this stage in my academic career, I'll take any kind of description as an academic!

Read more...

Guest Post: Live or Let Die?

I'd been meaning to write a piece about this topic for some time, but could never put it into a comprehensible or articulate manner. Luckily I found someone who could.

Guest post - by Wendy Fraser (aka PJ)

I’ll lay my cards on the table straight away, I’m delighted by the ruling in support of Debbie Purdy and I also wholeheartedly support a change in the laws surrounding assisted suicide and euthanasia. Undoubtedly a number of people will already have decided upon reading those statements that they disagree with me, that I am wrong and they are right. Well that’s okay. This is not an easy topic to discuss, and it’s certainly highly emotive and controversial, but my motive in stating my viewpoint is the hope that it may ignite some sparks of useful debate. My fear is that the debate will yet again fade from the spotlight without progressing beyond previous circuitous arguments.

It’s hard to be challenged on something that feels like a moral absolute, even harder to acknowledge that there is value in the reciprocal viewpoint. I experienced this a few years ago when I was training to work with a charity that deals with suicide. I walked through the door with the complete belief that we were all there to prevent suicide, yet when my training was complete I left with a different point of view. We learned to understand that we couldn’t tell the people we were speaking to that it was wrong of them to consider taking their own lives. How could we possibly understand how they had come to that precipice in their lives when we weren’t living their lives and experiencing their emotional or physical pain?

Our cornerstone was self-determination, that everyone is entitled to the right to decide whether or not they choose to live. Now that doesn’t mean that we didn’t hope that the person we were talking to would change their mind but the key fact was that we didn’t impose our hopes and beliefs upon them. My point in telling this is that all the people on my training course changed their viewpoints, quite radically in some cases, because we were prepared to be challenged and open to being educated about a different point of view.

So how does this serve this debate about assisted suicide? Well firstly I suspect that many people will be able to state deep-seated viewpoints based upon moral beliefs, religious teachings and personal opinions. Those all have tremendous value but my challenge to you would be this - if you found yourself in a similar situation to Debbie Purdy do you think there is a chance those beliefs might be challenged to the extent that you could feel differently than you do now? I guess that’s a bit of a rhetorical question because it’s impossible to say with total certainty how we would react to such an extreme situation but my experience has taught me that I didn’t actually have to change my beliefs, just my perception of the issues.

One of the things that don’t serve this debate well is generalisations and to be honest I think that also demeans the serious nature of the topics being discussed. We can’t possibly compare one life-threatening illness to another, one experience of insufferable pain and anguish to another – and yet we find ourselves discussing guidelines and boundaries to define the legal processes that do just that, they generalise. It is a truly terrifying prospect to imagine that we could create a legal definition whereby life would be defined as being considered no longer tolerable or desirable. What if we got it wrong? What if it was open to abuse? That honestly scares me. But I am more concerned by the prospect of laws that do not recognise that suffering can be intolerable, that life can deteriorate into nothing more than an unbearable existence.

There’s no one-size-fits-all solution to these issues, no easy path to tread to resolve the many moral and ethical challenges. But one thing I am absolutely positive of is that we must make a stand for our beliefs, a stand for those who are truly vulnerable and at the end of their physical and emotional tethers. I won’t agree with all of the viewpoints I read on these topics, but I do believe that we have to listen to all of them, learn from the experiences of those who can contribute personal insights and be prepared to engage in a debate that will undoubtedly challenge all of us.

Read more...

Guest Blog: Turning the other cheek or a blind eye?

Next time you are asked by a beggar for the change in your pocket would you give it to them? I ask ‘next time’ because it’s a regular occurrence in our city centres and poses a moral dilemma - if you hand over your money are you actually helping someone or potentially perpetuating a dependency problem? Perhaps a donation to a recognised charity or an event like Comic Relief would be your preferred choice?

There is no doubt that in this current economic climate our purses are held tighter than ever before, and disposable incomes are proportionately less than they have been in recent years. But the knock-on effect is not just that there’s less change in our pockets to share with a stranger on a street corner but many of the charities who depend upon public donations and government funding are also struggling to survive.

Where does social responsibility for the homeless and those forced to beg lie? I know that no single political party or government is responsible for the continued existence of homelessness or begging on our streets but I do believe that there is a shared responsibility to take steps to eradicate it – between politicians and citizens. A truly joint venture.

I guess the dilemma is that none of us can single-handedly change the problems that have been endemic in society for centuries, but if as individuals we don’t try to make even a small difference how will we ever build a better world? I know that my spare change won’t make a huge difference, and that my vote alone won’t determine the outcome of the next election, but to do nothing and abdicate responsibility seems far worse.

At a time when we are embroiled in debate about bank bonuses that amount to millions of pounds we should question ourselves and our political representatives about what actions we are taking to help those struggling to exist on the edges of our society, for whom a few pounds, a hot meal and a safe place to sleep could be life changing. Whatever answer is given ask this next question – what more can we do?

Guest Author: PJ

Read more...