How should Lib Dems respond to growing support for independence?


We’re a few months away from elections to the Scottish Parliament and already it looks as if those elections will essentially be a referendum on the Scottish government’s handling of the pandemic and its proposal to hold an independence referendum in the near future.

Nicola Sturgeon, and the SNP government more generally, have not necessarily performed brilliantly during this pandemic. Personally, I think Mark Drakeford has been the stand-out performer. However, the comparison that matters is between Holyrood and Westminster, and in that respect the SNP have been very fortunate that their London-based counterparts have stumbled through this crisis with the levels of competence one would expect from a cabinet that includes Matt Hancock, Priti Patel, Therese Coffey and Dominic Raab. Ms Sturgeon’s administration has been positively adept by contrast.

That does not mean that questions should not be asked of the Scottish government’s performance, but it is worth noting that the First Minister’s public approval ratings are strong – mainly on account of how she is perceived to be steering Scotland through unchartered waters. There aren’t easy points to be gained by consistently attacking the SNP here; what is perhaps needed is for opposition parties to adopt a stance more akin to that of a “critical friend”, generally supportive but calling out poor decisions when appropriate.

This brings me to the other issue – Scottish independence. An opinion poll published at the weekend suggested the SNP and Greens are on course to win 70 and 10 seats respectively, giving pro-independence parties 80 out of 129 seats. That, however, doesn’t demonstrate that a similar majority of the population supports independence. While there seems to be a willingness to trust the SNP and a general approval of its record in government, the same polling showed a much closer gap between support for “Yes” and “No”. In spite of the narrative being spun in certain sections of the media, there’s nothing inevitable about independence.

What we can be sure of is that the issue won’t go away, and we as Liberal Democrats need to understand this. We also need to appreciate that while a pro-independence majority – especially a thumping one, if the polling turns out to be accurate – should be democratically respected, there is a huge difference between securing a mandate for holding a referendum and actually convincing the public to vote for change. There remains a great deal of political and constitutional argument to be had...

How should the Liberal Democrats approach this question?

It’s probably easier to say what we should not do. Firstly, we should not deny the democratic mandate pro-independence parties have secured should they win the majority all pollsters are forecasting. It’s difficult to see how they could do much more than win 48 out of 59 seats in a  General Election and follow it up with 80 out of 129 at Holyrood (under a system supposedly making it impossible to secure outright majorities). I wouldn’t accept that as a mandate for independence, but I’d certainly maintain it entitles pro-independence parties to ask the question. Opposition and obstruction are different things; we should leave the latter to the Tories, who can be trusted to resist any calls (however democratically earned) for a further referendum. We should not wish to be associated with such anti-democracy.

Arguments about the timing of the referendum and the question itself are as legitimate as they are inevitable, as too of course are arguments about independence more generally and what it means for Scotland. Accepting our opposition have the right to ask the question does not imply agreement with the answer. Any referendum would give the Liberal Democrats an opportunity to put across our own distinctive message – so long as we don’t join something like Better Together this time and have our progressive ideas drowned out by reactionary Tories.

And so if – and it is a big if, given the election might be delayed by a few months – the polling is correct and pro-independence parties win an unprecedented majority, our position should be to respect this outcome. It gives them an electoral mandate for a referendum, just as (according to our own rhetoric) a Liberal Democrat majority in the 2019 General Election would have given us a mandate to remain in the EU. The fact that legally Westminster must facilitate it is undeniable, but we should not side with those who would deny the Scottish Parliament the right to consult with its electorate. We are Liberal and we are Democrats.

Secondly, irrespective of the outcome of the elections, we need to avoid citing Alex Salmond’s “once in a generation” quote as a reason not to hold a further referendum. Context is important: Mr Salmond was encouraging people to get out and vote, not seeking to establish a rule and bind his successors. Referenda in mature democracies such as Ireland and Switzerland, which use them regularly, are used as a means of dialogue between the executive and the electorate. They are not seen as a means of settling an issue, but as a process for the government to gain approval for its proposals. As we saw in Ireland in relation to the Lisbon Treaty, if government proposals don’t earn public approval there is always scope for asking the question again or tweaking the proposals in order to make them more acceptable. The length of time between referenda is irrelevant.

In any case, both Brexit and a potentially enormous pro-independence Holyrood majority are exceptional circumstances. There are many reasons why we might feel it is inappropriate or undesirable to hold an independence referendum, but the seven year gap (during which time the UK has had three Prime Minister and three General Elections) isn’t one of them.

Thirdly, as far as independence itself is concerned, we should avoid focusing too much on economics. I say this in spite of recognising that the economic case for independence is, as many others point out, weak. It was the least convincing section of the 2013 White Paper, Scotland’s Future, and there remain more questions than answers as far as Scotland’s economic future is concerned.

However, while it is necessary to point out weaknesses and flaws in proposals, it’s also true that few people support independence because they believe the SNP's economic case is so good. If we are to win this "debate", we need to understand why people are moving towards independence and propose something positive in its place. Focusing on the economics will be counter-productive, not least as the political case is stronger than ever - if we're to arrest the steady but undoubtedly real shift in social attitudes towards independence we need a convincing and compelling response that has an authentic appeal to "the person in the street".

"New" nations seldom start out on their new journeys for economic reasons. Slovenia didn't leave Yugoslavia because the economic arguments were stacked in its favour. Czecholslovakia (effectively the Federation of Czech and Slovak Republics by 1992) wasn't dissolved due to economic factors but nationalist tensions. South Sudan, Namibia and Eritrea gained independence in spite of the economic considerations weighing strongly against separation.

Of course, I am not equating any of these examples with Scotland. What I would suggest is that, while the SNP's economic case isn't strong, we need to counter the growing appeal of Scottish independence with something other than finding holes in overly-optimistic and simplistic economic forecasts. That approach didn't work for Brexit, and ignores the simple reality that so many other factors matter more to electorates.

Fourthly, in the weeks and months before the election, we need to ditch the tired line that "we're in a pandemic and all the Scottish government can do is talk about independence". It won't really work, not least when the First Minister is on TV every day talking about the pandemic while we're publicly obsessing about the undesirability of an independence referendum. It could also be quite easily said that "we're in a pandemic and all the Lib Dems can do is talk about PR / gender identity / federalism / the EU / delivering focus leaflets*" (or maybe that's just my social media feeds...). Instead we need to be talking about the pandemic, about health more generally, about education, and so on. Let the SNP and Greens talk about independence, while we talk about federalism, improving healthcare, getting our schools working and facilitating a fairer society. This is not an exhaustive list – there is a lot we should be standing up for. I should perhaps add that, as important as sound Liberal policy detail is, Liberal Democrats have historically done best when focused on people rather than policy. Getting into petty arguments with nationalists doesn’t really help anyone.

What we need to do is promote our own ideas. I’m not suggesting that we should be passive observers as the independence question evolves and unravels, but I believe that our focus should be on advancing our own alternative proposals. In the last few months it has been heartening to (finally) see the party advocating a workable federalist settlement for the UK. It might be rather late in the day, but we have an opportunity to forge our own path rather than react to – and define ourselves by – what other parties are doing. We have an opportunity to demonstrate our democratic values, our vision for a better future and our hope for new constitutional arrangements that will radically change how the UK works. None of this will be achieved by blocking pro-independence parties carrying out their promise to the electorate.

As a federalist, my default position is that I favour a federal UK. In 2014 I saw federalism as a non-starter and was dismayed by the Liberal Democrats’ participation in Better Together. No meaningful alternative was put forward by those advocating remaining in the Union, and I felt I could not support the status quo. I’d still opt for independence over more of the same.

But a lot has changed in seven years and if the party can demonstrate that another UK is possible – and that’s another big if – then I’m open to being persuaded. If our party’s default position is that the Union is dysfunctional and unfit for purpose then we’re already in a better place than we were in 2014.

There’s nothing guaranteed about independence. One of the surest ways to achieve it would be to actively undermine the democratic mandate of the Scottish Parliament or present facile arguments to object to a referendum. We also need to avoid counter-productive “pro-Union” alliances with the Conservatives.

