A Scottish Liberal

Lib Dem bloggers quiz Scottish leader Willie Rennie

2012-02-25T02:27:00.019-08:00

The cream of Scotland's Lib Dem blogosphere was invited to put questions to Scottish leader Willie Rennie in Edinburgh on Wednesday evening. Unfortunately Caron Lindsay was unable to attend, but myself, Douglas McLellan, Gavin Hamilton and Nicola Prigg were present to ask Rennie some timely and sometimes challenging questions on a range of issues facing Scotland and the party.

"I'm a Home Ruler"

Given my often expressed support for constitutional change and Scottish independence in particular, I kicked things off with a question on the position the party will take during the coming referendum campaign. "Do you recognise the liberal case for independence?" I asked, pointing out that Liberal leader Jo Grimond had once observed that "not to go far enough may be worse than going too far". Many liberal objectives could be far more easily achieved in an independent Scotland than via the current political arrangements - would it not be advantageous having the opportunity to remove the ties that bind and start again? I also asked whether the party recognised that many members' convictions are at odds with the party leadership on this matter, and whether all members would therefore be free to campaign as their consciences and convictions dictated.

In regards the members' convictions, Rennie intimated that he recognised this and would naturally be happy to let people campaign as they saw fit, even candidates, but added "I'd prefer if you didn't".

Rennie was quite dismissive of the "liberal" case for independence, arguing that it would require withdrawal from the EU to achieve some of the liberal aims I referred to. I was not at all convinced by this, but didn't press it further. Rennie reiterated that he is an internationalist, stressed that Scotland is not "a nation by itself" and underlined his conviction that the best way forward was in "sharing common status in every part of government...sharing wherever possible". He went on to argue that the UK platform increases Scottish influence: "to opt out would be a mistake", he insisted, especially in relation to international development. Separating from that is not advancing liberal principles, he concluded.

But what about the localism that the Lib Dems preach with such gusto, I queried. Nicola Prigg was also keen to discuss the constitutional question and seemed concerned at the lack of a federalist vision being advocated by the party. Douglas McLellan (also independence-sympathetic) was interested in discussing economic factors and the nature of that mysterious and ill-defined beast, Home Rule.

There exists established expertise and reputation, argued Rennie. The established unit has integrity and, despite what some may think, culture is a major aspect that binds together. UK economic strength, international respect for the military, the long-term security provided by the welfare state are all positives that should be retained. He went on to dismiss what is popularly referred to as "Devo Max": what that amounts to, demonstrated Rennie, is a full fiscal autonomy which is merely one step away from independence. It would take just a short-term crisis to trigger a constitutional break-up and simply reverses the current position whereby Scotland is dependent on London. London would instead be dependent on Scotland. What's so liberal about that?

What Rennie supports is "Home Rule", which is entirely different from "Devo Max", although I'm not too sure the general public fully appreciate the distinction. Rennie is a passionate Home Ruler (Gladstone would be proud) and he's keen to further the cause of "Home Rule" which he described as "full fiscal federalism". Why the federal party has done precious little in recent years to facilitate this vision he didn't say, but he did explain some of the thinking behind his position. He believes his "federalist Home Rule" vision will offer security for the future not inherent in the loose proposals that form Salmond's "Devo Max" option. But he admits that there are reasonable "objections to Westminster" which need addressing urgently. Scots voters are frustrated that there is no mechanism and "no power through which to do things differently" and this must be changed. In regards the financial settlement, Rennie insisted that "we should raise what we spend" and dismissed the Barnett formula as unfit for purpose. "It doesn't meet Scotland's needs", he said.

So, I asked, what about a second question on the ballot paper? Surely there is an opportunity here for the Lib Dems to achieve the very objectives we claim to champion. If, as expected by many, Salmond loses the referendum, a second question relating to a devo-max/Home Rule option will give the Lib Dems 1) a reason to campaign positively in the campaign, 2) influence usually beyond our parliamentary representation, 3) the scope to influence the question and 4) the best opportunity in decades to actually have liberal principles and our vision for Scotland's constitutional future translated into reality.

Rennie answered in the negative. Not a single academic supports a two-question referendum, he stated as justification. (I told him I'm sure I can find at least one and will return to him on that point.) A second question would be "treated as second class" (by who I'm not sure). So what position will the Lib Dems take up in the referendum campaign? We will "work up the programme to be delivered" he suggested, "using the big debate to influence other parties." Elaborating on that last point, Rennie focused on Westminster as a sphere of influence to be exploited by the Lib Dems and where we can work constructively with other parties to achieve results. But surely that effectively rules out a positive working relationship with the SNP?

Personally, I am convinced that Willie Rennie is far more fearful of "Devo Max" than he is determined to make "Home Rule" a reality. It is a great pity because I believe the party's underestimating the unique opportunity that stands before us. I explained to him that if there was a well considered, practical, broadly liberal and visionary proposal for Scotland's future included on the ballot form even I may be tempted to vote "no" on the first question. Unfortunately, this had little effect.

"Hug a Tory"

Nicola Prigg asked what we should make of David Cameron's recent intervention. We were all more than a little surprised when he insisted that not only was this welcome but that we should take it at face value and embrace it. Cue lots of talk about hugging Tories in which I felt quite uncomfortable (visions of Theresa May don't help!). I asked if Rennie felt Cameron's words were substance or simply a symptom of political tactics - he seemed quite convinced that Cameron is genuine, something Nicola didn't seem entirely sure about.

Rennie was bound to get round to discussing Alex Salmond at some point and he didn't disappoint. According to Rennie, Salmond is "distorting his mandate" with an "obsession for independence", something that has only been evident since the election. Rennie bemoaned the fact that the SNP were keen to be addressing many issues before the 2011 election, but now only seem concerned by the constitutional question. I did point out that it was his predecessor Tavish Scott who had spent so much time talking about independence and telling anyone who would listen that "a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence" that we can hardly complain now.

Douglas McLellan asked if Rennie could be clear about what we will offer in the future and how it will be achieved. Rennie was keen to explain that this is a "big test" for the party: "can we get what we want delivered in this window of opportunity? As for the second question, no academic supports it. We have to have confidence in the mechanism. What Salmond is trying to do is drive a wedge between people who support Home Rule, trying to cause chaos in the likes of us." He did add that the right way of looking at the constitutional question is to start from the basic question of "what will a future Scotland look like...what do we want it to look like?"

What's the point of the Liberal Democrats?

Gavin Hamilton asked Rennie "what are the Liberal Democrats for?" Rennie pinpointed four key principles which he believes define the Scottish Lib Dems: opportunity, community, internationalism and sustainability. He went on to explain that we are a party of "enduring values" committed to "liberating people". He talked about the need for emphasis as well as principle and policy, describing how the emphasis the party has placed on equal marriage is now bearing fruit. He also explained how the party's identity and role can be determined in how it responds to events, such as when it stood up to Alex Salmond in respect to his remarks about the Supreme Court and the English riots.

"Innovation in public service"

Nicola Prigg asked a complex question about the future of Scotland's public services and how the Lib Dems can promote a credible package of positive reform. Rennie seemed at ease describing how liberals would remove targets, decentralise control, lighten the audit regime and empower staff. He cited recent reforms of the police service as an example of when government gets things badly wrong and control is taken back into the centre. He criticised the current "risk averse" culture of public services, condemning the "safety first, anti-innovation, controlling" attitudes that are almost synonymous with Scotland's public services and instead advocated control from the bottom. How should the state respond? With "innovation in public service...[and by] encouraging and embracing community capacity and voluntary action." He talked about the need to change attitudes councils and the independent/voluntary sectors, particularly the perception that if the council doesn't directly offer a service it isn't good enough. Rennie seemed particularly keen to paint a picture of a future Scotland in which standards were retained and built on by services becoming more responsive to the needs of individuals and communities.

Town Centre rejuvenation

Nicola asked Rennie how he proposed to tackle the problem of declining town centres. Describing the experience of her home town of Ayr, she wanted to know what ideas the Lib Dem leader had for town centre regeneration. Rennie was also keen to talk from experience, referring to recent developments in Dunfermline (clearly the centre of the political universe). He talked at some length about how responsible town planning and citing new developments responsibly and with consideration to the likely impact on town centre trade can yield positive results. For example, the new Debenhams in Dunfermline created a significant increase in footfall into the town centre. While the online trade and move towards more leisure experiences inevitable draw people away, there is a positive future for town centres if responsible planning can "create anchors" and marketing is improved. Rennie also discussed the need to stimulate enterprise, focusing on building the confidence of potential entrepreneurs and empowering them to take elements of risk. "Is reluctance to establish new business a question of attitude or finance?" he queried, suggesting that in his mind it was generally due to a mixture of the two.

