My take on the Morrissey Report

It's been a while since I wrote anything. An uncharacteristically long time, I should add.

Such is life when the combined challenges of a full-time job, running a business, trying to be the best possible parent to Xanthe and dealing with what at times can be debilitating depression. There are at times other things to concern myself with than attempting to make sense of political developments.

However, I want to respond to the Morrissey Inquiry's report, published earlier this week.  This is not least because I provided evidence to the inquiry, but also because it touches on issues of such significance that it has the potential to act as an antecedent to a cultural shift of enormous proportions if acted on appropriately and responsibly.

I stress the word "potential", because it is by no means certain what the response will be.  But it has laid down a very clear challenge not only in relation to sexual harassment and how the party deal with complaints, but the more general but equally pressing matters of inclusion, increased participation of women in politics, and power abuse. It is a challenge that the Liberal Democrats cannot shirk, and one which I imagine also applies to other political parties.

I should firstly make clear what my own participation involved. When the allegations of Lord Rennard's impropriety became public, I was involved in a conversation with one of the female complainants. While concerned about the sexism and blatant abuse of power at the heart of the allegations, I was equally (if not more) troubled by the fact that this also seemed to be merely the tip of an iceberg; the by-product of a culture in which such attitudes thrive and through which such inappropriate behaviours become tolerated and in fact commonplace.

I discussed my own experiences  - some of which affected me directly and some of which was directed towards others that I knew. What became very obvious through the sharing of personal experiences was that there exists a culture - or a sub-culture - in which sexual harassment, and the attitudes that inevitably lead to and stem from it, is at best not seen as a problem.

It is this culture that needs to change and so, after a little encouragement I made a complaint to Tim Gordon and then to Helena Morrissey.  I did not wish to go public, or even to seek any action against the person in question. I did not want to open old wounds. What I wanted to do was to inform the conversation and hope that, in some small way, I may be able to contribute to changing a culture that is oppressive and archaic in equal measure.  Researchers should not expect to be propositioned, just as party workers should expect better behaviour from parliamentarians and senior figures than for them to be putting their hands where they don't belong.

And that is the extent of it. Of course, I advised Tim and Helena of the detail of my experiences, including when and where events occurred, but making a complaint against a particular individual was never at the forefront of my mind. I was very pleased that I was allowed to contribute anonymously and that my wish for the detail of the events not to become public knowledge was respected.  You may well ask why I didn't come forward previously and there is a quite obvious dual pronged reason: a) I didn't think I would be taken seriously, given how ingrained in the Westminster culture acceptance of such behaviour evidently is, and b) as is often the case, it is only when someone else makes that initial decision to talk that others find the courage and confidence to also come forward and confirm that (irrespective of whether Chris Rennard is not is not guilty of the alleged offences) there is a problem here that urgently needs to be remedied. Another reason for my reluctance to talk, and something only understood when considering these events retrospectively, was that in making my sexuality blatantly obvious to the individual concerned I subconsciously blamed myself for what later happened.

This is, of course, all in the past. I mention it only as background information, as well as to demonstrate an active personal interest in Helena Morrissey's investigation and what it may mean for our party and the (apparently widely held) view that sexual harassment is an inescapable inevitability.

Moving onto the report itself, it is a 60 page document which can not be done justice in the few words I am able to offer here.  However, I am of the view that it should be applauded and welcomed for the courage it has shown in daring to address questions which have, for too long, been ignored. I also think that its recommendations should be adopted in their entirety, but that we should not stop there. The many useful recommendations are but a step, albeit a significant one, in the right direction. But if we genuinely wish to become a party that "champions the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals", as we ambitiously claim, we have do go beyond these initial recommendations and find additional and alternative ways of creating a new culture of inclusiveness and accountability. In this sense, the Morrissey Report is merely a starting point.

So, what's good about it? Quite a lot. Of course, a great deal will already have been said elsewhere and I don't wish to labour the same points.  But here's a quick summary of what I'm most impressed with:

* the inherent honesty in the report. Helena Morrissey was not afraid to point to some uncomfortable and inconvenient realities. The commitment to truthfulness was of course necessary, but that does not diminish from her achievement. This honesty requires an equally honest response and a recognition of past failures, many of which are painfully difficult to accept.

* It makes a welcome examination of the party structure, internal accountability and process.  While not stating it explicitly, I would suggest the report urges a rethink of the party organisation and a new review into the mechanics of how the Liberal Democrats function as a party.  Highlighted is a need to cut through the unnecessarily bureaucratic organisation - not before time. A radical overhaul is required, and one which enhances accountability and facilitates broader participation.

* Again, without making an explicit statement, the report manages successfully to challenge the apparent complacency within the party. We are, without doubt it would seem, very well intentioned. And yet it is clear that on crucial points we have failed - and are failing - spectacularly.  While a cover-up in respect to the Rennard accusations is denied (not altogether convincingly in my view) there is real and deserved criticism for the way the complaints were handled.  Without going into the detail, it is apparent that the Liberal Democrats have not been a model of fairness and equality in recent years, and we have patently failed to match our positive talk on women with action. Morrissey refers to "low-level sexism" and it the fact that we are deemed to be an institutionally sexist party is distinctly unsettling, whatever the level of sexism.

So much of what we thought we were doing well, we clearly were not. That's tough to take, but the complacent attitudes needed to be swept away for progress to be made.

* It manages to listen without making judgments and in doing so has put the party in a better position to deal with the various problems that have been unearthed by the investigation. Whatever the truth of the allegations against Rennard, the complaints were dealt with in a way that was at best ineffective and at worst dismissive. The report does not concern itself with the allegations themselves and is the stronger for it. What it does do is  examine the practice for dealing with such complaints and has found them to be woefully deficient, in the process asking serious questions of Danny Alexander, Jo Swinson and Paul Burstow (and to some extent Nick Clegg).  One can only imagine how much better a position the party might have found itself in if it had been better geared towards listening in the first instance.

* It recognises that harassment is not always sexual by nature and that all forms of harassment should not be tolerated.  The report recommends amending all standing orders and codes of conduct to incorporate the following: "You must treat others with respect and must not bully, harass or intimidate any Party member, member of Party staff, member of Parliamentary staff, Party volunteer or member of the public. Such behaviour will be considered to be bringing the Party into disrepute."

* It proposes not only a new system for dealing with internal complaints but a new Pastoral Care Office. I'm slightly uncomfortable with the proposed name, but the principle of an independent paid employee with responsibility for dealing with complaints, harassment and other grievances is a positive one.

* More effective monitoring of complaint handling is a somewhat obvious recommendation, as is finding ways of "preventing issues [from] festering". But as a result of the report, there can be no doubt as the need for action on these fronts.