The momentum is undeniably with the pro-independence parties and it’s going to be difficult to halt the attitude shift among Scottish voters. The incompetence of Scottish Labour and the anti-democracy Conservatives only compound the problem. However, with the argument for independence far from won, we owe it to ourselves and to Scotland (and to the UK, for that matter) to passionately champion a coherent plan for an authentic, radical federalism rather than allow ourselves to become yet another tired anti-independence party.  

The status quo is no longer acceptable: it’s either federalism or independence. It’s time for the Liberal Democrats to fight for what we believe, rather than define ourselves by what we’re against. Let’s either make federalism happen or go down fighting for it.

Comments

Alan D said…
Excellent post.

Unfortunately, as a previous excellent post established, UK federalism is doomed. It can't progress without England's desire, which can't even be expressed for the next three years - never mind implementation. Far too long and slow.

If you really care about the people and democracy, I believe the most important thing to do is be ready for the independence era. Let Labour and Tories fight each other over whose unionism is purer - it will cripple both parties politically for a decade to come. Don't cast the Lib Dems away into the same doldrums.

Please bring your ideas for an independent Scotland. We'll need them.
Andrew said…
I don't see federalism as something that can be achieved easily. And yes, it not only needs to settle "the English Question" but also requires England's desire in order to become a reality.

That said, I am pleased that the Lib Dems have - after years of claiming to be a federalist party without ever putting forward any convincing proposals - begun to talk about federalism seriously. This to my mind is much a more favourable and posiitve option to simply talking down independence and having silly arguments with nationalists on twitter (you may know who I'm thinking of).

I don't yet think that independence is inevitbale, although I it is obvious that the momentum is with the pro-independence camp. I'm not expecting the Liberal Democrats to openly suppoort independence, however much I personally find it preferable to the constitutional status quo; what I hope for, however, is for the party to take up a position between the pro and anti voices. What is the point of holding a distinctive position in the "middle ground" if no-one hears about it?

It may be too late. It is perfectly possible that this ship has sailed long ago. As you point out, there is no easy route to achieving a UK federalism, whatever it looks like. But Lib Dems are not Unionists (well, I'm not anyway) and if Scotland is to leave the UK then it would be much better if we fought for something we genuinely believed in rather than ally ourselves with the shrill unionism of the Tories (and, to some extent, Labour).

"I believe the most important thing to do is be ready for the independence era." I certainly think we need to accept independence as a distinct possiblity and recognise that it may actually create new opportunities for a Scottish liberal party. I understand that fellow liberals take a different line on independence to me - and for some it's something they genuinely fear - but if we feel so strongly the best action to take is to fight for something positive. We should certainly fight the 2021 parliamentary election on a federalist platform.

After that, and assuming that the opinion polls are correct, there will be difficult decisions to make. What we can ill afford to do is defend the status quo and become obstructive towards the pro-independence parties' democratic mandate.

Willie L said…
"I believe the most important thing to do is be ready for the independence era. I certainly think we need to accept independence as a distinct possibility and recognise that it may actually create new opportunities for a Scottish liberal party.”
So why are you a LibDem? A unionist in all but name. In your LibDem fantasy of a Federal UK I believe that Defence would still be a reserved matter for Westminster. I desperately want Trident out of Scotland and the SNP are the only mainstream political party that would get rid of it.
As an aside, your previous boss said she would willingly press the button in a nuclear war!
Do you agree with her?
Your present boss is a Sir, are you sure you are a democratic party?
Or should I ask Ming Campbell (Baron Campbell of Pittenweem) et al?
Why don’t you vote for Scottish independence then vote for a Scottish LibDem party
which wouldn’t be a minor branch office of the UK (English) LibDems?
Andrew said…
"So why are you a LibDem?"

Erm, because my political beliefs are...erm...liberal!?

Why should every independence-sympathetic person join the SNP? Is it a contradicition to hold liberal views and accept that independence is preferable to the constitutional status quo? The SNP is not a liberal party, so why should I join it?

"A unionist in all but name." Nonsense. I've criticised the Union often enough on here. I've stated time and again that it's unfit for purpose. I've even advocated independence for two years from 2012 to 2014. How am I a unionist?

"In your LibDem fantasy of a Federal UK I believe that Defence would still be a reserved matter for Westminster."

Would it? Why would it? The fact is (frustrating as it may be) we simply can't be sure of that, as it depensd on the model of federalism used. Also, there's a difference between "preferred outcome" and "fantasy". I don't think federalism is the most likely outcome, but I think as Lib Dem we have to fight for what we believe in. At the very least we should show the electorate what we're about and what we'd hope to achieve in an ideal world. Let's communicate our values. I don't think an elected House of Lords is going to be easily achievable either, but that doesn't mean we should ditch our belief that it is necessary.

"I desperately want Trident out of Scotland and the SNP are the only mainstream political party that would get rid of it." As someone who has been a member of the Lib Dems Against Trident group for long enough, there are many of us seeking to change this.

"As an aside, your previous boss said she would willingly press the button in a nuclear war!" You see, this is a difference between Lib Dems and members of certain other parties. We do not reverentially see our leader as "the boss". I did not share her view and openly disagreed with her on that issue and many others. As I also did with Farron and Clegg, and now Ed Davey.

"Your present boss is a Sir, are you sure you are a democratic party?"

Again, he's not my "boss", but why should democracy exclude people who, for whatever reasons, receive "honours" such as knighthoods, MBEs, etc. Personally, I have no time for the honours system but a party's democratic credentials are not determined by whether their elected leader has been "honoured". I didn't vote for him but I accept his election was fair and democratic. Of all the things I dislike about Ed Davey, the knighthood is a long way down the list of concerns.

"Why don’t you vote for Scottish independence then?"

I did. Take a look at some of my older posts from 2013 and 2014. Whether I'll vote for it aagin depends on whether we have another binary choice or whether there is a realistic possibility of something I consider to be a better outcome than either previously on offer. As I say, that is a BIG if, but I have right to reserve my judgement pending developments!
Willie L said…
Many thanks for your reply.
Why should every independence-sympathetic person join the SNP? Is it a contradiction to hold liberal views and accept that independence is preferable to the constitutional status quo? The SNP is not a liberal party, so why should I join it?
You ken fine that the SNP are a means to an end. To get independence we must vote for the SNP. I lean tae the left and when we are independent I will vote for whatever party is the most left-leaning but until then I’ll vote SNP.

"A unionist in all but name." Nonsense. I've criticised the Union often enough on here. I've stated time and again that it's unfit for purpose. I've even advocated independence for two years from 2012 to 2014. How am I a unionist?
I was really referring to your political party which is a UK (unionist) one and not a Scottish one. But if you have advocated independence then why are you in the LibDem party? What made you change your mind? Are you what’s called a floating voter?

Do you ever in your wildest daydreams see a Westminster government giving up the power they hold over the UK. Can you see them giving up Trident or having an elected second chamber? The only way we in Scotland can control our own lives is by being Independent and making the decisions for Scotland in Edinburgh. What is wrong with that?
Every other country in the world that I can think of does that. Why do you want Scotland to be different. Why do we need a federal solution when no matter what kind of federalism there is, Westminster would still control Defence and Foreign Policy. Hence English politicians would still decide who our friends are and who our enemies are.

We do not reverentially see our leader as "the boss". I did not share her view and openly disagreed with her on that issue and many others. As I also did with Farron and Clegg, and now Ed Davey.
C’mon, ye ken fine that when I say ‘boss’ it’s a label for your ‘leader’. You seem to disagree with your leaders an awful lot of the time. Why are you still in that party?
Regarding Scotland – what policies have the LibDems put forward that you find acceptable for Scotland? Trident to stay in Faslane and Scotland to pay a share of expensive English projects like HS2?

Personally, I have no time for the honours system but a party's democratic credentials are not determined by whether their elected leader has been "honoured".
Not only your leader. I also mentioned Baron Campbell and there must be loads more with titles. Do you never wonder if the prize at the end of the rainbow is what they are after.
Also how can your party call themselves democrats when they are polluted with titles which are the antithesis of democracy.
Andrew said…
"You ken fine that the SNP are a means to an end. To get independence we must vote for the SNP."