"Change the language"

Douglas wanted to know Rennie's views on the impact and potential of modern campaigning and social media. What was the impact of social media at the last election, what is it likely to be in future elections and what impact does it have on activist engagement? Also, as a party, are we falling behind?

Rennie praised a few of his office staff for their contributions, especially on twitter. He then turned to the "Nationalist agenda" to change the language people are using. He described a "cybernat network" which has aspirations to "challenge the way debate is described". At times this is unhelpful, for example when the SNP's reaction to the English riots was to suggest "we're different" at a time of great travesty. That encouraged more people to say such things, said Rennie. "But the serious point is this: how do we convey our values online?" We also have to reconsider the language we are using to frame the arguments and more effectively communicate our principles.

"The brand"

I asked Rennie about the need to develop a Scottish Lib Dem "brand". Ideally one that was positive. "We need to move away from the 'managerial mode' of the Blair-Brown era" indicated Rennie. "We must move away from the prescriptive to the visionary. The SNP recognise this. While Iain Gray was talking about X number of police officers and Y number of knife crimes, Alex Salmond was painting an appealing vision that was actually attractive to people and we need to replicate that positively in a language people understand."

Rennie seemed suspicious of my suggestion, preferring to emphasise the need for substance over appearance. But there's no doubt that the party needs to be a professional campaigning outfit and he claimed that consideration had been given to "the brand" as I called it - and in particular areas of identity that the public recognise and can associate with. These are the overall vision (where do we go?; what would a liberal Scotland/world look like?), our behaviour now (how we say things; our tone of voice) and our history (record; where we've come from - in the case of Home Rule, it's "in the blood").

"It will be our time again!"

Gavin was interested in Rennie's views of the Lib Dems' prospects in the forthcoming local elections and beyond. "Local elections? That's what Lib Dems do best!" laughed Rennie, reminding me more than slightly of A. A. Milne's Tigger. "It will be our time again" he pronounced, especially if the party can "prioritise" what it communicates, pursuing issues that "advance the belief in liberalism, not just the party". But isn't that the kind of blind optimism so often projected by Nick Clegg, the "take it on the chin - we'll bounce back" assumptions which fail to appreciate the gravity of the situation we're in?

Optimistic? Yes, agreed Rennie. But not blind. I reminded him of my call for him to lead a liberal renaissance. "I can only control the controllables...and being in government for eight years did very little for the policy development process. But the Liberal Futures work is doing some useful work and we're leading local action in communities. There's reason to be positive."

I must confess to being less than convinced on that score.

Equality matters and CARE

I asked a question from the Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth about Rennie's acceptance and continued use of an intern supplied by right-wing "Christian" organisation CARE. I also asked what, beyond equal marriage, can the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish government do to facilitate greater equality and respect for diversity of which the legal definition of marriage is simply one piece. I also pointed out that, while the Lib Dems have historically been good on LGBT rights, too often the needs of bisexual people are overlooked and trans people ignored. How can this be rectified?

This can only be achieved by cultural change, insisted Rennie, of which the government and the party are but individual drivers. He's obviously a believer in society driving social change, with politicians providing a great deal of the energy. He recognised that equal marriage is merely one step- but a highly significant and hugely symbolic one which will do a lot to "normalise" same-sex relationships and remove the stigma.

His answer in respect to his CARE interns was what I expected rather than hoped for. Rennie said it was vital not to "disrespect those who think differently" and talked up the value of his CARE interns: "they are quality people making a positive difference to the party". Indeed they might be, I interjected, but that isn't Kelvin's concern. The issue is with the organisation and [Rennie's] willingness to receive gifts from and be associated with this right-wing group. This didn't appear to concern him much, and he was dismissive of the criticism. "The idea that these people can influence policy is ill-founded. In accepting them we are saying that we are a tolerant and open party willing to engage with others." Hmmm. We could still do that without our leader taking CARE's interns - we are, after all, a party that had Gordon MacDonald as a parliamentary candidate - and it seems a fundamentally flawed logic to me. I wonder if Rennie would be so keen to accept interns from a myriad of other less than savoury organisations in a quest to show "tolerance"?

Welfare reform

Nicola was keen to ask Rennie about the Westminster government's welfare reforms. Rennie was equally keen to explain that this is simply another example of how, as a minor partner in a coalition government, we are unable to get everything our own way. he stressed the positives: notably the universal credit which he claimed was overdue and the work programme. He described how current arrangements have become more of a trap than a safety net and while housing benefit changes are "tough" it is vital to take a look at incapacity benefits. The fitness to work test must be "robust" and take into account "the variability of [certain] conditions". The proposals might not be perfect, but Liberal Democrats "are pushing internally for the changes we want [and] Steve Webb is very active in this even if he doesn't shout about it."

Unfortunately our time with Willie Rennie concluded here and we were unable to ask further questions on new groupings within the party, Lords reform, Gaelic education and Rangers FC.

Many thanks to Willie Rennie for his time and to Caron Lindsay for setting up the event. I believe this was a valuable and useful event, allowing us not only the opportunity to touch base with the party leader but also to gain insights into some of his thinking. While I didn't agree with all of it, I was impressed by his thoughtfulness and his unquestionable honesty.

I must also thank all of those who sent me questions to put to Willie (mainly on constitutional issues) which I tried to incorporate into my own line of questioning.

Why not take the political test?

2012-02-20T13:36:00.000-08:00

Apparently, I'm a cosmopoltian social democrat (you see there was me thinking I was a Scottish liberal - I was wrong all the time).

This is based on the following analysis of my political understandings:

I would have thought I was a little more ecological than that - perhaps it's how the questions were worded.

Have a go yourself at http://www.politicaltest.net. Now, I'm off to join the continuing SDP (or should that be the continuing continuing SDP?).

Is there anything you'd like to ask Willie Rennie?

2012-02-20T12:56:00.000-08:00

Myself and some other leading Scottish Lib Dem bloggers are heading over to Edinburgh on Wednesday to interview party leader Willie Rennie.

The other bloggers are the effervescent Caron Lindsay, the intelligent and deep Nicola Prigg, the sagacious Gavin Hamilton and the perceptive Douglas McLellan (sounds like an edition of QI, doesn't it?).

I must admit to not being Jeremy Paxman, but then again Willie isn't Winston Churchill so hopefully I'll get a word in and perhaps even ask the odd tough question.

We've been having some interesting discussions between us about what we should ask him and there appears to be broad consensus on certain issues, even if we take different views. But we've got a bit of time and I'd like to use this opportunity to ask Willie the questions you want asking. Whether you're a party member or not even Lib Dem sympathetic - if you've got any interesting questions you'd like me to put to Willie then please leave them below.

I don't make any promises that I'll be able to ask or that Willie will answer! But it would be useful to carry in my armoury some ammunition supplied by "real people" with an interest in Scotland's future.

Now, you're going to have to some back again on Friday (when I've had time to write up a report of events) and see how well Willie performed!

Carey: equal marriage is a "power grab".

2012-02-20T08:20:00.006-08:00

In the news today is former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey (I won’t refer to him as Lord Carey, as he doesn’t merit that particular title). Like most retired clergy, he appears to have little to concern himself with other than an obsession with same-sex marriage – which probably tells you all you need to know about the motivations of his ilk.

Speaking to the Daily Mail (obviously the ideal forum for the supposedly politically neutral crossbencher), Carey addresses the issue of same-sex marriage; in particular he refers to proposals to change the status of marriage to make it inclusive and apply to same-sex couples as “one of the greatest political power grabs in history”. Clearly Carey knows little about either power-grabs, history or both.

Carey targets Prime Minister David Cameron rather than Liberal Democrats equalities minister Lynne Featherstone who is actually spearheading the government’s proposals. He is dismissive of Cameron’s contribution to the debate at his party’s conference in which he described support for “gay marriage” as “Conservative”: Carey claims to have been “baffled by this statement…Not because I begrudge rights and benefits to homosexual couples. I was baffled because this Government’s proposal constitutes one of the greatest political power grabs in history…The state does not own marriage... The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.”

Which begs the question – if the state, which legislates for and legitimises marriages and partnerships, does not “own marriage” who does? Society, which is broadly supportive of equality? I can’t see Carey promoting that one. The idea that God (as indicated by Carey as preceding both the state and the church) has a monopoly or ownership on the legal recognition of committed sexual partnerships can not be sensibly considered; it is both absurd and theologically flawed. As for the church, it’s certainly positive that Carey is happy to resign the “ownership” many of his fellow Christians believe the church should exercise, but perhaps he’d be better telling that to his friends in the Coalition for Marriage (C4M – sounds a bit like an American TV channel) who seem to share different views.