* The report looks in some detail at the party's approach towards women. In doing so it speaks of an "unconscious bias", for which is recommends that "training at Conference" should be used "to help people recognise and counter the biases we all suffer from." Again, this touches on the institutional low-level sexism referred to previously and challenges our complacency.

The report is critical of much of some of what has been done to date. It considers much of the training currently provided for women "to be focused on the women rather than on the Party itself" and argues that ensuring "there is diversity training provided to men as well as women" should be a "priority" as "it is much more effective to encourage men and women to work together to develop balanced teams than to treat this as a ‘special interest’ issue."  This is true and something I have been concerned about for some time. We have to move away from the thinking behind exclusivity; diversity is not achieved via such simplistic strategies.

However, for all that is positive, the report also has its limitations and the party, in my view, must go beyond Morrissey's nine key points if it genuinely wishes to become a fairer, more equal, less bureaucratic and more responsive organisation...or at least an employer that people might actually want to work for. I felt it could have gone further in relation to the following points:

* While being critical of women-only training within the party, the report regrettably directs much of its focus onto women.  It does little, in spite of the evidence I provided, to look at the broader picture of the diversity problem and in particular the party's approach towards (and its attractiveness to) minority groups.  The unconscious institutional bias the report refers to applies not only towards women and this should be explored further by the party.

* Furthermore, harassment was seen as something that normally happens to women and is always committed by men. There was mention of one of the personal experiences I reported (sexual harassment towards one male by another male) but otherwise the report conforms to and confirms the gendered stereotypes. It may, of course, be the case that in cases of exclusively sexual harassment this is generally true - but it does affect men in very real ways and this should (in my view) have been given more attention.  Actually, it affects us all because all of humanity is demeaned when one of us is stripped of our humanity and objectified - but that's a separate issue.

However, harassment is not necessarily always sexual in its nature or motivations, and this is something that the report affirms. It is odd then for it to fix its emphasis on women. I know people within the Liberal Democrats, of both genders, who have experienced harassment of various forms including bullying and intimidation from women and indeed from groups of people. Some of this was race-related, some of it based on political viewpoints and some of it on sexual orientation. Outside of politics I know of a trans person who is in her own workplace the victim of unconscious intolerance and it's hard to see how the Liberal Democrats would necessarily be so much better in their approach towards trans people given what we now know about the sexism that has permeated the attitudes of those at the top of the party.

The party, going forward, needs to consider more fully how harassment of all kinds affects people of all genders and particularly minorities. In this respect, I feel the report could have highlighted more specific shortcomings in the party's current approaches.

* The report comments that "women and minorities feel undervalued" and speaks of a need to address "under-representation".  It proclaims that we must "ensure that the efforts involve everyone, men and women, young and old, black and white: the most effective ambassadors for minority causes can be those in the majority group – a white, heterosexual, middle-aged man can be a very effective proponent of diversity as it then moves beyond special interest groups into the mainstream."  All that's very praiseworthy, but it provides very little solid advice as to how this objective can be met.

I believe the principal catalyst for both reviving the cause of liberalism and facilitating diversity must be local parties.  This is something completely overlooked. In fact, in spite of the laughably complex organogram, there is nothing in the report to examine the ways in which local parties and party-affiliated organisations can become effective at tackling the problem of harassment  and the associated issues surrounding sexism and other forms of discrimination.  Or, for that matter, to reach out more successfully to minority groups. While this did not really come under Helena Morrissey's remit, it is something that the party must urgently turn its attention to and represents a challenge for local party organisations and party activists.

* Finally, while questions were asked about the way the party appoints and recruits, the report stopped short of making any clear recommendations about the recruitment process. This was a missed opportunity. It is true that the report touches on monitoring performance and this is self-evidently positive but having explored in depth the way in which Chris Rennard was appointed, and suggesting fundamental flaws in that process, the report failed to make any firm recommendations for change.  I hope that the Liberal Democrats have the courage to accept the criticisms and go further than the report does in implementing a new process that is transparent and meritocratic.

In summary, I was highly impressed with the Morrissey report. In spite of a few criticisms I have, I believe it went further than I expected it would in identifying problems and I hope that the party takes it as seriously as it should. Failure to do so would have catastrophic consequences. The report represents a wake up call; no longer can we complacently believe that the kinds of issues raised in these 60 pages do not apply to our party of equality, fairness and social justice. Its true significance will only be determined by the response and so I eagerly await confirmation from Tim Farron as to what the next steps will be - I urge him to be even bolder than Helena Morrissey in plotting a route through these difficult waters.

How do you solve a problem like UKIP?

Yesterday was certainly a very good day for Nigel Farage’s party (or, as a prefers to call it, an outfit).

The rather surprising success of UKIP sends out some clear messages and constitutes a challenge that other political parties now must respond to. It isn’t just the three major parties either – the likes of the Green Party and various other “smaller” parties who have tended to be overlooked must also recognise the apparent rise of UKIP as a problem and make the case for an “alternative alternative” in this new political world. Farage’s party seem to have convinced the media and sizeable sections of the public that they alone pose a serious threat to the establishment parties and consequently have virtually cornered the “protest” or “none of the above” markets.  Certainly, as minor parties found themselves squeezed (or, worse, ignored) with the rise in the UKIP vote it is apparent that UKIP’s surge in popularity may have a similar effect on the representation of smaller parties in local government than the SNP’s successes in 2007 had in Holyrood.

True, the Greens did make five gains in the local elections but have fallen well behind UKIP as a potential repository for the votes of those disenchanted with mainstream politics.  The Liberal Party and Mebyon Kernow also gained a seat each but otherwise the results made pretty grim reading for the broad array of minor parties hoping to capitalise on the perceived unpopularity of the three-party system.

Of course UKIP’s surge in popularity has implications for the party system as well as the parties themselves – and not least British democracy.  Is also poses questions for the Liberal Democrats.  Are we happy to relinquish our identity as a “none-of-the above” protest party in exchange for Clegg’s “responsible party of government” label?  How do we respond when UKIP replace us in the public consciousness as the straight-talking party who can be trusted to stand up for people and communities?  How do we challenge both UKIP’s popular appeal and their ideology?  And, most importantly, where do we go from here?