I get that. All political parties are essentially a means to an end and, if we dig deep enough, are usually uneasy coalitions. For me the creation of a Liberal society is something I passionately believe in. The independence issue is, for me, secondary to that - although I'll admit that independence may provide a better vehicle for achieving desired change than the Union every could. I can value and respect contributions various parties make, but as someone with distinctively Liberal politics I don't want to be joining a party that isn't Liberal, whatever their other attributes.

Joining something is, of course, different to voting for something. I have been known to vote tactically in the past. For me much depends on the candidate: there are people within the SNP I have a great deal of admiration for and others I doubt I could ever bring myself to vote for.

"But if you have advocated independence then why are you in the LibDem party? What made you change your mind? Are you what’s called a floating voter?"

You assume I've changed my mind. I haven't. Way back in 2007 I felt we should have supported a referendum. And while I've consistently made the argument that independence is preferable to what we currently have, it's not my "default position" as explained above. There is nothing particularly Liberal about supporting the Union - why shouldn't I be in a party that for years has advocated constitutional change? I admit (although it's no great secret) I don't always see eye to eye with my party leaderships (both Ed Davey and Willie Rennie) but the party is broader than their personal perspectives. There is a range of thought within the Lib Dems on this, as evidenced by this from a fellow Lib Dem member: https://martinveart.blogspot.com/2021/01/post-brexit-britain-and-scottish.html?fbclid=IwAR1HNbP_RJ53lj-gC_eMU-65VN0KdkUbiqfCr75TznOzhFux6PSC3oDF0rM

"Do you ever in your wildest daydreams see a Westminster government giving up the power they hold over the UK? Can you see them giving up Trident or having an elected second chamber?" Not without being forced to. I don't see those with a vested interest in the status quo giving up trident, the FPTP electoral system, the non-democratic Lords, etc... but that shouldn't stop a Liberal party arguing for something better. Sometimes we have to do things because they're the right things to do. I think it's right for us now to be less stridently opposed to independence and embrace new possiblities, but I know I can't convince my party to adopt a pro-independence line. What I do hope is that we'll distance ourselves from the rabid Unionism of the Tories.

"Why do we need a federal solution when no matter what kind of federalism there is?" We don't. It depends exactly on what specific type of federalism is being proposed. Any proposal would need to be examined, dissected and assessed on its merits. There are some federal models I don't think would work. Any federal system that allowed Scotland and NI to be dragged out of the EU against their wills, for example, would hardly be a credible federalism.

"You seem to disagree with your leaders an awful lot of the time. Why are you still in that party?" Why not? Does everyone in the SNP agree with Nicola Sturgeon on everything? I'm a liberal and belong in a liberal party. I would have imagined people who are members of, or support, pro-independence parties would welcome the fact that there are many of us (especially in LD and Labour circles) who don't blindly follow the leadership line and feel there aren't easy answers to complex constitutional questions.
Andrew said…
"Also how can your party call themselves democrats when they are polluted with titles which are the antithesis of democracy?" As explained, I have no time for the honours system. But I understand why various people accept honours that I, if offered the dubious privilege, would refuse. It's not for me to suggest they should be excluded from participating in the democratic processes. I have no respect for formal titles, but I can have some respect for people who hold them - I try look beyond the knighthoods, MBEs and so on that frankly I find irrelevant. I'm more interested in what Ed Davey says on the policy front than I am in his knighthood - while I agree it would be better to have more LD MPs without such titles we do have a little problem with the electoral arithmetic...

I see nothing wrong in fighting for change from within. And, in case anyone thought this kind of blog is powerless to achieve anything, it was my consistent questioning of Tim Farron's religious statements over several years that were eventually taken up by the media. For a long time I was heavily criticised for my stance - even being considered "anti-Christian" (in spite of being a church elder) - but there aren't too many Lib Dems of that view now. The least I can do is make the case for a different approach to my fellow party members.
Willie L said…
“Joining something is, of course, different to voting for something. I have been known to vote tactically in the past. For me much depends on the candidate: there are people within the SNP I have a great deal of admiration for and others I doubt I could ever bring myself to vote for”
I’m 77 years auld and ever since I was allowed tae vote (1961) I have voted for the SNP at every opportunity. My overriding wish is to see Scotland independent so I’ll vote for the SNP until that happens. Then I'll vote for whatever political party is closest to my beliefs. Why can’t you do the same?

"Why do we need a federal solution when no matter what kind of federalism there is?" We don't. It depends exactly on what specific type of federalism is being proposed.
But federalism doesn’t make any sense. There must be UK consensus for Defence and Foreign policies else each federal state would have their own Policies which could differ from the other states. So there must be a central parliament (for want of a better word) where the policies would be agreed. Why bother! Let Scotland make her own decisions in Scotland by Scots for Scots.

“I think it's right for us now to be less stridently opposed to independence and embrace new possiblities, but I know I can't convince my party to adopt a pro-independence line”
Then why don’t you change your political party to one more accepting of your beliefs?

"Also how can your party call themselves democrats when they are polluted with titles which are the antithesis of democracy?" As explained, I have no time for the honours system. But I understand why various people accept honours”….”I try look beyond the knighthoods, MBEs and so on that frankly I find irrelevant”
How can ye look beyond knighthoods and think they are irrelevant? Try telling that to Baron Campbell of Pittenweem – is he the same guy that claimed for a chocolate biscuit during the MPs expenses scandal. Don’t you think him and the rest of the bloodsuckers should have been debarred from politics. Now he sits in the HoL and cannae be sacked, a job for life telling the rest of us how tae live and collecting £330+ per day while he’s doing it. Is that your Liberal kind of democracy? Last night on the BBC news website was this:
Baroness Floella Benjamin has spoken of her pride after receiving a first coronavirus vaccine dose.
The 71-year-old actress said she would wear a badge saying "I've had the jab" after being vaccinated. The Lib Dem peer, who came to Britain in 1960 and was born in Trinidad, is known for appearing in the children's programme Play School and received a damehood last year.
That’s what your party thinks of democracy. That woman should wear a badge saying ‘I’m in the HoL and you’re no’

“there aren't easy answers to complex constitutional questions”
That’s because you are making the questions complex. At the end of the day you have a choice either Scottish independence or a UK dominated by England. It’s as simple as that and I ken which answer I would pick.
Andrew said…
Quite simply - I have philosophically Liberal social and political beliefs, hence i am a member of a Liberal party. I am not a nationalist and never could be. For some people on both "sides" of the debate the question of Scotland's constitutional future is very "black and white", but it's not the case for me - or, indeed, a large number of voters who could potentially swing either way.

I think you misjudge the main purpose in writing this, which is to argue that the Liberal Democrats need to change their message.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about Lib Dems with titles and peerages (especially when such "honours" are not related to political activity), not least beacuse you seem to make the point that someone born in Trinidad should have no role to play in British democracy. I abhor the honours system as well as the system of Lords appointments and it's a discussion I'm happy to have but not in the context of denigrating those who have accepted honours. I don't really understand how Floella Benjamin receiving a Covid vaccination is such a problem to you.

"Then why don’t you change your political party to one more accepting of your beliefs?" Because my political beliefs are wider than the single issue of independence. The SNP do not share my broader beliefs on a range of issues. If I was to leave the Lib Dems I may well consider the Greens as an alternative home, but not the SNP.
Willie L said…
Andrew I think it’s time I departed from your wee world of nonsense.
Open the door sometime and step out into the real world!
“I'm not going to get into a discussion about Lib Dems with titles and peerages (especially when such "honours" are not related to political activity), not least because you seem to make the point that someone born in Trinidad should have no role to play in British democracy.”
Firstly can you please tell me what ‘British democracy’ is? And you think peerages are irrelevant to political life? Surely everything is relevant to politics.
You have twisted my words again!
Last night on the BBC news website was this:
Baroness Floella Benjamin has spoken of her pride after receiving a first coronavirus vaccine dose.
The 71-year-old actress said she would wear a badge saying "I've had the jab" after being vaccinated. The Lib Dem peer, who came to Britain in 1960 and was born in Trinidad, is known for appearing in the children's programme Play School and received a damehood last year.
That is what was written on the BBC website.
I kept the sentence re the jab in because that was why she was in the news. But you decided to twist my meaning by claiming I was derogatory about the woman because she was from Trinidad and should have no role to play in British democracy! You cannae see the oxymoron in ‘British democracy’. This is a political system that your political party supports
That Baroness is now sitting alongside Baron Campbell of Pittenweem in the HoL She is collecting a tidy sum of money and cannot be removed from her post. She is unelected, sitting in an ivory castle, passing judgement on the rest of us and this is a system that all the unionist parties (including yours) agree with. And you say it’s no relevant! Get real.