Carey tries his utmost to come across as tolerant and an advocate for LGBT rights but he fails miserably. His pseudo-intellectual critique fails to disguise his ill-veiled prejudices. He would like us to believe that he is not in principle opposed to equality legislation but simply the political process (the “power-grab” behind it). In that case, why side with the Coalition for Marriage; why oppose the legislation and take the opportunity to take cynical asides which have the potential to poison an already tense political atmosphere?

In regards “power-grabs”, Carey’s accusation demonstrates a curious lack of insight. Here is an unelected former bishop using our parliamentary system and his privileged position at the heart of it to champion views that are representative of a minority – both within society and the church he represents. When such unrepresentative individuals complain about their small-minded opposition not being imposed and legally enforced on the rest of us, it does make you ask who really is making an attempt to grab power. Not Cameron and Featherstone for sure. Nor the LGBT community.

Perhaps Carey is simply keen to demonstrate the irrelevance of his position and the urgent needs for House of Lords reform – quite timely given the announcement that a number of Conservative peers are threatening to rebel against the government’s entire legislative programme if such reform is given the green light. I have little difficulty in accepting that Carey has the right and freedom to express whichever views he wishes; however, he should not do so from the privileged and comfortable position of a seat in the House of Lords. And whether it's tactically wise for him to show how out of touch he is with mainstream opinion (both Christian and otherwise) is another matter entirely.

A spokesperson for C4M insisted that the proposed equality legislation was being “driven by the forces of political correctness and a handful of single-issue pressure groups.” Clearly he sees the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Labour Party, large parts of the Conservative Party, the Green Party and the predominant view of society as a whole as marginal voices of political correctness. Presumably Carey, while not expressing such views outright, shares them given his support for C4M. When will these people realise that this is not a minor concern of a few “single issue pressure groups”, but a vital question of equality, respect for diversity and the promotion of a fair society?

This isn't a "power grab" at all and it's a dishonest - not to mention socially divisive - tactic for George Carey to use. He udnerstands full well what he is doing and should, as a Peer of the realm, behave more appropriately. Many of us see no good reason to continue to perpetuate the inequality entrenched within current marriage law - we simply want the same rights for LGBT people as those who are heterosexual. There's no need to wrap in in dogmatic theology or intellectualise about it - it's simply a matter of fairness.

Fortunately George Carey and the various single-issue pressure groups campaigning against equality are becoming increasingly desperate as their social irrelevance becomes more obvious. Their campaign is doomed to failure because it deserves to be; not simply because society has moved on from their narrow-minded prejudices, but because their objections are based largely on a fatuous and ridiculous logic.

Such opposition is likely to be counter-productive; if Carey’s comments prove anything it’s that neither Salmond’s government in Holyrood nor the coalition in Westminster can allow these fundamentalists to frame the debate or dictate the political outcome. I have every faith (no pun intended) that both governments have the necessary backbone to stand up and deliver for equality, and kick religious homophobia into the place it belongs (and I’m not talking about the benches of our second chamber either).

I eagerly await positive developments on the equal marriage front. I also trust that overdue Lords reform will finally rid parliament of these turbulent priests - if only turkeys could be persuaded to vote for Christmas!

Harry Potter star withdraws support for Lib Dems.

2012-02-06T08:07:00.000-08:00

I've watched all the Harry Potter movies. You know, they're not bad. That said, I've always been amazed how this regurgitation of public school ritual and traditional folklore (interspersed with spells in elementary Latin) has struck such a chord with the public. It's so dated on so many levels that it makes C.S. Lewis's Narnia allegories look positively modern. Perhaps it's the safe, comfortable tone or the moral message that good always triumphs over evil that are key to understanding where Harry Potter's appeal lies - either that, or it's simply down to effective marketing. All the same, I've never truly understood it.

Similarly, I found it strange that the press should have made so much of Harry Potter actor Daniel Radcliffe's support for the Lib Dems in the past, or that so many column inches should be dedicated today to his indicating that he has now withdrawn that support. Why is this remotely newsworthy? I don't think the majority of voters are very influenced by support from "celebrity" backers, and quite why Radcliffe's opinions are so important remain as great a mystery as why Dobby the House Elf never considered approaching a psychological therapist to help rid him of his various demons and personal insecurities.

The article in The Guardian is interesting though. Radcliffe's grasp of political reality is exposed in the opening paragraph, when he claims that Ed Miliband is "genuinely left-wing". Really? Does he understand what left-wing means? For all the talk in his acceptance address to his party's conference in 2010, Ed is anything but a left-winger. His philosophy is so devoid of ideology to be vacuous. There are plenty within the Labour Party who aren't sure what Ed Miliband stands for. And we won't talk about the unions' views...

Radcliffe claims that Clegg is the Tories' "whipping boy". Again, I would have expected someone of Radcliffe's profile and intelligence to be able to have a better constructed view of political reality than that of the average Daily Mirror reader. I understand the point he's making (I've also been critical of Clegg at times and feel there have been instances when he has been used by the Conservatives) and obviously he's entitled to his view, but surely as a Liberal Democrat supporter he recognises the several occasions when the party and Clegg himself have successfully curbed the Tories' ambitions, the way we have frustrated them on key issues (e.g. the NHS) and openly confronted them on others (e.g. Europe). Clegg is many things and in some respects has been a disappointment, making serious mistakes - but he's no-one "whipping boy". That really is a simplicity that needs challenging.

Interestingly, what really seems to motivate Radcliffe is his passion for LGBT rights and ending faith schools. Ah, a man after my own heart. He doesn't seem to have much in the way of a personal political philosophy, although he does suggest that he would like a more redistributive economy based on fairness: "if you make a lot more money than most people - like I do - you should pay more tax and subsidise people who work just as hard as you, but don't earn as much." So you'd think Cable's proposals for a mansion tax would appeal to him, as well as the historic Lib Dem commitment to marriage equality.

But no, he thinks that Ed Miliband "speaks for what he believes in". Hmm. I don't know, but if your beliefs amount to abolishing faith schools (Radcliffe calls himself a "militant atheist") and increasing taxes for the highest earners I'm not sure you should put too much faith in Ed, who won't commit to extending the 50p tax rate and has only made vague noises about a "wealth tax" (essentially the same principle as Cable's mansion tax). And as for Ed's views on faith schools...maybe Radcliffe should read The Guardian a bit more often.

I have to admit to being amused that Nick Clegg had "asked to meet [Radcliffe] and talked [with him] about gay rights and faith schools." Perhaps sometime Nick wouldn't mind talking to me about how we can reverse the fortunes of the Liberal Democrats here in Scotland. (I'm still waiting for a reply to that letter!)

Of course it could be that Radcliffe's understanding of politics, or even interest in it, is nothing more than superficial. He once gave an interview in which he said he'd vote for us, now he thinks he'll vote for someone else. That's not unusual, but it's also not exactly newsworthy and I can only speculate at the motivations of the media when they are so keen to give such a "revelation" significance it doesn't exactly merit.

While I'd much prefer it if Daniel Radcliffe continued to support the Lib Dems (and it sounds like he has some definite liberal principles) I'm not sure why his change of voting intention is given more media attention than defecting councillors or, perhaps more crucially, grassroots activists either changing their allegiance or leaving political activity altogether. That is a greater problem for our party: they are, after all, the people who make our party what it is - not the celebrities who temporarily endorse it.

Chris Huhne resigns

2012-02-03T08:55:00.000-08:00

Energy secretary Chris Huhne has today resigned from the cabinet following the announcement that he has been charged with perverting the course of justice.

Huhne, who was once considered the natural leader of the Liberal Democrats and at one time favourite to succeed Nick Clegg, decided that in the circumstances it was best to stand down to "avoid distraction".

Huhne continues to maintain his innocence in the matter concerning his wife's alleged acceptance of his penalty points for speeding. That in itself, however, has become almost irrelevant. The allegation that a cabinet minister would willingly stoop to such deceptive practices has hung over him for several months and has predictably been repeated regularly in the media. Given the deep suspicions surrounding him, it's been a remarkable achievement on Huhne's part to have performed so well in difficult circumstances.