The Liberal Democrats

For all the positive spin some Liberal Democrats have put on yesterday’s results (and I agree there are some positivesthat we should not lose sight of) the results themselves have to represent a disappointment. Losing over a quarter (26.1%) of our county councillors is an almost unknown experience for us and it provides little comfort that the Conservatives also fared reasonably poorly, down 23.1% on a spectacularly good 2009 performance.  A Labour resurgence was to be expected but the 147 UKIP councillors (up from 8 in 2009) has to come as something of a surprise and has some serious implications.  While it’s always difficult to take heavy political defeats, at least the Holyrood elections of 2011 resulted in support transferring itself to an SNP that had many broadly progressive policies and similar social perspectives. On this occasion, the chief beneficiary is a party as diametrically opposed to our values as Brian Souter is to equality. 

Before considering more of what UKIP’s rise means, I will consider the Liberal Democrat position.  Firstly, the South Shields by-election constitutes yet another electoral disaster for us. Admittedly this is the kind of seat where a sea-lion wearing a red rosette would be elected but to finish not only behind UKIP but also the BNP, an Independent and a Socialist is embarrassing for any party of government. Even in non-fertile territory, to poll only 155 votes more than the Monster Raving Loony Party is not something to be proud of – or dismissed. 

This is the latest of a series of poor by-election performances and it’s difficult to single out any particular one as of more significance than another.  What it does tell us is that the role we’d carved out for ourselves as by-election specialists has been consigned to history and further demonstrates how much that previous success owed little to our own policies and ideology and much to our identity as an “alternative” to Labour and the Conservatives. Defining ourselves, or allowing ourselves to be defined, by who we were not rather than who we were might have secured short-term success but is now proving to be an integral part of our current difficulties.

Not wishing to dwell on South Shields, more can be determined from the overall picture of the English local election results.  They are not disastrous and a sense of perspective is needed. But that sense of perspective must look beyond where we did well and recognise how much our stock has fallen in the country as a whole. The "great liberal movement of ours" runs a very significant risk of once again becoming a party of a fringe – perhaps not a Celtic one, but one consisting of constituencies in which we have incumbents and where generally our closest opponents are the Conservatives.  The lesson from all recent local elections is that we do well when fighting the Tories directly – a suggestion that our identity as non-Tory combined with incumbency continues to pay dividends.  This week, we performed exceptionally well in Westmorland & Lonsdale, Eastbourne, Colchester, North Cornwall and Cheltenham. There's an obvious connection between those areas that should surprise no-one.

Lib Dem Voice proudly declares that in constituencies where there are incumbent Lib Dem MPs the collective popular vote was as follows:  Lib Dem 30%, Con 27%, UKIP 17%, Lab 15%. That is somewhat reassuring. However, it also shows the degree to which our support has become concentrated in key areas and our campaigning energies focused on key “fortresses”.  There are dangers with this.  If we are to become a genuinely national movement (and I see liberalism as a movement) can we afford to become a party merely of a few strongholds, with continued success in those areas the product of the very electoral system we so despise?

Is it good for Liberal Democracy that our appeal should be limited to Farron’s fiefdom, Alistair’s archduchy, Nick’s neighbourhood, Vince’s viscounty or Bob’s barony?  The answer surely has to be “no”. While ultimately incumbency is always a key weapon the message is that outwith these areas we are faring quite poorly.  The Lib Dem mantra “where we work, we win” is more than a little dishonest and of course overlooks the fact that we often work hard in losing campaigns: the truth is we do well in areas where we are established and have active local parties.  The liberal renaissance I often speak of requires grassroots development and revitalisation outwith these areas; any movement that is dependent on incumbency and support concentrated in a few regions is not movement at all.  Certainly a party opposed to top-down organisation does not wish to be in the position that its fortunes to tied so completely to those of its elected parliamentarians.

John Curtice observed that “the Lib Dems are not losing a barrow-load of seats despite their heavy loss of votes because most of the seats they are defending are against a Conservative challenger and the Conservative vote is also dropping heavily. Thus the Lib Dems are hanging on to seats while losing votes." This confirms what I have been saying for some time and highlights the danger of our electoral successes being inextricably connected to the Conservatives’ public standing.

Susan Kramer yesterday suggested that the key to a change in the Liberal Democrats’ fortunes will be economic recovery. She said: "We've obviously been hurt by being in government. Until the economy turns, that will continue to be true." She’s being both wildly optimistic and misunderstanding the problem, in true Clegg style buying into the myth that the public will eventually reward us when they finally realise how much we’ve been doing in government and have turned the country’s economic fortunes around.  In response to this it’s fair to point out that the economic situation isn’t the principal reason why we’ve fallen out of favour with voters and, more pertinently, that there are huge risks with pinning all our hopes on our recovery – especially one which is dependent on George Osborne’s plans bearing fruit.

Paddy Ashdown, also commenting on the results had this to say: “It's not the end; it's not the beginning of the end. But it might be the end of the beginning of the fight back.” That says more about Ashdown than it does the party, although I have no doubts they will be sentiments that inspire and encourage many of us.  The question is: how do we fight back? The methodology on which we have become so dependent is in many respects dated and redundant.  We also must now be very much aware of a new political reality: any fightback will require the party to address the challenge of UKIP. They are undoubtedly an impediment to our party’s progress and present both an electoral and ideological threat to liberalism.

Addressing the UKIP threat.

This brings us to the real question: how exactly is that challenge to be addressed? 

To answer this adequately it is necessary to understand the nature of UKIP and the reasons behind the increase in support.  Labour’s John Reid claims that UKIP's success has echoes of the SDP’s success in the early 1980s but that this time "the big split is on the right", principally affecting the Conservatives. This is a common error to make.  Firstly, Reid forgets that the SDP were infinitely more successful – and more popular – than UKIP, at times reaching in excess of 50% in opinion polls. They even knew how to win by-elections.  It’s also erroneous to believe that UKIP simply take votes from the Conservatives. Evidence produced only yesterday suggests that Labour actually are even bigger losers to UKIP’s surge than the Tories and their appeal goes beyond that of right-wing Tory types. John Curtice explained that "there is little evidence to support the presumption that UKIP are doing substantially better in areas of Conservative strength."

However much the likes of Peter Bone and Nadine Dorries insist that UKIP’s rise is the product of the Prime Minister’s unadventurous policy direction, they actually miss the point – as does Norman Tebbit when he calls for David Cameron to adopt “some” of UKIP’s policies. Unquestionably, it suits some Tory MPs’ agendas to portray increase in UKIP vote as appeal to mainstream Conservatism. It is, however, nothing of the sort although the predictable leadership speculation that followed yesterday’s results begs question of how many Tories are voting UKIP to wilfully undermine the Prime Minister.   While UKIP are clearly a party of the right, they also appeal to many who would never think of voting Conservative.  Their effectiveness is based on a dangerous populism, the intellectual basis of which must be addressed – not the failure of the Conservative Party to conform to the whims of its most unsavoury of backbenchers.