“How can ye look beyond knighthoods and think they are irrelevant? Try telling that to Baron Campbell of Pittenweem – is he the same guy that claimed for a chocolate biscuit during the MPs expenses scandal. Don’t you think him and the rest of the bloodsuckers should have been debarred from politics”
You didnae answer that question I asked.

"Then why don’t you change your political party to one more accepting of your beliefs?" Because my political beliefs are wider than the single issue of independence. The SNP do not share my broader beliefs on a range of issues. If I was to leave the Lib Dems I may well consider the Greens as an alternative home, but not the SNP.
Fair do’s but as I’ve already pointed out voting for the SNP is a means to an end. When we are independent you can then vote for whichever liberal party appears. What is wrong with that?
And dinnae twist my words.
Andrew said…
I'm not twisting your words - just trying to understand them!

Perhaps your meaning would be clearer if you didn't quote this:

"The 71-year-old actress said she would wear a badge saying "I've had the jab" after being vaccinated. The Lib Dem peer, who came to Britain in 1960 and was born in Trinidad, is known for appearing in the children's programme Play School and received a damehood last year"

And then say...

"That’s what your party thinks of democracy. That woman should wear a badge saying ‘I’m in the HoL and you’re no’".

I honestly don't see what could possibly have upset you in that matter-of-fact statement if not either a) her coming to Britain from Trinidad, b) her involvement with Play School, or c) her receipt of a damehood. I don't see how it causes you to come out with something like "that's what your party thinks of democracy?"

I note in your latest comment you say: “She is unelected, sitting in an ivory castle, passing judgement on the rest of us and this is a system that all the unionist parties (including yours) agree with. And you say it’s no relevant! Get real.” But that has absolutely nothing to do with the quote from the BBC! You do appreciate that her damehood has absolutely nothing to do with her seat in the Lords? I don't see what else within the quote you provided should spark outrage or be perceived as an affront to democracy. It’s clear neither of us have any time for the House of Lords, and Ms Benjamin and Mr Campbell personally, but I honestly have trouble understanding why such a basic statement of fact should lead to spit feathers about “what [my] party thinks of democracy”.
Excuse me if I misinterpreted your intentions, but I was genuinely looking into the provided quote and trying to understand what was so upsetting about it.

It’s not as if SNP supporters such as Brian Souter and Sean Connery haven’t been averse to accepting honours. Former SNP MSP and Presiding officer George Reid accepted a knighthood (having been nominated by the SNP).

The honours system is a completely separate issue to the one I'm discussing here. I find honours personally "irrelevant" in the sense that I don't judge people (either positively or negatively) for having one. Sean Connery will always be Sean Connery to me, irrespective of his knighthood. The same goes for all the others. I've no time for the honours system, but it doesn't mean I don't have time for people recognised by it.

A former teacher of mine was awarded an MBE. A minister of a church I attended also received one. A colleague became a dame for her services to nursing. Should I make negative judgements about such people? No, they're the same to me as they always have been.

Andrew said…
“As I’ve already pointed out voting for the SNP is a means to an end.” I agree. As I’ve pointed out, for me the end I’m interesting is the creation of a liberal society. We can fight for independence across the political spectrum. I think the Scottish Greens would tend to take that view, too.
Referring to the House of Lords, to say that "this is a political system that your political party supports" is absolute nonsense. The Lib Dems have been seeking to replace it for longer than the SNP has been in existence. The fact that our party appoints people to that chamber - as one peer put it, to be "a turkey who votes for Christmas" - doesn't imply support for the status quo. That's a bit like suggesting the SNP aren't pro-independence but only pro-devolution because they've taken seats in the devolved parliament at Holyrood, or at Westminster...

Of course you can take seats in chambers you wish to abolish. Unless you think we should all be like Sinn Fein... but then, you would hardly approve of the SNP if you thought like that.

As for what “British democracy” is – the least I can say is that it’s deeply flawed and unfit for purpose. But I’d defend the right of anyone living here to be involved in it, even if they have been on kids’ TV or received an “honour”...

(Sorry, I've had issues trying to post this, and had to respond in two seperate comments)
Andrew said…
CORRECTION:

In the comments above, I said:

"It’s clear neither of us have any time for the House of Lords, and Ms Benjamin and Mr Campbell personally..."

I meant:

"It’s clear neither of us have any time for the House of Lords, and that you have little time for Ms Benjamin and Mr Campbell personally..."

Unfortunately I can't amend or edit comments so felt I needed to make this clear.
Willie L said…
I have to split my post into two as it is too big.
I must refer to my earlier post regarding the peerage and the Baroness. This is the full paragraph.
"Also how can your party call themselves democrats when they are polluted with titles which are the antithesis of democracy?" As explained, I have no time for the honours system. But I understand why various people accept honours”….”I try look beyond the knighthoods, MBEs and so on that frankly I find irrelevant”
How can ye look beyond knighthoods and think they are irrelevant? Try telling that to Baron Campbell of Pittenweem – is he the same guy that claimed for a chocolate biscuit during the MPs expenses scandal. Don’t you think him and the rest of the bloodsuckers should have been debarred from politics. Now he sits in the HoL and cannae be sacked, a job for life telling the rest of us how tae live and collecting £330+ per day while he’s doing it. Is that your Liberal kind of democracy? Last night on the BBC news website was this:
Baroness Floella Benjamin has spoken of her pride after receiving a first coronavirus vaccine dose.
The 71-year-old actress said she would wear a badge saying "I've had the jab" after being vaccinated. The Lib Dem peer, who came to Britain in 1960 and was born in Trinidad, is known for appearing in the children's programme Play School and received a damehood last year.
That’s what your party thinks of democracy. That woman should wear a badge saying ‘I’m in the HoL and you’re no’
and your answer was “I note in your latest comment you say: “She is unelected, sitting in an ivory castle, passing judgement on the rest of us and this is a system that all the unionist parties (including yours) agree with. And you say it’s no relevant! Get real.” But that has absolutely nothing to do with the quote from the BBC! You do appreciate that her damehood has absolutely nothing to do with her seat in the Lords?” Read that last sentence aloud so that the world can hear it.
***
After reading that paragraph all you took from it was that I was decrying her for coming from Trinidad. Shame on you.
The Baroness has a website and this is at the top of the page:
I was introduced to the House of Lords as a Liberal Democrat Peer in June 2010.
and at the bottom of the page:
You can see more of my political activity on Democracy Live.
And you’re telling me it wisnae political!
And she actually contributes to something called Democracy Live!
It must be a sick joke!
Willie L said…
Andrew I see you still haven’t answered my question regarding the MPs expenses scandal.
Do you agree with me that all the MPs convicted of fiddling their expenses should have (at the least) been barred from having a political career? Yet that sod Baron Campbell of Pittenweem can still pontificate from the lofty towers of the HoL.

It’s not as if SNP supporters such as Brian Souter and Sean Connery haven’t been averse to accepting honours. Former SNP MSP and Presiding officer George Reid accepted a knighthood (having been nominated by the SNP).
The ONLY thing in George Reid’s favour is that according to wikipedia he finished with politics in 2007 and took the Windsors shilling in 2012. As for Sean I stopped sending him christmas cards (along with Billy and Andy) when they took the same shilling.

A former teacher of mine was awarded an MBE. A minister of a church I attended also received one. A colleague became a dame for her services to nursing. Should I make negative judgements about such people? No, they're the same to me as they always have been.
So you’re on first name terms with folk who have accepted an ‘honour’.
What did you do? Did you congratulate them or did you point out the absurdity of it.
Did you tell the teacher who accepted the MBE and also the minister who accepted one that it is only a bauble? Did you tell them that the real prize is given to an ex cricketer and a failed Scottish politician. If I was on first name terms with them then they would surely ken how I feel about ‘honours’ and hopefully would accept my condemnation of them.