The announcement that the police were actually to press charges arguably made Huhne's resignation inevitable. He will now appear in court in two weeks' time. Nick Clegg praised his dedication, stating that he had done "an outstanding job". On this point, I don't disagree with Nick. As energy secretary Huhne's had a tough time trying to push a liberal agenda in direct opposition to the Conservatives who seem less interested in creating a sustainable future. In pursuing policies to achieve significant climate change targets he's ruffled a few Tory feathers and he's never been one to shirk a fight with his Conservative counterparts - something not lost on the Lib Dem grassroots.

Personally, I don't really regard the resignation as inevitable. The argument that he simply couldn't continue given the charges against him doesn't really stand up to scrutiny when considered in the context of several months' public suspicion of his actions. At least he'll now have the opportunity to clear his name. If he's innocent then, like former Glasgow provost Pat Lally, he should not resign on principle - especially given that he's been one of our most effective ministers in coalition. If, of course, he's guilty as charged then there really should be no way back for him - not because of the original offence but because of his attempts to conceal the truth.

It's a sad day for the party in so many ways. We've lost a capable, popular and effective minister over what is, when it's boiled down, a rather trivial matter. The promotion of Ed Davey (who I like and whose influence I predicted would become more visible this year) is, in the circumstances sensible. But not only are we replacing a thorn in the Tories' side with someone more likely to be amenable, the appointment sends a signal that the party is ruled by the "Orange Book" economic liberals, something picked up on by various fellow members on twitter. Personally, I have little time for those who use the phrase "orange booker" as a term of abuse or for the supposed divisions that some would like to reinforce - but I would like to see another socially liberal voice at the cabinet table. We can't be reliant on Ken Clarke.

Vince Cable is reported to have said: "I'm very sad...I'm sure he will clear his name and we would certainly like to see him back." I hope he's right. I have a great deal of respect for what Huhne has tried to achieve in a little over a year and a half. I hope he's innocent and, if that's the case, that at some point in the future he can return to government. What seems pretty certain is that any vague hopes he ever had of becoming party leader have all but evaporated.

It's sobering to think that a few penalty points for speeding could potentially finish a parliamentary career. All in all, a sad day for the Liberal Democrats.

Are you a pro-change Liberal Democrat?

2012-02-01T14:29:00.001-08:00

Are you a member of the Liberal Democtrats who either supports independence or passionately believes in "Devo Max"?

I know there are many members of the party who are frustrated at the Scottish party's unwillingness to support a devo-max option on the referendum ballot form. Many of us can not support the status quo and feel that the union is not something that as liberals we can defend. We want change - either for an independent Scotland or one in which there is significantly further devolution.

I have been talking to a few fellow activists and we feel it might be worth considering establishing a pro-change grouping within the party.

Initially, I have set up a facebook group: Liberal Democrats for Change which will hopefully be a useful place to guage support as well as discuss the constitutional question in more depth. Please sign up if you are change-sympathetic!

Ex-RBS boss stripped of knighthood: what next for honours system?

2012-02-01T03:39:00.000-08:00

And so the inevitable has happened.

The ex-RBS chief executive, formerly known as Sir Fred Goodwin, is now plain Mr Goodwin.

His honour was withdrawn yesterday following a dramatic turn of events that have seen him almost singularly blamed for creating the worst economic crisis for decades.

Goodwin's being stripped of his knighthood was not entirely unexpected. It's been in the offing for some time. It was discussed on Question Time a couple of weeks ago, with majority support for the annulment. And, while I don't wish to comment at any length about it, I was broadly supportive. Anyone who has received a knighthood for "services to banking" in spite of having brought his bank to the brink of collapse can only call himself "Sir" fraudulently. Fred Goodwin will be remembered for doing banking, and the country, a great dis-service.

Interestingly, he is only one of a handful who have been so dishonoured since Nicolae Ceaucescu in 1989. That itself is a statistic worth taking a moment to consider. I wonder who has been the source of the most human misery and unnecessary suffering: the Romanian dictator or the RBS chief?

No doubt this is a move that will prove popular with the public. I can not argue that it isn't welcome. But what it will not do is anything to restore the damaged economy, to ensure that RBS works in the interests of its current shareholders (the public) or to change the banking culture which allows excessive bonuses and rewards reckless risk-taking. It can not in itself restore confidence in the British banking system, which is so desperately in need of overdue reform. A lot of questions remain to be asked about the UK's financial industry - and necessary actions taken to ensure it behaves in a more responsible way.

As I write, there are surely hundreds of bloggers making the same points, only more eloquently. I will leave it to them to explore the scope for a new model for our financial services.

What I'm actually interested in discussing is the UK honours system. It was curious to observe that the justification for stripping Goodwin of his title was that he had "brought the honours system into disrepute". Now, Mr Goodwin is guilty of many things but that surely isn't one of them. The honours system is already completely disreputable - any "system" that would give a knighthood to Fred Goodwin in the first instance is highly questionable.

What exactly does our honours system do if not reinforce celebrity culture or reward the "good and the great"? Fred Goodwin is simply the tip of the iceberg. In the last few years we've had the likes of Jeffrey Archer, Brian Souter, Mark Thatcher and Victor Blank being honoured for their dubious "services". Not to forget "Sir" Mervyn King, who is arguably far more responsible than Fred Goodwin for the current recession. And then we have the likes of Carol Vorderman being given an MBE for "services to television" (i.e. doing her job of putting some vowels and consonants on a board and doing some - sometimes tricky - arithmetical calculations), the England cricket team picking up gongs for beating Australia (including Paul Collingwood who played one match and scored 10 runs), soap "stars" being recognised and TV presenters such as Lorraine Kelly also receiving awards for "services". I've nothing against these people, but they are basically being rewarded for doing what they already get paid a fair amount to do.

In a culture obsessed with celebrity, the honours system reinforces it. People who are famous for being famous (no matter how briefly) are preferred over lifelong excellence. I suspect any GB athlete who wins a gold medal in this year's Olympics will be up for at least an OBE come next January.

So what future can our honours system possibly have? Do we simply want one that reflects celebrity culture and reinforces the status of the self-righteous "great", or do we want one that recognises long-term achievement, people who go the extra mile rather than those who appear most often on our TV screens, those who contribute to society's well-being rather than those who engineer short-term financial booms? If Fred Goodwin's knighthood told us anything it's that the "system", or society, values those who can make the most money. And if Dame Brian Souter's honour said anything, it's that any type of transgression need not serve as an impediment if you're a millionaire who can afford to give a bit to charity for tax purposes.

And let's briefly consider what honours actually are - they bestow upon the "honoured" the rather dubious privilege of being an Officer or a Member of a historic society responsible for so much human suffering - the British Empire. Why anyone would wish to accept entry into an "Empire" that not only has ceased to exist in all but name but has such an unenviable history I don't know. Personally, I'd find the mere overtones of colonialism offputting.

The honours system is at best a relic of a bygone era that reinforces dated perceptions of achievement and Victorian attitudes towards philanthropy. The list of recently honoured in itself demonstrates that the system is unfit for purpose and a poor reflection of British society. What is needed is a new, forward thinking and modern awards system, created in 21st century Britain for 21st century Britain - the kind of thing you'd think the Liberal Democrats would be championing with gusto.

Gay ex-footballer talks openly to A Scottish Liberal

2012-01-30T11:15:00.001-08:00

Dave (not his real name) is a retired football player in his late 30s who played for a number of English lower-division and non-league clubs in the 1990s and early 2000s. He is gay but has never felt the need to be open about his sexuality, for reasons which he explained below in this interview with me.

A lot has been made about the lack of openly gay footballers, and a BBC3 documentary tonight explores this and the potential reasons behind it. I spoke with Dave on the phone yesterday to ask for his views on the matter, why he has never "come out" and how he thinks LGBT representation in football can be improved.

Dave is a personal friend of mine (we met at a charitable football match) and agreed to the interview on the premise that he would remain anonymous. For this reason, all people and clubs referred to are given pseudonyms.

AP: Joey Barton has recently come out (excuse the pun) in support of gay footballers, and said that his uncle is gay. Do you think this kind of contribution will make a difference?

D: I'm not sure. The more high-profile players who make this kind of gesture are sending out a signal that it's Ok to be gay and a footballer. That's a message we need to get out. We've got to make it easier for young footballers to be Ok with who they are than it was when I was starting out. It's a different world now but football seems not to have moved on enough. I think what [Joey] has done is right but it's also well overdue, you know the clubs need to take a bit of a lead on this instead of just leaving it to players. But if this can help change attitudes and the culture within the game then I'm all for it.

AP: What would make more of a difference then?

D: Look, there are quite a lot of gay footballers. They're not all playing in the Premier League but they're out there. I was one of them. There have always been others.

AP: Always?