A beneficiary of public discontent

UKIP have so far not “broken the mould” or even threatened to.  But they are changing the political conversation in such a way that should be very worrying.  This is far more depressing than either the decline of Lib Dem support or the surge in UKIP’s vote. After all, surges in the past have not necessarily been symptomatic of longer-term trends: the SDP phenomenon fell victim to an unfair electoral system, the Greens’ success securing 15% of the vote in the 1989 European elections was not followed by any further notable electoral progress, opinion polls showing that large percentages of the population would be inclined to vote for either the BNP or Scottish Voice have since been entirely forgotten and Cleggmania proved to be equally temporary.  What each of these have in common, however, is that they were to varying degrees the product of public discontent with the political status quo. Economic recessions tend to breed support for parties that would not generally poll well in times of greater stability and a combination of an unpopular government and a toothless and unimaginative opposition inevitably leads people to look elsewhere.  As Harriet Harman suggested, “people weren't saying we want Nigel Farage running NHS - they're saying we feel disconnected, fearful about living standards - and we hear that and we don't have to continue with the economy bumping along the bottom.”

When looking for “alternatives” the public generally and understandably go for the option that appears best positioned to destablise or threaten the mainstream parties. There was a time when that party was the Liberal Democrats; what we believed politically was relatively insignificant if we were best positioned to take a seat from an unpopular incumbent party.  In England this role of chief opposition to the establishment has passed to Nigel Farage, who cuts a rather unlikely anti-establishment figure. 

For all his talk of these election results bring “a game-changer”, Farage actually understands perfectly well that mid-term elections, whether national or local, throw up unusual results. In 2009 Labour suffered a drubbing in both local and national elections with the BNP winning two European seats. The Lib Dems used to win the most unlikely of by-elections in mid-term.  In 1981 Labour took majority control of Cumbria, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Northumberland, and Nottinghamshire (i.e. a better performance than Labour’s this week) and still were roundly threshed in the 1983 General Election. It is wrong to draw too much significance from these results, even if they do suggest some kind of permanence to UKIP’s popularity, and media experts are wrong to do so (such as Vernon Bogdanor, who yesterday suggested that UKIP’s gaining of 135 councillors means that we might see legislation on an EU referendum in next week's Queen's Speech). The fact remains that UKIP is first and foremost a single-issue protest party, with a raison d’etre of removing the UK from the EU. Unlike some other protest parties before them (Health Concern, Senior Citizens’ Unity Party) they have yet to win a parliamentary seat for either Westminster or the devolved parliaments. The self-declared “third force” in UK politics lacks even the equivalent domestic parliamentary representation of the Green Party. 

The nature of UKIP

The fundamental nature of UKIP is as a branch of the anti-establishment, anti-politics movement. But that is not the entire picture because there is something a little different about UKIP.  Tebbit is wrong: UKIP are not a slightly maverick expression of mainstream conservatism. They are a manifestation of a much more reactionary, intolerant and populist form of right-wing politics that must be confronted rather than embraced. 

Vince Cable is more accurate when he compares UKIP’s performance to the winners of the recent Italian election where a new party emerged from nowhere, "not standing for anything much, with a sense of humour".  It is true that Farage’s charisma and affability is an electoral asset that has helped a public-school educated individual who frequents lap-dancing clubs, whose political hero is Enoch Powell and who gleefully admits to taking “£2m of taxpayers' money in expenses and allowances in his 10 years as an MEP” to present himself as a man of the people.  But while the scale of UKIP’s success in terms of the popular vote is surprising it certainly isn’t true that this has come from “nowhere” – the party secured 16% of the vote in the 2004 European elections.  Neither is it true that they stand for very little, even if they are largely defined by the single issue of European withdrawal.

Part of UKIP’s popularity lies in their being perceived as a party that, according to Nick Pearce of IPPR, “best stands up for English interests”.  In a very real sense this national sentiment underpins who and what UKIP is as much as their position on the EU.  The conscious cultivating of their image as a “patriotic” party is both clever and of particular concern to Tories.  UKIP’s notion of Britishness, or more correctly Englishness, seems to be rooted in the same ignorance of the realities history and contemporary international relations that characterised the BNP’s narrow-minded perspectives.  At the heart of UKIP’s call to abandon the EU lies not concern for democracy but a backward-looking nationalism. 

In fact, UKIP does not value democracy.  Certainly, it does not value the referenda it ostensibly promotes. A referendum is only supported by UKIP because it believes it is the sole means through which it can achieve its objectives. It does not seem to concern itself with respecting the outcomes of referenda from recent history: in 2011 UKIP’s Scottish manifesto pledged to “replace MSPs with Scottish Westminster MPs” and, in Wales, “remove the Assembly Members, who are overpaid and underemployed” again replacing them with Westminster MPs who will sit in the building for a few days per month as some kind of regional talking-shop.  This is not only a confused approach to devolution, it quite brazenly reverses the decisions made by the Scottish and Welsh electorates to have their own parliament and assembly. 

The populism of UKIP also, unlike the Greens and the SDP of the 1980s, appears to have very little appeal to educated people.  Indeed, one of the most worrying aspects of UKIP’s rise has been the descent into political anti-intellectualism – The Independent’s James Bloodworth described UKIP as “the triumph of emotion over logic”.  Nick Robinson pointed out that “a recent opinion poll suggested five times as many UKIP voters distrusted the MMR jab compared with other voters. They don't trust what the ‘men in suits’ tell them.” This neat summary is also confirmed by Professor John Curtice who commented that UKIP tends to perform well “in areas with relatively few graduates”. Furthermore, UKIP does better “in places with a relatively high level of people who claim a religious identity”. This is entirely to be expected from a party that has made social conservatism on issues ranging from gay marriage to immigration a fundamental part of its policy platform.

UKIP considers itself to be a “serious party”.  It takes more than opinion polls and local election results to convince me of that. Parties that talk about sending young offenders to boot camps, who oppose same-sex marriage (supposedly on the mistaken belief that churches would be forced to perform marriages), who are opposed to multi-culturalism, whose candidates describe gay adoption as “child abuse”, who advocate a near-permanent war economy with defence spending in excess of 40%, who deny climate change, who plan to abolish renewable energy subsidies, who are opposed to the European Convention on Human Rights, who advocate doubling prison spaces as the most effective means of tackling crime, who have become vehicles for xenophobia and who has been successfully sued for sexual discrimination by one of their former MEPs are certainly not to be taken seriously – at least as a socially responsible “alternative”.