The Lib Dems have been seeking to replace it for longer than the SNP has been in existence. The fact that our party appoints people to that chamber - as one peer put it, to be "a turkey who votes for Christmas" - doesn't imply support for the status quo.
What have the LibDem peers ever done to change the HoL?
Can you really see Baron Campbell of Pittenweem voting to do away with the unelected Lords and himself? Can you see the Baroness voting to do away with her unelected ‘honour’?
If they want to play at politics then why don’t they stand for parliament?

It is a fact that ALL the unionist parties support the HoL. And all of them support Trident being in Scottish waters and all of them support Scotland paying her share of expensive English projects.
Have you ever heard Willie Rennie saying that Scotland shouldn’t pay for HS2 or for London Crossrail or any other fanciful English projects.
Have you?

Is there anyone else reading Andrew’s Blog?
Can you say whether I’m right or that Andrew is wrong?
Andrew said…
Hi Willie,

I'll try to respond to your points.

You quoted from a BBC article and, honestly, I still fail to see what has so offended you.

To make things clear, she has been a member of the Liberal Democrats for many, many years and was appointed to the Lords in 2008. She received a damehood last year for her charity work, which is completely distinct and separate to her political activity. I'm not sure what you seriously expect the Lib Dems to do: dismiss someone from party membership if they receive an honour? Would you expect all parties to do the same, including the SNP?

No, there's no "shame on me" because it's been a challenge trying to make sense of your meaning. The BBC quote you gleefully held up as an example of how evil and wicked the Lib Dems are simply stated Ms Benjamin is of Trinidadian origin, presented Play School and received a damehood. I honestly don't see the problem in any of that. If you're issue is with the unelected nature of the Lords, why get personal about Ms Benjamin?

If, like me, your issue is with the honours system itself and political appointments more generally, then we're probably more in agreement than you seem to think. But I'm not going to get personal about either Ms Benjamin or Mr Campbell.

I won't comment on specific cases within the "expenses scandal", as it would be going off on yet another tangent, it all happened over a decade ago and you probably don't want to read what I might have to say about some SNP MPs on the matter. You ask "do you agree with me that all the MPs convicted of fiddling their expenses should have (at the least) been barred from having a political career?" - my answer is that it depends on what was being claimed and why, and whether it was being deliberately dishonest. In many cases I am sure I would agree with you. I would say that things have improved in the 10+ years since, and that's what mattered - we needed a more transparent system.

What did I do with people I knew who received an honour? Nothing changed. I did not congratulate them. I treat them in the same way I always have because I respect them as human beings, friends and colleagues. That is what I mean by it being irrelevant - not (as you seem to think) that this bizarre system doesn't retain some residual cultural relevance, but in the sense that I neither revere nor look down on people for having accepted an honour. I think anyone who knows me well knows how I feel anyway and wouldn't expect congratulations (I know the minister didn't really want it but felt as he'd been nominated by certain people he would disappoint them if he didn't accept).

As for how Ming Cambell has voted on the future of the Lords - he has consistently voted to support an elected second chamber. It should be noted there have been no votes on this however since 2012, when he was still an MP. Lib Dem Lords have certainly voted in the same way, but being vastly outnumbered it's been impossible to make progress.

I support the principle of a second chanber. I think most who oppose the current House of Lords do - it's the undemocratic way it is appointed that is the problem.

I'm not going to go off on another tangent with HS2, but I might point out that the situation you describe is a potential advantage of federalism, if it can be made to work. I acknowledge that is a huge 'if'.
Andrew said…
(again, I've had to respond in two sections)

Plenty of people read this blog; not so many comment on here (I get far more comments on social media). I don't think it's about one of us being right and the other wrong - there's not a huge amount of disagreement on how we view the honours system, more in how we regard people who have received honours.

I like to engage with people through the blog, but please be aware that I am not a full-time political activist and I currently work within the NHS. I don't always have the time to respond as fully as I would like (and especially when the blog's comment system is malfunctioning, as it was yesterday). Over the next few days I will continue to publish any comments but may not be able to respond.
Stewart said…
Hey Andy!

Nice piece. Throughtful as usual.

There's an obvious problem with it. If you're honest you know what this is. This is the kind of thing that needed to be said and acted on years ago. It's way too late now.

But like you I'd prefer to see your party preaching something that it believes in than joining whatever the Unionist Club is called next time. Whether Willie and Alex agree with us is another thing.

I'm very pleased to see a Lib Dem saying publicly that a majority in favour of a referendum should be respected. Good man!

I kind of agree with Willie that you need to join another party, but of course you and I know that should be the Greens. Come on over to the dark side Andy!
Andrew said…
Cheers Stewart. As you've asked the usual question I'm afraid all you'll get is the usual response!
BOBCAT said…
Be careful what you wish for!!!!! We have a federal system here in the US and it is failing badly. We have a political crisis and its not only because of our outgoing president. US federalism is part of the problem but nobody wants to admit it. Like it's sacrilegious to say that our political system is flawed. The federal government has become more powerful and we need to see more power going back to the states, but not even Biden seems willing to rebalance the relationship. So if the UK goes down the federal route then I hope there's a better partnership at the heart of it which may be easier with four nations than 50 states. But I'd say you'll need to define the roles and limits of your federal government before even considering the other important detail. I'd guess you Liberal Democrats are a bit like our Democrats so I wish you well in your endeavors but federalism has its problems. I don't know if I'd vote for independence but then its not my decision to make and I respect whatever Scottish people decide. btw I came here looking for political predictions, I think yours are interesting and I hope you're right about Biden bringing decency and integrity to the White House. We've needed it for so long.
Willie L said…
Andrew you are either naive, gullible or obtuse, or a mixture of each.
I thought this was a political blog showing neither fear nor favour but publishing the facts as you see them.
“I won't comment on specific cases within the "expenses scandal"
“I'm not going to go off on another tangent with HS2”
Why not?
Isn’t that what a political blog is?
Whatever the readers of the blog comment on is what you should be debating.
And you also say,
“I would say that things have improved in the 10+ years since, and that's what mattered - we needed a more transparent system”
The Tories are handing out billions of pounds worth of business to their families and friends and you say it is more transparent.

I posted twice the paragraph in its entirety and you still insist I was decrying the woman for coming from Trinidad. We were referring to the unelected peerage yet you passed over that point and called me out on being a racist. In the words of Homer Simpson – Doh!
“To make things clear, she has been a member of the Liberal Democrats for many, many years and was appointed to the Lords in 2008. She received a damehood last year for her charity work, which is completely distinct and separate to her political activity”
But that’s no what her website says - I was introduced to the House of Lords as a Liberal Democrat Peer in June 2010. And she then goes on to say that she takes part in Democracy Live!
You dinnae comment on the fact she is an unelected peer participating in Democracy. C’mon Andrew, grow a pair and point out the hypocrisy wherever it is or whoever spouts it.

“I like to engage with people through the blog, but please be aware that I am not a full-time political activist and I currently work within the NHS. I don't always have the time to respond as fully as I would like (and especially when the blog's comment system is malfunctioning, as it was yesterday)”
Fair do’s Andrew. I’m 78 years auld on Monday, retired and deaf as a dodo. Consequently I don’t converse with folk but bide in my wee sheltered apartment away from Covid-19. I suppose I’m what’s called a keyboard warrior. I’ve been political since I was 10 years auld in 1953 when a certain woman proclaimed herself the second monarch of that name when she is clearly the first.
Any chance on you giving your thoughts on the monarchy?

*****

Hi Stewart,
“I kind of agree with Willie that you need to join another party, but of course you and I know that should be the Greens”
I’m no fussy what party Andrew joins as long as it’s no a unionist one.
Provided he votes for Independence then it’s fine with me.