D: Yes, I knew of some when I was playing, I can't believe that there haven't always been gay men playing. Now, i know what you're going to ask, and that is could people like me coming out make a difference. It's a good question to ask, but I think what first has to happen is for the whole lads culture to change, for it to be easier for young guys to come out. You know, football isn't actually a very glamorous game - at least it isn't when you're playing [for a League 2 club] and people forget that for a lot of young men, who just happen to be footballers, they're just that. Young guys, away from home for the first time, trying desperately hard to both fit in and develop a career in what is a bloody difficult environment. It's literally a survival of the fittest environment, you know, it's OK to say that gay people should come out but unless these people are confident that they'll be accepted and understood why should they? If we-

AP: No, I understand that. I want to come back to that in a moment and yes, you pre-empted my question! What do you think could be done to change football to make it a more gay-friendly environment?

D: Yes, I'm wanting that to happen but you see it takes time. Obviously Joey is right to make the points he has and it would be good to se more gay footballers come out. As I said though it's not that easy and we can't expect it until things change. You know I'd like to see more clubs doing something to actively reach out to the gay community, not just with anti-homophobia campaigns but to embrace us. Get more LGBT people employed by clubs, working in community coaching and that sort of thing, that would help. Another thing is to challenge fans culture, as we saw with the Liverpool [v Manchester United] match racism isn't tolerated and quite rightly but go to any ground and you'll here homophobic comments being laughed off as banter. You see, it's acceptable to call a referee "gay", but have a go at him for being black and you've crossed the line.

AP: Do you think that racism has been effectively consigned to history then?

D: No, I'm not saying that and you know I'm not but you've got to admit that a lot of progress has been made. True, black players like Cyrille Regis, Viv Anderson and Brendan Batson helped change attitudes but there are still racists out there. There will probably always be homophobes too. But there's been a difference to how the FA and the clubs have responded to racism while next to nothing's been done about homophobia until now?

AP: Do you think the media has a role to play?

D: (brief pause) Yes. Yes, but not for the reasons you think. Justin Fashanu's been in the papers again recently, I think it's so many years since he died. The amazing thing is that when he came out as gay all of a sudden everybody forgot he was black. Interesting, eh? Make what you want of that. It's funny that since then nobody's had anything more interesting to say about him than his sexuality - pretty disgraceful for someone who appeared in cup finals and who scored for fun for Norwich City in the top flight. And whose fault is that? The papers of course. That's one reason why it would be so ****ing difficult for a player to come out- think of all the press interest. Once a few have done it they won't care any more but why should any player have to go through that? You know, all the media intrusion. If you're a Premier League footballer then you probably learn to deal with that kind of pressure, but I think some people think that's part and parcel of being a pro footballer and it's not.

AP: Do you think the media can help to challenge the lads' culture you mentioned before?

D: No, it works the other way round. The papers reflect society's values-

AP: But-

D: and that's how it is. Papers won't say anything about race now because they know they'll get hammered for it. When no-one cares who's gay and who's straight any more then the papers will have to talk about other things apart from someone's sexuality. You know, like maybe they're a good footballer.

AP: Yes, it's this I'm trying to get at. How do we normalise gay participation in football?

D: Well, it is normal. Have a look at women's football. No end of lesbians playing the game. Fact. So it's not the game that's homophobic, yeah?

AP: But it's not "normal" in men's' football. And to many people, that's what matters.

D: Yeah, big difference. Same game, different cultures - know what I mean? Of course it's normal to be gay. It's not about normalising it, it's about breaking down barriers and tackling prejudice. There's two problems as I see it - the barriers making it difficult for people to come out, and the second one is the media's obsession with sexuality. So it's not about information, or normalising, or educating people. It really is about tackling prejudices and giving players the confidence to be themselves - and I mean in a lot of ways, not just their sexuality.

AP: So why didn't you come out?

D: There's a lot of reasons. You know, it was a different era. It wasn't easy to be gay in the late 80s, whether as a footballer or not. It was a ****ing cruel world, sometimes it still is but it was worse then. I know some people will think I probably should have, but they don't know how hard it was. For starters, I'd not just be coming out to the club or even the fans but the whole bloody world. I wasn't even ready to come out to my dad! I wouldn't want to do that to my family, imagine them finding out that way. But what I really wanted to do was play football and what I did in my own time was my business. I know some of the other players thought I was a bit anti-social but as far as I know no-one ever guessed.

AP: Did you not feel a bit isolated socially...?

D: Yeah, dead right but that's what being gay was like then. So that was my main reason. But there were others too, which I only understand looking back. I was a very young lad when I signed for [football league club]. I was, what, 18. You don't really know who you are at that age. I don't even think I was comfortable with who I was until late 20s when I met John (current partner). But even then, when I was playing at [North West Counties league club] I didn't want to come out. Why not? Well, it's none of anyone's business but you have to think, what will be gained by this? Probably not very much. I mean, if a Premier League player like John Terry was to come out, well - that would be great wouldn't it? But me - not really. And I wouldn't want to anyway because I was never that good.

AP: That's not true!

D: Whatever, I wasn't good enough to come out. Because you'd have to be bloody damned good to be able to be the icon or role model you'd have wanted to be. Yeah? Because otherwise all the papers would do is see this one guy playing at [English lower league club] and think that this "only" gay player is shit, he plays for a shit team. What good would that do? It would put a load of pressure on me which I can be doing without and it could have negative consequences for gay rights in football. Might look like tokenism. So if you want to make football more tolerant, you either need a load of players coming out and making it look "normal" or you need a big name player. I just don't think it's fair to put so much pressure on a young kid, footballers have a lot to deal with without all that. I mean, can we expect them to be so emotionally mature as to handle the media attention, all the interest in their sexuality and everything that goes with it. You know if I was a manager I wouldn't want any of my players exposed to that kind of shit-

AP: Yes, but do you not think coming out now might be useful for challenging the attitudes you clearly feel are holding progress back?

D: I don't see what would be gained. People would naturally ask why I didn't do it earlier. In any case, I've been out of football for many years and I played something like 30 football league games in five years and then went to non-league. No-one will remember me and if anyone does I'd prefer it if they remembered me for [a particular] goal I scored and not for being a gay guy who was too scared to some out. Mind you, I don't hide who I am and I know there are a few people who know, including some of my former team-mates. I just don't see the point making a big deal out of it. I'm not the only gay man ever to kick a ball about you know.

AP: I know you care a great deal about LGBT rights though. Looking at the broader picture, how do you think greater LGBT rights can be achieved?

D: Yeah, I'm glad you're thinking like that. Football is only a small piece of the jigsaw and of course I don't like to see how it hasn't moved forward but things will change and if football doesn't then it will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Key thing is to change attitudes. You know, look at the equal marriage talk coming out of you guys [political types, I think!] and you know that couldn't have happened 20 years ago. I mean, the Prime Minister saying that kind of thing. And when that happens people wake up, they listen, they realise that being gay is normal for a lot of us and they become less hostile. Most people now are perfectly happy for us to have rights that for years were denied [e.g. marriage, adopting children, giving blood] and because of that we're moving forward. That's been happening for a while. And so we see a lot more gay-friendly clubs and pubs, and people in different professions feel more comfortable coming out. What's happened in wider society simply needs to happen in football.

AP: Looking back at your football career, do you have any regrets about not coming out or doing more to challenge homophobia?

D: Andrew mate, I didn't have a football career, I was a bit part player trying to get ahead in a game I loved. And no, I don't have many regrets because I think at any point if I'd come out I would have brought on myself so much attention that would have been more than I could deal with. I do have one regret though: I'd wanted to go into coaching but was concerned that if I was ever outed then that would be the end; I mean who would want a gay guy working with kids? I let fear get in the way and that was stupid but that's how I was thinking at the time.

AP: You mentioned attitudes, but mainly about supporters and the media. What was your perception of attitudes within the game?

D: You mean other players and managers? I don't think they really care. Yeah, I think if you were "out" there's be a load of banter but I'd imagine it would be more friendly than hostile. There was a player I liked called Liam, he was definitely gay - came to us for a few weeks on trial but wasn't really any good, quick but no positional sense, but I don't think his sexuality was a problem to anyone. I've experienced a lot of homophobia in my life but never actually in football circles, which is a bit strange considering. You know, I think it's a cultural thing. There's this cultural hostility, like an assumption that football's a bit of a lad's club but that's more with fans and the media. I know there are gay footballers out there who don't come out and that's not really because of their clubs or team-mates but because of the media.

I am very grateful for the time Dave spent talking to me yesterday. I have attempted to honestly re-create the conversation here although some personal information has been removed and some sections adapted for clarity. Please do not attempt to contact me for information in respect to Dave's personal information or contact details.