Anti-secularism

Curtice’s observation on the popularity of UKIP among those with a strong religious identity is telling.  What Curtice does not do is follow his remarks through to their logical conclusion. However, Derek McLellan, from Secular Scotland, does: he asks “with the success of UKIP are we witnessing the rise of the Christian right as a political force?”  It is a highly pertinent question and I think McLellan correctly identifies that UKIP not only constitute a threat to the established political parties but also to our secular democracy.  Not only does Farage describe equal marriage as “an equality too far”, he has also waded into the debate on wearing religious icons in the workplace by intemperately declaring that “it appears that this Government wishes to drive Christianity from public life”.  Furthermore, a UKIP regional organiser opined that faith schools “must be allowed to teach Christian faith and morals” and appeared to describe secularism as little more than “political correctness”.  (What he thought about Islamic schools and their rights to teach morality isn’t recorded).

And so, while the main drivers of UKIP’s popularity have been dissatisfaction with mainstream politics and a belief among many that the party is honest and in tune with public concerns, there is more to UKIP than many of those voting for them believe. Most know where the party stand on the EU and immigration issues but probably do not realise the contempt the party has for democracy, its ambitions to reverse the devolution agreements, its anti-secular stance, its opposition to LGBT equality and its approach to social justice.  Its reduction of politics to anti-intellectualist shallow populism is to my mind equally repugnant. 

Embracing the challenge

The big question though is this: how do we solve a problem like UKIP?

The first step is to both accept that the problem exists and embrace the challenge. The next is then to more fully understand the nature of UKIP and the reasons for its broadening appeal.  I actually think these elections are as good as it’s ever going to get for UKIP, but such things can never be assumed and the real danger is not what UKIP may do to the electoral fortunes of the major parties but the impact they have on contemporary political conversation. 

What we cannot afford to do is continue being dismissive of UKIP as “not a serious party”. We need to show UKIP far more respect and treat them as any other party.  Condescension and insults tend not to be very productive in exposing a party for what they are; neither the Prime Minister’s “fruitcakes” and “closet racists” quips nor the suggestions that UKIP were simply not a credible party proved effective at persuading people not to vote for them and may well have the opposite effect. As Nick Robinson noted, no-one likes the “men in suits” telling them what to do. Back in 2009, it probably wasn’t the wisest move for a bunch of MPs and Anglican bishops to advise the public not to vote for the BNP.  They essentially all but assured the election of Nick Griffin.

This week the BNP lost its last county councillor.  This highlights the temporary nature of apparent “surges”. Only very recently UKIP was seen as a minor irrelevance by comparison with Griffin’s party. In areas like Burnley and Blackburn, where my brother stood in 2007 as an anti-BNP independent, it was the BNP who seemed unstoppable, making gains in previously safe Labour wards. Its collapse will be final when it loses its two MEPs in 2014.

In addressing the problem of UKIP, lessons can be learned from the experience of the BNP. Firstly, think long-term. Secondly, the main parties must be united in their opposition to UKIP’s rhetoric. Thirdly, address intolerance with hope and anti-intellectualism with reason. Fourthly, don’t “feed” UKIP’s desire for publicity or to be portrayed as victims of establishment tactics. Smear campaigns against them would prove counter-productive. Fifthly, they need to be engaged with; their arguments, presumptions and policies publicly challenged for them to be exposed. Debate is the best forum for exposing the character of Farage’s party – not smears in election leaflets.

From a Liberal Democrat perspective, we also have to accept responsibility for the current situation. While being the most pro-European of the main parties on paper, we have too often shirked from responsible debate and have failed to consistently speak up for Europe. We have effectively abandoned the debate to the little Englanders and have stood idly by while their bandwagon has steadily gained momentum.  We can no longer be afraid to speak positively of Europe. It is not, after all, a four-letter word. If we don’t make the case for a more integrated, collaborative and reformed EU, who will?

Hope not Hate, while somewhat limited, also proved in the case of the BNP that a pluralistic campaign against the retrograde social policies of a particular political party can prove successful. This is less likely to be the case with UKIP, not least as senior Tories are suggesting actually adopting some of their policies, but if there is scope for uniting against some of their more questionable standpoints then it should be explored. 

With the huge increase in the number of UKIP councillors a further question must be how effective will they be in local government.  In many cases groups of UKIP councillors have been elected with no experience of local government whatsoever.  This will inevitably tell.  The performances of BNP councillors in Blackburn certainly contributed to the loss of public faith in them as a viable “alternative”; there is no reason for thinking this will not also be true in UKIP’s case. Failures and weaknesses must be highlighted – surely if UKIP are so keen to be perceived as a “serious” party then the performances of its councillors should be scrutinised and criticised in the same way as any other party’s?

The principle means of resolving the UKIP problem must lie in challenging what it stands for.  That, of course, is much broader than Euroskepticism. Its narrow-minded nationalism, anti-secularism, anti-egalitarianism and risible economic policies must be openly confronted at every opportunity. We can no longer simply dismiss UKIP as an irrelevance.

How permanent is the UKIP threat?  At this moment that it is impossible to discern. What is certain is that the apparent strength of its populist nationalism is also a very real limitation; as Bloodworth argues, “UKIP represents the last gasp of a Britain that only ever existed in the imaginations of its supporters and romanticism will only take you so far in politics as in life.” The real test will come in the 2015 election, when pressure will be on UKIP to make a real political breakthrough and an election fought largely on the issue of Britain’s economic future will require some more mature thinking than UKIP have offered to date.  However, UKIP’s threat is not merely an electoral one – it also endangers the tolerant, liberal, multicultural and equal society Liberal Democrats exist to create.  If for that reason alone we need to stop treating UKIP as an eccentric but affable maverick and instead recognise it as the potentially dangerous, divisive and force for ultra-conservatism it is.

In praise of Paddy Ashdown

Those who know me well won't need reminding of the regard in which I hold Paddy Ashdown.

Today he's shown why that esteem is well-merited.  

The front page of The Herald declares that Lord Ashdown has condemned the controversial £500,000 gift to Better Together from Ian Taylor, CEO of oil giant Vitol.  

Recently I asked whether accepting the donation was wise. I also questioned whether the actions of Ian Taylor and his company in apparently silencing a group of artists was in the interests of free speech and democratic debate. Finally, and most pertinently in my view, I queried why Liberal Democrats active within Better Together seemed so uncritically supportive of Ian Taylor.

I am absolutely delighted that Lord Ashdown has shown both courage and integrity in making this stand. That stems partly from a relief that at least one senior figure in the party does not adhere to the apparent prevailing orthodoxy that Better Together are beyond any kind of criticism (presumably the product of a misplaced belief that such criticism will inevitably destabilise "the greater good"?). It also reassures me that I am not in fact a sole voice crying in the wilderness, as someone recently described me. But, more reassuringly, it demonstrates that there is a section of the party that is deeply uncomfortable with being associated in any way with this donation and the donor himself.  