*****

Hi BOBCAT,
“I don't know if I'd vote for independence but then its not my decision to make and I respect whatever Scottish people decide”
BOBCAT which way did ye vote in 1776 or in 1812 or when the hundred or so countries either voted for or fought for independence from the UK. They were fed up being colonies of Britain. That is how most Scots feel about the UK today. Scotland has 59 MPs and England has over 500, so not a union of equals. That is why Trident is based in Scotland and no in England. We have been discussing the House of Lords. There are over 700 folk there, none of which were elected. They can’t be sacked . They have a job for life. Make decisions on our behalf and make a tidy wee sum while they do it. Scotland is trapped in this madness and we need to break free. Would you consider changing your Senate so that none of them are elected. All of them would be appointed on the whim of the Democrats and the Republican parties.
Andrew said…
Willie - thanks for your comment.

I WILL respond when I have the time (and to Bobcat) which unfortunately isn't this weekend.

On the first point I'll say that I am perfectly happy to talk about all kinds of things, but I prefer to keep comments on individual posts "on topic". I'm sure you understand that.

Happy birthday on Monday!
Willie L said…
Happy birthday on Monday!
Gracias!
Andrew said…
Hi Willie,

The reason I’m not going to discuss MPs expenses or HS2 in any kind of depth is because this post is about federalism, independence and the Lib Dem response. I like to keep things on topic.

A political blog is about making posts and commenting on specific issues. While I hope I post about a range of issues (sadly not as frequently as I was once able to) I hope that comments to posts are relevant to the subject matter of those posts. While I don’t think blogging is about allowing commenters to set the agenda as you suggest, I am generally happy to respond to any questions– I just don’t want to explore issues in depth that lead away from those being discussed in the main post. Many bloggers simply post their thoughts and don’t engage with their commenters at all, but I don’t like that approach.

You say, quite rightly, that “the Tories are handing out billions of pounds worth of business to their families and friends” and then say “you say it is more transparent.” No, I don’t and I haven’t. I was referring ONLY to the parliamentary expenses system now overseen by IPSA, and it is more transparent now than it was a decade ago. That is entirely different to the corrupt system of patronage and cronyism you refer to. If you’re asking whether I think something needs to be done to ensure transparency in how government contracts are handled, then my answer is that I very definitely do.

“I posted twice the paragraph in its entirety and you still insist I was decrying the woman for coming from Trinidad.”

No, I don’t. I think after your first response to my own comment about this it was obvious that wasn’t your concern, but I felt I should explain why I read it as potentially meaning that. I haven’t even used the word “racist”. I am simply saying that there is nothing to be affronted about in the BBC quote. In fact if your objection to Ms Benjamin is simply that she’s an unelected peer, why just say that rather than quote something from the BBC website about that is of little relevance and only says in passing that she is a peer? I honestly don’t see what anyone could object to in the BBC text unless they felt it was wrong for someone born abroad to take a seat in parliament (which is a perfectly legitimate view, albeit one I disagree with) or they don’t think members of the Lords should have vaccinations. As I have said, I was trying to make sense of what in the BBC snippet was such an issue. As there are over 800 unelected Peers I don’t know why you had to focus on this particular person. But if the point is “unelected peers are an affront to democracy” then I am 100 per cent in agreement with you. I also don’t like filling the Lords with retired MPs, as if being ennobled is something earned for sticking around for a while – at least Floella Benjamin has made positive contributions to society and education and had a life outside politics. There are a lot worse than her around.

If you’re only objection is that Ms Benjamin was appointed rather than elected then I agree with you. What seemed strange is why you should use her as an example, and I was trying to figure out why you might have done that. It doesn’t matter now. We can made points about how undemocratic the Lords is without making personal examples of Peers.

I’ve checked and it was in 2010, rather than in 2008, that she entered the Lords. All the same, this was a decade before she was made a Dame, which had absolutely nothing to do with political activity. Democracy Live is something run by the BBC – an online outlet for political coverage I think. I disagree with appointing peers, but I’d prefer they actually were active in democracy and engaging with politics rather than simply collecting money for doing nothing, as many do. I want peers to engage and promote democracy – I just wish the anomaly by which they are appointed rather than elected could be ended in the very near future.
Andrew said…

So on this issue of the Lords at least I hope we understand each other. On the wider issue of the honours system, I personally think it’s a relic and I’m of the view that it is anachronistic and should be abolished. But I won’t hold people’s honours against them. What I have difficulty with are those who have a sense of entitlement and enjoy wallowing in the respectability honours give them. But then there are plenty of entitled people without an “honour” (think Scottish Labour...)

“I’m 78 years auld on Monday, retired and deaf as a dodo. Consequently I don’t converse with folk but bide in my wee sheltered apartment away from Covid-19. I suppose I’m what’s called a keyboard warrior. I’ve been political since I was 10 years auld in 1953 when a certain woman proclaimed herself the second monarch of that name when she is clearly the first. Any chance on you giving your thoughts on the monarchy?”

Well, happy birthday Willie! Pleased you’re sheltered away from Covid! There are some who hate the term “keyboard warrior” but personally I quite like it and a lot of keyboard warriors have achieved quite a bit! As for my thoughts on the monarchy, I touched on them a few weeks ago here, but didn’t go into detail as I was mainly offering a view on Barbados's decision: http://scottish-liberal.blogspot.com/2020/09/barbados-to-become-republic-in-2021.html

I don’t like to go off on tangents as already mentioned, but I think it’s sufficient to say that I find the monarchy even more of an affront to democracy than the Lords. At least there is the potential to reform the Lords into something resembling the US Senate – monarchy by its nature cannot be made democratic. This has nothing to do with who the incumbent is and everything to do with the fact that the Royal Family and the hereditary principle should have no place in a 21st century democratic state. Kings and Queens belong in history books!

Anyway, happy birthday! I hope when I’m 78 I’m still as fired up!
Andrew said…
Hi Bobcat,

When I saw this comment I thought you were my American friend Bob but it seems not! So thanks for taking the time to comment on my blog.

The first thing I would say is that the fact you’re an American shouldn’t prevent you having a view on Scotland’s future. Of course you have no vote, but neither did I have a vote on the US Presidential Election and that didn’t prevent me from making my preferences clear. What happens in one place can often have an effect somewhere else.

On the specifics of the US model of federalism, I’m not sure anyone would want to copy that. I understand what you say about Americans not wishing to heavily criticise their own democratic structures because of what they mean to you culturally, but most outsiders appreciate the flaws you’ve identified. There are various models of federalism that could be considered, all with advantages and disadvantages, but I very much doubt the US model would be something advocated for the UK. I wouldn’t mind an elected president, however (although I’d probably not adopt the electoral college method).

I don’t know what President Biden’s personal views on your federal system are. Historically the Democrats tend to favour a stronger federal government, but surely Trump has gone so far in that direction that something will have to be done to readdress the balance? It’s not something I’m well-informed on to be honest, but I’d hope the Democrats would want to reverse the recent tendency to centralise power.

You say “if the UK goes down the federal route then I hope there's a better partnership at the heart of it”. I think that is the key to whether a UK federalism is or is not workable. If the federalism being proposed is England-centric then it would not be something I could support. It wouldn’t be a federalism worth its name. Any federalism must be a genuine partnership between four equal nations – or potentially three nations and the English regions. Difficult, but not necessarily impossible.

A serious difficulty is the appeal of federalism to English voters.

I’m not sure if there is a UK party that’s identical to the US Democrats – Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP will certainly share some policy positions with them, however.
Andrew said…
Labour’s proposals on constitutional reform, announced on 31st January, may be of interest. It’s interesting that they deal with a federal UK and the House of Lords, but NOT electoral reform. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/31/keir-starmer-urged-to-back-radical-constitutional-reform-for-uk
Willie L said…
Andrew I’ve sussed oot where ye are coming from. Ye dinnae like upsetting folk so you are trying to fight using the Marquis of Queensberry rules while everyone else is street fighting or in the words of the auld song ‘Anything goes’

“There are a lot worse than her around.” C’mon Andrew. She is an unelected peer who bides in an ivory tower and because of that she can impose her will on the rest of us (whether for good or for ill). If you are in the HoL then you are all tarred with the same brush! Nae ifs or buts. If she wants to persuade the rest of us of her beliefs then stand for election to Parliament.
I’m a wee bit confused. She was admitted to the HoL in 2010 as a LibDem peer yet you say she wasn’t given her dameship until last year? Why was she admitted in 2010?
And once more I’ll reiterate that as we were discussing the HoL and that piece of news about the woman was on the BBC website so it was appropriate to give her as an example of an unelected peer. Also again I’ll say I left the bit about the coronavirus jag in as that’s what the news was about.
And one other thing. The peers in the HoL are forbidden to vote in any general election so why are they allowed in political parties?