"Scotland for Marriage" petition discussed in Holyrood

2012-01-24T06:37:00.000-08:00

The Scottish Petitions Committee has today considered the petition lodged by Amy King - a representative of Scotland for Marriage - which aims to "preserve marriage".

As you will no doubt realise, their interpretation of preserving marriage actually means preserving a very narrow and discriminatory definition of marriage. To be honest, I thought the predictably homophobic line taken would make me quite angry, but to my enormous surprise the substance of the petition just amuses me. It's hilarious.

You can read it here. It certainly is worth reading, if only for the lack of critical thinking and the way it defends spurious "facts" with even more questionable "evidence". Intolerance is reinforced with intolerance. Some of my Lib Dem friends were discussing this on facebook, with one interpreting the submission as "one of the most ridiculously homophobic things I've ever read". I disagree: it's simply one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

I want to get a bit angry about this. I really do. That's my regular reaction to experiencing prejudice and discrimination. But I really can't, for reasons which will become obvious as I look at in in a bit more detail.

Let's take a look at some of the claims and arguments Amy King puts forward:

1. Surveys suggesting that the public support same-sex marriage are flawed and inaccurate. Less than 50% of actually support same-sex marriage, but are more supportive of same-sex civil partnerships. Of course. If you don't like the outcome criticise the process. What Ms King doesn't tell us is the proportion of Scots who are, like her, opposed to same-sex marriage - I imagine that would represent a somewhat inconvenient truth. As for the notion that Scottish people are supportive of one form of same-sex union but not another - that can be quite easily dismissed. Most people do not spend their time intellectualising about the sanctity of marriage and who to exclude from it as if it was some kind of club.

2. Legal benefits of marriage are already available to same-sex couples, so why "redefine" marriage? That tired argument. Yawn! In that case, why the strong and sometimes vitriolic opposition to it? If civil partnerships are effectively marriages, why not upgrade them to having the same status?

3. So few people are directly affected by it. So why redefine marriage "for the whole society"? The Free Church of Scotland and the likes of Scotland for Marriage represent an even smaller proportion of Scottish society than the LGBT community. Why should society's understandings of marriage be assumed to reflect those of anti-equality groups as a default position (they currently don't). What the petitioners fail to appreciate is that governments and legislation don't define marriage in anything other than legal terms - it's social attitudes that do. They also fail to grasp that it isn't just same-sex couples that are affected, but anyone who cares passionately in the cause of equality.

4. Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie is - wait for it - "a pro-homosexual spokesperson" who "imposes [his] views on us". Indeed. I get the picture: the evil Mr Rennie is aided in this quest by the Devil, the Beast out of the Sea and the temptress Jezebel. This claim is so funny as to render a critical response barely necessary.

5. "Marriage should not be redefined for the whole of society given the tiny percentage of society actually affected by the issue...The introduction of same-sex marriage is being presented in the media and by some lobbyists and politicians as something that does not affect most of us [but] in reality, this change would have huge implications for...wider society." Hmmm. Few people are affected by it...actually, all of society is affected. No contradiction there then.

6. "Schools would be expected to promote same-sex marriage to children." No, schools are not in the business of promoting but educating. I can only imagine which school Ms King went to. This fear was expressed prior to the Civil Partnership Act being passed and to date the promised moral meltdown and promotion of homosexuality in our schools has never materialised. The argument is so dated and so discredited by evidence as to be facile.

7. Pro-homosexual story-books could find their way into schools. Obviously Ms King would close my old school down then. I remember being about 5 years' old and my teacher reading to us that wonderful gay fairytale, The Ugly Duckling - Hans Anderson's autobiographical parable of the loneliness and poor self-image he had as a gay man and his hopes for tolerance to make a way for acceptance. Presumably Scotland for Marriage would like this book to be banned? And the Harry Potter series of course as Professor Dumbledore is gay. Obviously children's stories with gay characters in them are far more harmful than those about murderous wolves, evil queens who poison stepdaughters, witches who lure children to their deaths in forests with promises of sweets and psychopathic kings who murder masses of innocent babies around Christmas time.

8. "It is not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that same-sex marriage is an
effort by gay rights campaigners to impose their views forcibly on the rest of
society. Those who oppose same-sex marriage do not seek to impose their
views on same-sex couples." Actually, it is unreasonable. There is, in fact, no need for "gay rights campaigners" to impose any such view on a society that is already broadly supportive of equality. As for the claim that those unsupportive of such equality are not seeking to impose their views - erm, in that case what is the point of your rather desperate petition?

9. "Defending [a narrow definition of] marriage does not affect the freedom of others to think, believe and act as they choose". No, of course not. Unless we choose to get married.

10. If same-sex marriages are allowed, then polygamy should be too. Another insultingly facile argument that equates loving and committed relationships between two people of the same sex as a route to "sexual chaos" (I love that term, it sounds rather fun). It is also claimed that same-sex marriage is a form of "social engineering" - something that hints at the paranoid motivations of Scotland for Marriage.

11. The best way for children to grow up is with opposite-sex parents who are married. Well, given my childhood I find that rather hard to believe but I'm more than aware of what the evidence suggests. It is, however, so easy to cite "evidence" of the benefits of a loving family. I would use the same arguments to make claims about the need to extend marriage to same-sex couples given its incredible benefits to children - a point Ms King doesn't think should be "assumed" (perhaps because same-sex couples are more likely to be mentally ill, according to her). The petition goes on to argue that children should ideally be brought up by their "natural parents". Oh dear. So no role for adoption there then? (I should also add that my natural father was gay - good to know Ms King approves so highly of his influence!)

12. "Many Scots find the consultation process too difficult and/or time consuming, but would want to be supportive of man/woman marriage." No doubt. And probably even more who favour marriage equality. What's your point?

13. Foreigners should not have any influence in shaping the outcome of the consultation. So, the Scottish government can't learn from experiences elsewhere and have their discussions informed by these? Does Scotland for Marriage really believe in governments working in a vacuum, isolated from what goes on elsewhere? Or are they simply xenophobic as well as homophobic?

14. Suggesting that people opposed to equality are cultivating a “discriminatory attitude” is a serious threat to freedom of speech. No, it isn't. Suggesting they're cultivating a "discriminatory attitude" is a pretty accurate diagnosis. I defend your right to say what you think and even to present it to the Scottish parliament. I also retain the right to deconstruct your arguments and demonstrate your supposed sociological critique to be little more than the reinforcement of outdated prejudice. I don't care if you look ridiculous - it is, after all, you that's saying it. Real freedom is, as George Orwell pointed out, "the freedom to say that 2 plus 2 equals 5". But I maintain that your attitudes are discriminatory, because - very simply - they make a discrimination in insisting one group of people should not be able to access the same rights as another. That, Ms King, is discrimination pure and simple - and you are promoting it.

So, if Alex Salmond's government press ahead with the furtherance of equality by allowing same-sex marriages, the result will be - according to Scotland for Marriage - "sexual chaos", schools promoting gay marriages, homosexual story books for children and the legalisation of polygamy. Yes, naturally. And gay people are responsible for climate change, the recession and the fact that it always rains on your day off.

UK government looked to overrule result of Gibraltar referendum

2012-01-24T04:35:00.000-08:00

An interesting story appeared in today's Independent, which at first glance seems somewhat obscure and irrelevant.

Oliver Wright examines revelations in Peter Hain's memoirs that Tony Blair and Jack Straw entered into "secret talks" with the Spanish government over the future of Gibraltar. The only reason the negotiations broke down, it is alleged, is that the Spanish got "cold feet" after a "full agreement" had been reached. So not at all to do with a lack of vigour on the part of the Labour government. That is interesting.

Hain revealed that "Jack's desire to do something about Gibraltar coincided with my gut instinct that it was ridiculous in the modern age for Britain to have a colony on the tip of Spain nearly 2,000 miles away" while the Prime Minister was keen to "secure a better relationship with Spain and to remove it [Gibraltar] as an obstruction to our relations within Europe". Hain points out that the objections of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar were overruled by a government not terribly interested in "local politicians who insisted that the constitutional arrangements should not be altered".