Ashdown understand the Balkans as well as any modern historian or political commentator and, referring to Vitol's protests that any dealings with Arkan had been honest and legal, commented that "anybody who did business in the Balkans who didn’t realise there were networks of corruption that extended into any and all governments was naive."

Indeed.  Ridiculously naive.  Criminally naive, even.

Which raises the questions: are Ian Taylor and his company simply stupidly naive? Or were they aware of the nature of "business" in Serbia?  Either way, Taylor doesn't emerge with much credit and I continue to maintain that the Liberal Democrats should wish to associate with neither incompetent fools who "innocently" supply money to murderous criminals nor corrupt chiefs of unethical multi-nationals.

There is no question that Ashdown supports the Union and therefore, by implication, the cause of Better Together. But clearly he believes that criticism of this donation must be voiced: "wherever you are coming from, it’s a perfectly legitimate line to pursue" he insisted. He's absolutely right. Why should such criticism be confined to the SNP and Yes Scotland?  Why should the kind of criticism Lib Dem activists would freely be expressing had Nick Clegg received a gift from Vitol not also be voiced when such a gift is made to Better Together? (Quite why the success of Better Together is of apparent greater concern to some Lib Dems than that of their own party is a difficult question to answer adequately and one reserved for a separate blogpost).

So thank you Paddy for showing that it is possible to be critical of the Taylor donation and have difficulties in accepting his money without supporting independence (or indeed holding any other particular views at all).  Now, how many more Lib Dems will join him?  

Some respect...for Thatcher and society

On the day of Margaret Thatcher's funeral, I'm going to show a little respect.

I hope others do too.

Not just respect for a former Prime Minister. Nor just respect for an elderly woman who suffered from various debilitating illnesses. Neither am I merely showing respect for her family, friends and supporters although I do respect them, even if our political views are vastly different.

I respect our democracy. I respect society. I respect the values of tolerance and acceptance.

I also disrespect hate, and I have no time for those who wish ill on others or celebrate at others' deaths. I certainly have little respect for those who are, apparently, hoping to use Mrs Thatcher's funeral as a "protest". Protesting what? Let's call it what it is; it's not so much a protest that these people are planning, but an expression of disrespect and even hate. I fail to see what it will achieve, other than to send out messages about how divided a nation we are.

I'm going to show Mrs Thatcher some respect. That means, today, I'll take some time to peacefully and soberly reflect on her time on power and her political legacy.

But I'm also respecting her in how I respond to the challenge of that legacy.  I hope others do too.

So, rather than indulge in a show of hate I'm going to prove Thatcher, and Thatcherism, wrong.

There are those who don't believe in society. I want to show them how powerful and vital society is.

There are those who don't view unemployment as a human problem. I want to work to create a society that not only recognises the effects of unemployment on individuals and communities, but actively fights to tackle them.

There are those who are anti-trade union.  I am a proud trade union member, committed to both modernising the unions and ensuring that their voices are heard in the current political conversation.

There are those who still believe in the failed rhetoric of Thatcher's right-wing economics. This is why, more than ever, we must be seeking to create a new economic system that is fair and more capable of delivering stability.

There are others who, like the Tories who voted for Section 28 in 1988, are opposed to LGBT rights.  I will tell them they are wrong, and campaign for a society in which no-one is treated differently on account of their sexual orientation, gender, religion or race.

There are many of Thatcher's followers who share her views on Europe.  I believe in European co-operation and the importance of Britain's place in a reformed EU.  I will challenge the Euro-skeptic views of those whose romantic visions of British identity mean they want us to withdraw from the European Union.

It's not simply particular policies of Thatcher's that I was, and am, opposed to, but the unfeeling, uncaring nature of her Conservatism.  I'm going to challenge that, not by demonstrating how unfeeling, uncaring and disrespectful I can be - but through bringing some caring humanity into my politics.

To those who want to "protest" - may I suggest some alternatives?

If you dislike what Thatcher stood for, and I understand that fully, why not find some more useful outlet for your political expression? Why not join a political party?  Why not get involved in a democratic movement? Why not work for one of the many voluntary organisations promoting social inclusion?  Essentially, there are very many ways you could serve society more effectively than via a short-sighted demonstration of hate. Hate is, after all, very easy; working to create a better society is a long, hard challenge.

But it's the latter option I've chosen and it's how I've always responded to the challenge laid down by Mrs Thatcher.  Yesterday, I joined the Social Liberal Forum.  Mrs Thatcher is partly responsible because, without having lived through the 1980s and witnessed the effects of her policies, I doubt if I'd be politically interested, never mind so determined to create a fairer society.

And so today, as always, I'll privately and personally remember Mrs Thatcher. The respect I have motivates me to do something positive in response, which is probably the more natural and common human reaction than resorting to the gesture politics of intolerance.

As I wrote last night, there should be no place in modern society for hate. However, there is definitely a place for those who are opposed to the heartlessness and inhumanity of a broken political philosophy to join the struggle against it.  Respect demands it. Please join us.

There is no place for hate in politics

Last night, following their typically abysmal Party Political Broadcast, UKIP asked those watching to take to twitter to make statements about what "their" Britain should be, using the hashtag #MyBritain.

Firstly, it says a great deal about UKIP that it puts the emphasis on the individual rather than on society. Whatever happened to #OurBritain?

Not wanting to leave the descriptions of idealised Britain to UKIP supporters, I tweeted the following:

"#MyBritain is one in which everything does not revolve around Westminster."
"#MyBritain recognises the need for international co-operation and a place at the heart of Europe."
And, most importantly, "#MyBritain is tolerant, welcoming, broad-minded, internationalist, inclusive, socially just and forward-looking."

That final statement, neatly although extremely simplistically, sums up my personal political vision. It is a short statement of who I am, and what my politics are.

I have no time for the politics of hate.  It's why I was initially attracted to the Liberal Democrats.  It's why I am not, and never can be, a party political tribalist. It's why I try to see the best values in my political opponents, and why I try to refrain from point-scoring. Strong societies are built on tolerance, understanding, openness, acceptance and pluralism.  In fact, I'm a pluralist first - a Liberal Democrat second.

Someone like myself will inevitably struggle when the political conversation becomes dominated by, and characterised by, hate.  This is why in recent years we've seen the growth in the influence of organisations such as Hope Not Hate whose aspirations are self-evident.  Where hate manifests as racism or the politics of the far-right, there is sure to be widespread opposition. Few people like the BNP.