“I don’t like to go off on tangents as already mentioned, but I think it’s sufficient to say that I find the monarchy even more of an affront to democracy than the Lords. At least there is the potential to reform the Lords into something resembling the US Senate – monarchy by its nature cannot be made democratic”
Well said but surely the monarchy need the Lords to be a buffer between them and us? You cannot reform the Lords. What you can do is have a second chamber which is elected. You cannot have ‘Lords’ elected. And monarchy by it’s nature can only be centred on one family.. Everyone else must kowtow to them. Not for me. That is why I’ve been a republican nationalist since 1953.
Someone recently gave a quote in an independence forum of which I’m a member. I googled it to discover where it came from. It it still relevant today. This is also for you BOBCAT
"American Independence" Samuel Adams Speech - August 1, 1776
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." That could equally apply to certain Scots nowadays.

“Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you”
An excellent metaphor for the House of Lords and all who sit in it.

I said this to BOBCAT but I forgot to finish it off.
“Would you consider changing your Senate so that none of them are elected. All of them would be appointed on the whim of the Democrats and the Republican parties” - and would have a job for life and cannot be evicted.
Andrew said…
Peers in the House of Lords are not forbidden from voting in UK elections - only General elections as you point out, so I don't see that should prevent them being members of parties - any more than a citizen of a foreign country who can't vote in a GE but can vote at local level.

Anyway, I find the existence of an undemocratic Lords an affront to democracy. Going all the way back through our conversation, your meaning may well have been clearer if you'd said something like "your party has no problem sending people to the Lords" because I wouldn't have tried to work out what had upset you about one particular peer. This is is something many members have struggled with for decades, and in the past there have been attempts by Lib Dem conference to at least ensure party members get to vote on appointments so there's some democratic accountability.

Becoming a "Dame" is like becoming a "Sir". It's all vanity and anachronistic as far as I'm concerned, but becoming either doesn't grant you a seat in the Lords. Ms Benjamin became a baroness I think shen she entered the Lords (one of Clegg's appointments) and only a Dame last year. One was a political appointment, the other an award for her charitable work.

When I'm criticisng the Lords I focus on the institution rather than the people in it. The same as the monarchy for that matter. Obviously I have more time for some people than others, but the merits (or otherwise) of individual Peers matters little compared to the democratic outrages that are the House of Lords and the monarchy.

When I say "reform the Lords" I mean replace it with an elected second chamber. There is definitely a place for a second chamber, as Brexit has shown - often it was the Lords that showed some resistance. That's not a justification for retaining it as it is, but it is a strong argument for a second chamber that scrutinises and challenges legislation. I think there is scope for replacing the Lords with something more democratic, even if the two main parties seem resistant to calls for change. But the monarchy... we should not retain any form of monarchy in a 21st century democracy. It's truly absurd that so many continue to revere an institutional as inherently anti-democratic as monarchism.

I am a member of Republic and I'm frustrated at all political parties' inability to openly criticise even the institution of monarchy. We've had a few openly republican MPs in the Lib Dems, but the party has never backed a pro-republic stance. Even the SNP don't want to come out in support of an independent Scottish republic (if they did, that may well convince me to join!)

Nice quote from Samuel Adams.

It's curious that you say I "dinnae like upsetting folk" because in my professional life I think that's all I seem to do. I work in mental health and spend a lot of my time (especially at the moment) telling people things they don't want to hear. I don't know if that comes across - my intention on here is simply to be respectful even in disagreement.


Willie L said…
Andrew your political stance puzzles me. “I am a member of Republic and I'm frustrated at all political parties' inability to openly criticise even the institution of monarchy. We've had a few openly republican MPs in the Lib Dems, but the party has never backed a pro-republic stance. Even the SNP don't want to come out in support of an independent Scottish republic (if they did, that may well convince me to join!)”
I hope you will accept that the SNP are trying to get ALL electors in Scotland to vote for them and independence.
Why don’t you haud yer nose and vote for the SNP and Independence then post indy you and I can vote for a republican party. Surely that’s an offer ye cannae refuse?
You ken fine that is very possible in an independent Scotland we could have a Republic but impossible while in the UK.

When Jo Swinson was your leader and stated she would push the button in a nuclear war that is when you should have departed the LibDem party. Although looking at what she did when she was in the Tory/LibDem coalition, if you had any principles you would have left then.

I had downloaded an image of Jo Swinson and what her record was when she was a minister in the Tory/LibDem coalition. It will not post here so I’ve written out what it says:
Voted for economically illiterate austerity fanaticism (no sure what that means)
Voted for Theresa May’s ‘Hostile Environment’ (no sure what that means)
Voted for Imperialist warmongering in Libya
Voted for Fracking & takes donations from Frackers
Voted for disability benefit cuts & draconian sanctions
Voted in favour of unprecedented repression of UK workers wages
Repeatedly Voted to slash public services like NHS, social care, police & education
Employment minister when unlawful and discriminatory Tory Tribunal Fees were introduced

Andrew, why did ye no resign from the party when that woman was your leader?
Andrew said…
I understand perfectly well why the SNP won't take a pro-Republic line - for much the same reason the Lib Dems won't. All I'm saying is that any party that dared to even openly debate the issue may well get my vote.

The fact is that the kind of constitutional issues we're talking about here, especially electoral reform, the House of Lords, replacing the monarchy, scrapping the honours system, etc. don't really matter a jot to many voters. I understand that. But it matters to me. As you point out for the SNP, the end justifies the means - I'd say this is also true of other parties too.

I was not a fan of Jo Swinson, or the people advising her. Why didn't I resign then, or even when Tim Farron became leader (as I'd been very critical of him before his leadership)? Simple - the party is bigger than the leader. And in both Tim and Jo's case it was quite obvious to anyone that neither of them would be around for very long - Tim tying himself in knots over the "gay" issue and Jo focusing on daft things and believing her own myths - well, it was only going to end one way. In Jo's case I didn't think she'd be so naive to go for an election quite that early, but it was clear that her tactic of appealing to dissatisfied Tories and trying to out-Tory the Tories on the Union wasn't going to work. I felt soem sadness as the terrible election result, obviously - but when the dust settled also a fair bit of relief.

I'll admit that when Tim became leader I did think about leaving, but opted to stay and urge party members to take a closer look at what he's said and done on particular issues. Helpfully, the media took up the line I'd been pressing for several years, and there are few in the party now who would offer much of a defence for Tim. It was people like me that Tim was spitting feathers about in his resignation speech, which shows that members can wield influence.

Mind you, now we have Ed Davey who's not the most inspiring person. The fact is I am not in the party because I'm inspired by a particular leader, but because I'm a Liberal. If therte are people who were influential in me joining the party then they were local Lib Dem councillors and activists - as far as leaders go I tend not to offer blanket support but will either applaud then ot openly criticise on an issue by issue basis. As far as Tim was concerned my view was that he should never have been anywhere near the leadership but, unfortunaetly, losing most of our talented people in the 2015 election means there were few other options. The same is true of Jo, too - she might not have been my choice (I couldn't bring myself to vote for either candidate in that election) but when we had so few MPs to choose from there were few other candidates.

I express my views and frustrations on here, and sometimes also at party conference (which is famous for defeating the leadership at least once a year). I think I'll always be a bit awkward and certainly not someone who defines themselves by the wider party or by whoever happens to be the current leader.