This is relevant for a number of reasons. Firstly, as we witnessed on Question Time last week in respect to the Falkland Islands and our obligations towards its citizens, there is a continuing debate in respect to the future of British dependencies. That is a separate issue but is is too glib to suggest, as Peter Hain does, that the argument can be reduced to one about how "ridiculous" it is to retain Gibraltar in the post-colonial age. On one level I naturally agree with him, but what he and - apparently - Blair and Straw overlooked is the fact that there is a human dimension to this. Hain omits to mention Gibraltarians other than their being a "block" to European progress and speaks disparagingly about their democratically elected politicians. What he doesn't do it explain why the people of Gibraltar feel so strongly about remaining separate from Spain, the identity and pride they take in their own House of Assembly and why the UK government should feel it can ride roughshod over the wishes of that elected assembly. It seems quite ironic that, in spite of condemning colonialism as "ridiculous", the UK government approach towards Gibraltar's people constituted a classic exercise in colonial arrogance.

A key fact that Hain appears to forget is that the future of Gibraltar had been subject to two previous referenda - in 1967 and 2002. I was actually in Gibraltar shortly after the second of these and can affirm the opposition to any deals being done with the Spanish - either secret or otherwise. The results of these referenda were not in doubt, with the 99.19% and 98.49% respectively of the local population voting for the status quo.

Hain's memoirs seem to suggest that even after this the British-Spanish negotiations continued, albeit ultimately unsuccessfully. Hain could have conceded that the public verdict brought an end to the possibility of talks, but strangely he seemed not to see this as a problem - instead blaming the Spanish having "cold feet". At the time, Straw dismissed the referendum as "eccentric", with his Spanish counterpart labelling it as "illegal" and "against all UN resolutions". Presumably that includes the right to self-determination as stated in the UN Charter?

The curious thing is that the British-Spanish proposal always, in theory, required the consent of Gibraltarians. It is hard to imagine what they imagined "consent" meant if not the democratic verdict of Gibraltar's people. Perhaps the kind of "consent" Labour took for granted for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

Of course, this is more significant than a previous British government arrogantly overruling the democratic will of people living 1,000 miles away. It is no surprise that Westminster thinks it knows best as far as constitutional questions are concerned. But this is a lesson for the Scottish government in its dealings with their UK counterparts. It is one thing to have a democratic mandate to ask a question; another to ensure that the outcome of that referendum is respected and upheld.

I have no doubt about Alex Salmond's negotiation skills, nor do I doubt that David Cameron will be obligated to accept the outcome. What is concerning has been the actions of the Conservatives in recent weeks, rumours of legal challenges and an unwelcome emphasis on the process rather than the detail of what independence will mean for the people of Scotland. While all this will only swell support for independence, there is a danger that the Scottish people will become - in the minds of some politicians - mere footnotes in a constitutional wrangle.

If the Gibraltar experience tells us anything, its that Westminster governments tend to view these important questions of sovereignty as at best a political game; detached from the human dimension, the right to self-determination is recognised only in light of the need to retain "relations with Europe" and maintain the constitutional status quo as a means of preserving the "balance of power". The very colonial attitudes so derided by Hain are actually evident in much of his thinking; worse still, such colonial instincts lie at the heart of the Conservatives' and Labour's approach to Scotland's future.

It's vital that the 2014 referendum gives Scotland the constitutional future its people want. It's also vital that the coming debate centres on the needs of Scottish people rather than on political prejudices or personalities. For this reason, I'm hoping to put forward a topical motion for Scottish Lib Dem Spring Conference in which I will ask the party to work with the SNP and Westminster to ensure that we have a two-question referendum for the options of independence and devo-max - and to ensure that the outcome is both implemented and determined by Scottish people rather than the courts.

I hope we can have Scotland's future discussed at conference and that for a commonsense liberal approach to triumph over shallow anti-nationalism. I trust my liberal-minded friends in all parties agree.

The real problem the Liberal Democrats have with gender balance

2012-01-20T10:52:00.000-08:00

I have been interested in following a discussion on Lib Dem Voice, stemming from an article written by a participant in the Candidates Leadership Programme. The programme hasn’t been without controversy, but while considering its strengths and demerits it occurred to me that however ambitious and far-reaching its aims – and however successful it is in selectively nurturing talent – a very real and more pressing danger to improving the gender balance of Lib Dem parliamentarians appears to have been overlooked.

We’ve all heard the by now familiar arguments in favour of gender balance and it’s difficult not to be in sympathy. Only 7 out of 57 MPs are female (12%), as are 1 out of 5 of our MSPs (20%) and 2 out of 5 Welsh AMs (40%). Much has been said, quite understandably, about the lack of female representation – but of course the statistics do not tell the full story. A reasonably small number of votes going different ways in the Scottish parliamentary elections last year could have seen Margaret Smith retain her Edinburgh Western seat, with the Greens pipping Willie Rennie for a regional seat in Mid Scotland & Fife and independent campaigner Billy Fox ousting Tavish Scott in Shetland. Taking that hypothetical outcome in combination with actual results elsewhere, the Lib Dems would have four MSPs, 50% of which would be female.

Would that statistic have meant that the party had finally overcome its problem with gender balance? No, it wouldn’t. It would simply demonstrate the scale of the electoral massacre. It would be ridiculously glib to make the argument that a corner had been turned. But, similarly, it would be wrong to read too much insignificance into the 20% statistic, especially as in different circumstances many of our more talented candidates such as Margaret Smith, Katy Gordon and Alison Hay could have expected a more favourable verdict from the voters.

The challenge is to look long-term rather than simply bemoan the immediate reality. It’s not good that only 20% of our MSPs are female. But what’s worse is that we only have 5 MSPs. Instead of focusing on the gender of our parliamentarians we have to be looking at revitalising the party so that it is an attractive proposition to talented politicians of the future – and, of course, the electorate. In order to secure more female representation, we have to actually increase our representation at elections and that is a challenge that requires a bit more creativity than “leadership programmes” with the express purpose of achieving a parliamentary gender balance.

Take a look at it this way. Let’s imagine the party manages to ensure that 65% of seats not held by a Lib Dem incumbent at the next General Election are contested by female candidates. That will represent progress. However, if the current opinion polls are correct and if – for the sake of argument – our support remains at about that level for the next three years –those candidates, however capable or well-trained, will have very minimal opportunity for success, while many incumbent MPs (who, lest we forget, are mainly white males) will successfully hold off challenges. We might see, quite ironically, that the Lib Dem parliamentary party becomes even more male-dominated in spite of a significant and successful move to recruit more female candidates.

The risk of this happening becomes very clear when the majorities of the seven incumbent female MPs are considered. Lorely Burt has a majority of only 175; Annette Brooke a slender 269. Others with worryingly small majorities are Tessa Munt (800), Sarah Teather (1345) and Jo Swinson (2184). Jenny Willott (4576) and Lynne Featherstone (7875) have respective majorities that are far healthier but, if the verdict of recent opinion polls were applied within current boundaries, the party would lose all of its female MPs in addition to being unlikely to compensate for their loss with gains elsewhere.

I would fancy Lynne Featherstone’s chances of defending her seat and I think it’s too early to write the Liberal Democrats off as a spent electoral force. However, as a party we must face up to this stark reality. Very little progress will be made on gender balance if our energies are directed only towards aspiring politicians rather than in defending the seats of the most vulnerable incumbents.

Again, these raw statistics don’t explain the full story. They show merely that our women MPs are more electorally vulnerable than most of their male counterparts. However, the seriousness of the situation can only be fully understood in the context of the party’s electoral unpopularity (which, far from being a product of negative reading of the polls, is something that expressed itself in devastating style in the 2011 Holyrood elections) and our understandable but foolhardy determination to accept Conservative proposals to reduce the size of the Commons to an arbitrary 600. There are principled reasons for choosing to reduce the size of the legislature, but unless this is coupled with further electoral reform it is plainly suicidal for our party to support the proposals. Boundary changes are likely to make the task of returning even the seven incumbent women more difficult: not only are many of the “big guns” such as Farron, Huhne and Cable facing uphill struggles, many of our female MPs are “defending” against notional Labour or Tory majorities. Of course, Sarah Teather has seen it all before, but the political climate will be different in 2015 to what it was in 2010 and she may not be so fortunate in regards her Labour opponent.

Even if we manage to hold two-thirds of our seats at the next General Election – something I would regard as an achievement in the circumstances – the likelihood is that we will secure very few new gains and that many of our current intake of women will be among the casualties. It isn’t altogether inconceivable that we could be left with not a single female MP. That would, until recently, have been unthinkable but is now a very serious prospect.