Also, nothing is bound to upset more people than images of Islamic fundamentalists preaching sermons of intolerance and making incitements to violence on our TV screens. That kind of hate inspires predictable and immediate reaction.  We recognise that such talk and sentiment has no place in a 21st century democracy.

Yesterday, when news of a bombing in Boston broke, the reaction on twitter was mainly of outrage (and also sympathy).  Why?  Because we recognise that hate is not a valid political weapon.  There is no room for hate in democratic political conversation.

Even former paramilitaries in Northern Ireland are now saying such things. Intolerance, based on race or religion at least, is not acceptable. The same is beginning to be true of homophobia although, as the Equality Network will point out and as the likes of right-wing Conservatives are determined to demonstrate, there is still some work to go to tackle some of the negative attitudes towards LGBT rights. Indeed, there still remains a great deal of hate directed towards LGBT people but at least today there is a general acceptance in society that it is not acceptable in a modern Britain that is fair and just.

And yet...

Being a blogger means I am sometimes exposed to a little more hate than I would like to be. Mostly this takes the form of comments on the blog (which I don't publish) or facebook messages.  On one occasion a homophobic message contained a rather frightening threat of violence.  Fortunately, most don't go that far but I've received some pretty nasty stuff, such as:

 *  countless examples of Nationalists expressing their disdain in no uncertain terms for my being inspired by the Declaration of Arbroath. I make no apology for it as the Declaration belongs to history and not to Nationalism. Criticism I accept, but insults dripping with hate I do not.

 *  those who disagree with the current direction of the Liberal Democrats feel they have a licence to abuse anyone who happens to express even critical support for their party. Again, I defend the right of anyone to criticise my arguments and enjoy engaging with those who do, but too often their contributions contain nothing other than bile and hate.

 *  I have angered some with my stance on LGBT rights including, rather strangely, a member of my local party (who has since resigned his membership) who liked to tell me how wrong I was and out of touch with public opinion whenever I spoke for equality.  I can live with people like that - it's those who descend to the level of hate I struggle with, such as the person who told me they hoped I would "die of AIDS".

But of course none of this is about me. I'm simply making a statement about how differences and disagreements are inevitable, but that hate should not be an inherent or accepted feature of political activity.

To all intents and purposes, society dislikes expressions of hate masquerading as political conversation.  At least that is the appearance it gives. However, there can be no escaping that our politics is becoming more and more dominated by hateful attitudes.  I'm not simply talking about the BNP, but mainstream politics.

Let's take the issue of the Chancellor's ill-advised comments after the Philpotts were found guilty of manslaughter.  The idea that the crime was somehow a product of welfare dependency is plainly both incorrect and an example of intellectual sloth. Furthermore, they were suggestions that had the potential for destructive effect, polarising society and reinforcing negative and prejudicial stereotypes. It is not, however, the factual accuracy or even the immediate ramifications of his intervention that concern me, but the fact that his words were coloured by his attitudes, which in turn were dictated by his pre-existing intolerance. Or, to call it what it is, ill-disguised hate towards a certain group in society. It was a loaded statement, evidencing his prejudices far more convincingly than any subsequent attempts to conceal them; as the gospel writer observed, "from the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks".

This is merely the tip of the iceberg. Whenever there are controversies surrounding politicians, expect the hate machines to kick in. Yes, I did see some the material the Tories were putting out in Eastleigh, which demeaned not only Lord Rennard and the Lib Dem candidate but also their own campaign, the Conservative Party and UK politics more generally.  Lord MacAlpine was exposed to so much hate following a supposed "revelation" in the media that he sought legal advice.  And of course the language of hate, usually stemming from messages of fear, is used by politicians (and the media) so that, when it comes to issues surrounding Europe, immigration or welfare it becomes impossible to have a rational debate.

And let's take a look at the nature of politics here in Scotland. What exactly is the quality of our political dialogue? I may be a reasonably young 36 but I remember, not so long ago, a time when we believed "the new politics" was upon us.  (That same phrase was used in 2010 by Lib Dem president Ros Scott to describe a new era being ushered in by coalition collaboration, without apparent irony).  That new politics has turned into more of the same, as generations-old prejudices have become hardened and tribal positions more entrenched.  The supposed democratic discussion on Scotland's constitutional future has descended into a hate-fest, hallmarked by a cynical negativity and a lack of respect for both the political conversation and the electorate.  Neither side seems to appreciate that, whatever the outcome in 2014, we are going to have to live together and I for one don't want to live in a Scotland torn apart by mistrust and recrimination.

It's time that the main stage actors woke up to the reality that, the more they act like this, the less interested the audience becomes.  Certainly, this bile-filled excuse for a national debate has the potential to toxify our politics, and political relationships, for many years to come. Is that the legacy of the referendum we really want...the consequences of hate?

Of course all this pales into insignificance compared with what has been expressed, both inside and outwith political circles, in response to the death of Margaret Thatcher. It is true that I am not Mrs Thatcher's number one fan (do I look like Jacob Rees-Mogg?).  I understand why she is such a divisive figure, why her legacy is criticised and her achievements questioned.  I understand why people feel she was bad for Scotland - after all, to some extent I agree.  But celebrating someone's death and demonising them using language that wouldn't look out of place if uttered by a jihadist suicide bomber is pure hate and there should be no place for it.

Here is a former world leader who in no uncertain terms shaped the global politics of the 1980s, for better and worse.  She is a heroine in the Falkland Islands, well liked in the USA and indeed elsewhere - even by many in the UK.  I can only imagine what other European democracies think when they see us holding street parties and singing "Ding Dong the witch is dead!"  I cannot imagine it looks terribly dissimilar to fundamentalist muslims burning effigies of Salman Rushdie.

It's not a question of not speaking ill of the dead.  Nor is it even a matter of tastefulness. As a society and as political activists, we have to ask ourselves whether we are content to perpetuate hate in place of hope.  The level of hate inherent in political expression is frankly horrifying.  I fail to see how hate is ever the answer to anything - if it is then I worry what the question is.

Fellow Liberal Democrat activist Stewart Wilson today observed that "the dis-harmony we are witnessing is unhealthy, irrational and dangerous for each and every one of us, especially in light of the recession we currently endure." He added: "The prospects for Wednesday look abominable...the whole world will be watching...it is likely we will embarrass ourselves with an ugly disrespectful pantomime fed by hatred."  A legacy of hatred will achieve nothing, and should be confronted rather than maintained.