I've outlasted four leaders now. Our party will outlast many, many more.
Andrew said…
Basically, I don't think politics is about resigning all the time - which only serves to abandon the party to those with opposite views - but about making a stance and hopefully a difference where you are. I actually believe I can make a much stronger, and more infleuntial case, for Scotland's future as an off-message Lib Dem than I ever could as an anonymous SNP member.
Willie L said…
“The fact is that the kind of constitutional issues we're talking about here, especially ..., the House of Lords, replacing the monarchy, scrapping the honours system, etc. don't really matter a jot to many voters. I understand that. But it matters to me. As you point out for the SNP, the end justifies the means - I'd say this is also true of other parties too”
Andrew, you are either naive (or gullible). All these things you’ve listed are things the LibDems are in favour of AND they want to keep Trident at Faslane.

“I was not a fan of Jo Swinson, or the people advising her. Why didn't I resign then, or even when Tim Farron became leader (as I'd been very critical of him before his leadership)? Simple - the party is bigger than the leader”
Andrew, when Jo Swinson was the party leader she WAS the party. She was the poster girl for the LibDems. What she said was party policy. When she said yes, I’ll press the button, she meant it. Nae ifs or buts. What about when her and her colleagues were in bed with the Tories to form a government? Your party were in cahoots with the Tories and willingly took part in drastic cutbacks of social services and policies to help the poor. There was bugger-all Liberal or Democratic about that time in government. Yet you shut your eyes and consoled yourself with the thought that she wouldn’t last long! Shame on you.

I was rummaging in my politics folder and I came across another poster featuring Jo Swinson. It reads:
Jo Swinson’s ‘achievements’
voted for austerity and Trident
voted for Tuition fees and the Bedroom tax
voted against the Fracking Ban & minimum wage rise
voted for zero hours contracts
campaigned for a statue of Thatcher
missed crucial Brexit votes
and you still buried your head in the sand.
Shame on you again.

Andrew I’ve enjoyed our wee tête-à-tête but it is my opinion you are neither liberal nor democratic. You pay lip service to these words but in reality whatever the LibDem party says then you endorse it by being a member. You can proudly state that you didnae support Jo Swinton or Tim Farron but your party did and that is all that matters.
Can you point to any policy that the LibDems have solely regarding Scotland.
As far as I can see ALL the unionist parties have a one size fits all policy where if it is good enough for England then it is good enough for Scotland. And of course all of them support Trident in Scotland, including your party.
Andrew said…
I've quite enjoyed it too Willie.

It's always easy to accuse Liberal Democrats of being "neither Liberal nor Democratic" - it tends to be what one group within the party call another. But I think we have to define what Liberal and Democratic mean. As far as leadership elections go, resigning whenever my preferred candidate doesn't win is hardly accepting democracy.

I'd also hope that we might agree that someone who believes in civil liberties, individual rights, social justice, government as locally as possible, secularism, internationalism, gender and racial equality and so on is philosophically Liberal.

As you will see with the piece I've written - and many others besides if you care to look - I'm often arguing for my party to take a different line. On this occasion I'm saying that, if the Scottish parliament votes for a further referendum then we don't try to block it and we don't ally ourselves with the Tories in Better Together Mark II. I don't see what's illiberal or undemocratic to seek to use democratic means to argue for change from within.

You could say I'm misguided or that my efforts are wasted. But political parties are never perfectly "pure" ideologically. I don't see how joining a party that does not commit itself to the pursuit of liberalism could possibly be the "liberal" thing for me to do.

As for the "shame on you" comments, that's not what I'm saying and I don't think you're making any serious attempt to understand me. For you, it's simple - if you're in any party and you disagree with the leader then you should instantly resign on the spot (far be it for anyone to stay where they are and offer some resistance or alternative ideas) - except if you're in the SNP of course and then you should stay loyal because the end goal of independence is all that matters. I don't see things in those black-and-white terms.

And I'd say you're wrong on this because actually what matters for independence is that the Scottish parliament has a majority of MSPs willing to vote for it - it doesn't particularly matter which party they're from. Party discipline within the SNP is also a bit of an illusion, as we've seen with the Edinburgh West fiasco and this week the Joanna Cherry debacle. A pro-indy voice is a pro-indy voice, and I won't accept that SNP voices are more valid than others.
Andrew said…
One correction - "what she said was party policy". Not necessarily; it was only party policy if it reflected decisions made by conference, because that's who makes policy in the Lib Dems. When she answered questions during the election campaign she gave her personal view, but it was not always official policy. Indeed, much of coalition policy was at odds with Lib Dem policy (competing priorities became a real problem in the coalition years as ministers felt more bound to collective cabinet responsibility than to conference policy decisions). The leader is NEVER the party and party members certainly don't see them as such. It's a completely different culture to other parties, such as the Conservatives or Labour where the leader is all important. Of course the media often fail to understand this and Jo's more presidential approach didn't help things, but to say the leader is essentially "the party" is not something any Lib Dem member would accept.

The conversation about Trident has never been clear-cut in the Lib Dems and has often been fraught. We don't speak with one voice on this and some of us were frankly appalled by Jo Swinson's "nuclear" answer. As for the Scottish Lib Dems supporting Trident remaining at Faslane, I refer you to this from 2012: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/29/tories-lib-dems-trident
While I was no fan of the half-baked policy that made it into the 2019 manifesto, this was the product of compromise and confusion (support some kind of deterrent, but remove Trident) than a pro-Trident line. We have to go a lot further than the current policy and some of us are determined to argue for a much stronger policy position, but to claim it supports the status quo suggests you don't actually know what our policy is. (Maybe no-one does, and that's the problem...)

Do Lib Dems have any policy solely regarding Scotland? Well, Scottish policy is set by Scottish members at Scottish conference. I haven't been since 2015 (childcare issues, unfortunately) but policies are adopted separately in Scotland (and Wales). One such example is fiscal policy for Scotland. While Liberal Democrats won't usually think of Scotland in isolation and we may well want to see similar Liberal-minded policy in place in Wales and England as much as in Scotland, our internal workings allow for policies to be made at Scottish level. And so last year Scottish conference passed policy motions in support of childcare provision for student parents, a plan for Scotland's economic and community development based on decentralisation, Clyde shipbuilding, early years schooling, fuel poverty in Scotland and addressing homelessness. Some of those could easily be applied to the rest of the UK (if federal conference was to adopt a similar or near-identical policy) but at the moment they're applicable only to Scotland. In some cases, such as the education and economic/community development motions, they're so specific to Scotland that they couldn't easily be lifted and applied anywhere else. (There will be other examples of policies specific to Scotland - turning Scottish Water into a public benefit corporation was one of them - but I am not going to go through the last few years of conference decisions.)
Andrew said…
We're a party with many weaknesses and flaws, but we certainly do not adopt a "one size fits all" policy. I mean, I'm not sure if I've been to a conference yet when the usual suspects don't make (perfectly valid) observations about what's good in Edinburgh not necessarily being good in Orkney and Shetland, and so on.

I pick my fights and I recognise I can't win them all, but I find it preferable to walking away. And I think we can make change happen - I've taken a different line to the leadership on independence for the last 8 1/2 years, but after initial hostility I'm finding more and more Lib Dems are now thinking similarly, at least in that they don't want to uncritically defend a Union that they can see is unfit for purpose...
Willie L said…
This is taken from an article on the BBC website yesterday
Sir Ed Davey: Energy and climate secretary in the Lib Dem-Tory coalition

(Regarding Brexit) "In Scotland it's particularly important that people know that the party is absolutely clear that we are a party that wants to remain in the UK and works toward that eventual end goal of being able to return," said Edinburgh West MP Christine Jardine.
"You don't argue in favour of joining one union by breaking up another."

The Lib Dems' leader in Scotland, Willie Rennie, agrees. "We shouldn't repeat the mistakes of Brexit with independence," he says. "Independence would be Brexit on stilts."

Help ma boab and jings crivvens.
Davey was also in bed with the Tories.
He was never punished nor ostracised.
Him and Swinson became leaders of the LibDems yet you still were in that party.
As I’ve said previously you are no liberal or democrat.
You just pay lip service to these words.
If you had any principles you would have left that party. (only the once and no as you suggest umpteen times).
Also Christine Jardine MP and Wullie Rennie denigrating the majority of folk who support independence in Scotland.
That’s your parties idea of democracy.
No thanks.
Andrew I’ll leave you to it.
Wha kens, perhaps we’ll meet again in an independent Scotland where you and I might be supporting the same republican party.
Au revoir