What does hate do?  It dehumanises both the object of hatred and those who hate.  It belittles our politics and disrespects our supposedly tolerant and inclusive "British" values. Hate demeans society and the ethical and democratic foundations on which it is based. Hate is a powerful force that perpetuates division; it does not build up but destroys.  The descent into hate is a thoroughly depressing feature of contemporary politics, but it is far from too late to reverse the trend.

As I wrote in my reflections of Mrs Thatcher's premiership, hate achieves nothing. There is little point now in protesting the policies of someone who left office over 22 years ago.  However, for those who, like me, have for many years been opposed to the principles of Thatcherism there is a more worthwhile challenge: to prove her wrong, to create a strong society, to forge a politics that cares for the underprivileged and fights for fairness and to challenge, rather the perpetuate, the type of attitudes based on hate and ignorance which prospered during her eleven years in power.

We can all make a difference in making it clear that no kind of hate is acceptable in a modern society.  Hope Not Hate missed an opportunity this week, presumably because they haven't quite grasped that it's not only the far right who indulge the rhetoric of hatred. We have to move away from the position that finds intolerance towards certain individuals acceptable.  As a nationalist friend has just asked on twitter: "will the police allow me to do a jig at George Square when the queen dies?"

Certainly, tackling the legacy of unfeeling inhumanity with more unfeeling inhumanity is the wrong response.  Instead of hating, we must move forward in hope.

Without Thatcher, there'd be no independence referendum

I noticed yesterday the Daily Mail made the claim that Margaret Thatcher "saved Britain".  That really is a most absurd claim to make, not least because she oversaw - and was largely responsible for - the decline of her party in Scotland.

Having given it a bit of thought, I also arrived at the conclusion that Thatcher is also responsible for the independence referendum. How, you may ask.

Without Maggie Thatcher there would have been no "democratic deficit" for the Scottish Constitutional Convention to address in the late 1980s.

Without the convention, there would have been no Scottish parliament.

Without the Scottish parliament, there'd have been no SNP majority.

And without that SNP majority there'd be no independence referendum.

If Scotland does vote "yes" in 2014, I guess Mrs Thatcher will have had a hand in it. I wonder if she ever realised it?

Like much of Thatcher's legacy, it is an unintended consequence of ill-conceived actions. Politics really can be very strange at times.

Does Better Together care about free speech?

I have been alarmed to discover that today, a website to which I am an occasional contributor - National Collective - has been temporarily taken down after threatened legal action.

National Collective is run by a number of artists and creative types who favour an independent Scotland. It is generally far more considered and temperate than many of the other expressions of pro-independence support. 

What it seems to have done to become the recipient of threats of litigation is to take information freely available in the public domain - most obviously in The Guardian and The Herald but also other daily newspapers - and put together a financial history of Mr Ian Taylor, the CEO of oil giant Vitol and a man who only last weekend went public with the announcement that he was donating £500,000 to Better Together.

Taylor has retaliated, oddly enough not by threatening the news media but in choosing National Collective as his target.  It's difficult to comprehend what he feels can be gained by this, given that he doesn't seem to want to challenge their sources. That, however, is not my concern. Neither am I particularly worried about the damage he may do to Better Together and to his own reputation.

As James McKenzie points out on Better Nation, this bullying of a group of artists essentially constitutes an "attempted censorship" made worse by the fact that "there are rumours of equivalent legal action against both Wings over Scotland and Berthan Pete".  Now, silencing by intimidation is not the kind of tactic I think Better Together should be even perceived as supporting, not least because many Liberal Democrats are counted among its activists.  It is also a large campaign group committed to a responsible democratic discussion on Scotland's constitutional future and therefore a lack of respect for democratic values shouldn't sit comfortably with its many supporters.

Free speech is paramount to the debate currently ensuing on Scotland's democratic future.  Those in both camps must realise and respect this.  Mr Taylor certainly doesn't, but what about Better Together?

It's too simplistic to judge organisations on the basis of their donors.  In recent years the SNP has taken sizable donations from Brian Souter and the Liberal Democrats from Michael Brown. It would be facile to present the SNP as homophobic or the Liberal Democrats as friends of fraudsters.  

However, what has been Better Together's response so far?  An article on their website, entitled "Smear and Fear" takes an ultra-defensive view - insisting that they "are happy to say is that Ian Taylor is a respected figure internationally" and blaming "allegations made...in a nationalist blog a few days ago...[for] inaccurate reports".  

In coming down so firmly and completely on the side of their donor, Better Together is taking a huge gamble.  I'm happy to follow the lead of the evidence on this one, but am concerned about how closed minded Better Together seems to be.  There appears to be evidence from more than a mere Nationalist blog (which National Collective is not - there is a distinction between pro-independence and nationalism) that Ian Taylor's financial dealings are questionable to say the least. Now these may well be allegations, but isn't it best to make enquiries first? There are certainly some serious questions to be answered.

I'm actually quite concerned at the number of Liberal Democrats who appear to be happy to endorse the Better Together position unquestioningly.  I find it strange that when it comes to our own party, we'd go to some lengths to make our feelings known about unsavoury benefactors (i.e. we most definitely don't want them!). When it comes to Better Together, it seems anything goes. If Mr Taylor was to offer money to the Lib Dems I'd imagine there would be more of an outcry from within; I am genuinely surprised that more of my liberal friends in Better Together are not only refusing to speak out against the unsuitability of this donor, but are actively taking a defensive line. Certainly I've been astonished that there haven't been more of us defending National Collective's right to freedom of speech.

Better Together has not explicitly stated support for the line taken by Mr Taylor in silencing National Collective. What they do say, without apparent irony, is this: "this is too important an issue to have a campaign where people are afraid to have their say. We can’t go on like this. Scots deserve the debate to be better than this." Accepted.  So when will they give it to us?

Indeed, the debate surrounding the democratic future of our country is too important to be dominated by Ian Taylor, or to be characterised by either the kind of juvenile smearing contained within their own article or attempts to silence opponents.  That Taylor has seen fit to target National Collective rather than the more powerful national media, combined with the fact that to date Better Together has been uncritically supportive, suggests that the "No" campaign is quite happy to associate themselves with censorship and intimidation.

Of course, this may not in fact be the case.  Ian Taylor and Better Together are of course separate entities. Better Together may make a statement to the effect that it distances itself from Taylor's actions - something which is certainly likely if more of the campaign's supporters make a stand opposing Taylor's attempts at intimidation.  I hope so. If they fail to do so, the obvious conclusion to be drawn will be that Better Together cares less for free speech than it does Taylor's money (irrespective of from whence it came) -  with its democratic credentials being seriously and irreversibly compromised as a result.

Does Better Together care about free speech? I hope so. No doubt we'll soon find out.