So, what can be done? One solution is for the party to look beyond its strategy to equip women and those from minority groups to put themselves forward for the most winnable seats – and instead also consider the most defendable seats. That might mean taking a risk on seat exchanges with popular senior male MPs opting to defend a marginal while allowing a female colleague to contest their safer seat. An example of this could be Jo Swinson “swapping” constituencies with Charles Kennedy. Obviously this strategy is problematic, not least because the benefits of incumbency are sacrificed, and Jo Swinson would probably feel a deep loyalty to East Dunbartonshire or may have little experience of the needs of a Highland constituency. But it is a thought-provoking concept, and should at least be considered if there is interest from parliamentarians. Another idea would be a policy of replacing all retiring MPs with either a woman or a candidate from a minority background. This might not go down too well with many within the party, especially if some popular MPs were felt to come under pressure to retire. In truth, it doesn’t sit comfortably with our democratic credentials. But if we simply do nothing, there is a real risk that we will become a male-only party in three years’ time and that is equally unpalatable.

I don’t profess to have the solutions. I am uncomfortable with quotas and any form of positive discrimination. I’m not entirely convinced by the Leadership Programme which, if I were to apply for it, would require me to wear either my sexuality or socio-economic background as some kind of badge - which I refuse to do. And I’m not sure that focusing so much attention on one aspect of a person’s identity (i.e. their gender) is anything but patronising.

What I do know is that all our incumbent MPs and candidates will have a better chance of success at the next General Election if our party can be revitalised and if we can actively demonstrate to voters our value at the heart of government. The real problem is that, in order to have more women MPs, we need to make electoral gains - and that requires cultivating credibility and respect from voters who think we have neither. It means forging a new identity; it means finding way to make the unelectable electable. And so what I will heartily recommend is a concerted effort directed towards articgulating a strong, vibrant, liberal message that can resonate with the public; stronger action at the Cabinet table; a re-energising of the party’s grassroots and communicating the same ideals and political courage that has earned us so much respect in the past. We have to rebuild trust with the public and distance ourselves from what is negative or toxic. Moreover, if we’re serious about political equality, the best way to achieve it is through the passionate championing of social equality.

If we can do all this successfully then we might do far more to secure a political future for more talented people within our ranks than any Leadership Programme could ever hope to. This is, of course, a long-term path I have mapped out; not entirely inappropriate given the long-term nature of the problem - but there are those who favour more imminent results. Personally, I am convinced that there is far more to the pursuit of equality than merely achieving a parliamentary gender balance (subjected, naturally, to the vagaries of voters’ unpredictable behaviour) but if the party prizes it so highly it will have to make some very tough decisions in the very near future. Very tough indeed...

Tory MPs express hostility to "gay marriage"

2012-01-17T07:50:00.000-08:00

I'm really not one for watching Conservative Party Conferences. But there is one thing I remember from David Cameron's speech to his party's faithful last year - and that was his wife, Samantha, offering evidently heartfelt applause when he insisted that "backing gay marriage is a very Conservative thing to do". Perhaps, I imagined naively, a corner has been turned; maybe the historic Tory hostility towards LGBT rights has finally been put to sleep.

It seems, however, that some of Cameron's MPs are significantly less enthusiastic than his wife on such matters. With the government championing an end the ban on same-sex civil marriage, it has been reported that over 100 Conservative MPs are set to revolt. The Independent quotes David Burrowes MP (who receives interns from far-right Christian "charity" CARE and is the founder of the Conservative Christian Fellowship), who believes that "there is strong opposition to gay marriage across the Conservative Party spectrum... It would open up a can of worms and a legal minefield about freedom, religion and equalities legislation. Gay marriage is a debate we don't need to have at this stage. It is not an issue people are hammering us on the doorstep to do something about." Burrowes added: "It is important that there is a reasoned debate around how we view marriage rather than about homosexual rights. It may open up old wounds and put people into the trenches; no one wants that."

He insisted he was "cautiously optimistic" that the rebels would defeat the government.

Unfortunately, what Borrowes and his Tory rebel friends are giving us is not, in fact, reasoned debate, but simple prejudice. Whether the "strong opposition" he refers to is more real than imagined I don't know, although I suspect there is a certain amount of wishful thinking on his part. I can't imagine that a section of Tory backbenchers, however large - and even with the collective support of the mighty Democratic Unionist Party - has any realistic chance of defeating the proposals which are sure to be supported by Labour. As for "opening up a minefield about freedom, religion and equality" - that's just what Burrowes and his ilk will do, while simultaneously undermining the Prime Minister's attempts to modernise the Conservative Party and reinforcing the perception that the Tories are, socially speaking, a less than progressive bunch of intolerant bigots.

These Tory MPs might see the argument as about "gay marriage" but that is disingenuous. There is no such thing as gay marriage. Marriage is marriage is marriage is marriage. Marriages are not gay, bisexual or straight. They are expressions of love between two people. At the heart of the matter is not a pseudo-philosophical debate about the nature of marriage but an altogether more pertinent question about social equality.

I can only imagine what Ruth Davidson makes of this.

In Scotland, we've experienced these quasi-arguments before. No-one is convinced by them. In recent months the Roman Catholic Church has taken every opportunity possible to portray itself as the very epitome of reaction and intolerance, demonstrating its irrelevance to modern Scottish society in the process. The Tories should take note, and perhaps take a leaf out of the Church of Scotland's book: at least the Kirk realises there are times when nothing is often a very sensible thing to do, and almost always a very sensible thing to say.

I can only speculate at the potential motives of these Tory rebels. It was sufficiently embarrassing that over 80 rebelled over Europe, but Euroskeptic rebellions are part and parcel of life as a Conservative backbencher. It's what they live for and, to a point, what some of their voters identify with. Marriage equality is another issue and I suspect that the determination to rebel stems from increasing frustration at the role of Lib Dems, coupled with Cameron's "liberalising" agenda. They see "their" party being taken from them, the attitudes they held so dear being challenged, their black-and-white worlds of social normality being irrevocably shattered as ignorance and intolerance are replaced with acceptance and equality. I pity them; to be so insecure about their own "moral certainties" must be a hugely painful experience. To be deluded beyond measure about their political relevance while lacking any insight into their pathologically flawed collective condition is an even worse situation that will only lend itself to repeated frustration.

Such a rebellion is not to be feared. There is no doubt that it will cause a great deal of embarrassment for Mr Cameron but other than that it will have little impact but to reinforce all the negative perceptions of the backwards-looking attitudes associated with "old Tories". It will be seen as proof that leopards don't change their spots, while broad support from Lib Dems, Labour and the more sober-minded Tory MPs will ensure that Lynne Featherstone will be allowed to press ahead with a full consultation on amending marriage laws. Given that there was no agreed position on marriage equality within the coalition agreement, this is quite a triumph for the Liberal Democrats and Lynne Featherstone in particular.

Relics of a previous era who would deny equality on the basis of something as superficial as sexuality will be defeated, because they deserve to be. They will drift into political obscurity for the same reason.

Meanwhile, closer to home, I hope to be attending an Equal Marriage reception at Holyrood at the end of the month. Following its own consultation, will the Scottish government have the courage to take a lead on this and legislate for full marriage equality? Like Mr Burrowes I'm cautiously optimistic but, unlike him, have more than sufficient reason to be positive.

Rennie: "SNP must clear up two question confusion"

2012-01-17T03:41:00.000-08:00

The Scottish Lib Dems yesterday issued a press release in which Willie Rennie argued that the SNP must "clear up the two question confusion".

Rennie suggests that "SNP plans for a multi-option referendum have been dominated by cluttered thinking and flawed logic. Their method for running a referendum with two questions has serious flaws." He goes on to make the case that a two-question referendum would result in an outcome other than the one the voters want: "if 70% of people support Devo-Max and 51% support Independence then Independence wins even though Devo-max is more popular. And now I can reveal that, if they follow the 1997 model, if Devo-Max got 49% and Independence 51% then the result would be the status quo."

Now, this is very strange logic and it appears to me that the only person who is either confused or attempting to create confusion is Willie Rennie. This press release is, to put it kindly, completely disingenuous. For a start, it simply isn't true that following the 1997 two-question model would result in the status quo or that if a higher proportion of the population support devo max in a second question than opt for independence in the first question that the outcome is somehow undemocratic. These Rennie-fabricated myths are effectively dispelled by Graeme Cowie.

A two question referendum does not run the risk of giving voters anything other than what they want. The first question would ask if Scots favour independence; the second whether "devo max" should be adopted if independence is not supported. So, as Graeme rightly points out and as everyone (other than a few Liberal Democrat politicians) seems to understand, the second question only becomes relevant if the first option is rejected. A converse of the 1997 situation if you like.

I'm not confused, Scottish voters wouldn't be confused and I can see no reason for Willie Rennie to be issuing this type of press release. As for the "cluttered thinking and flawed logic" Rennie speaks of - well, it's certainly in evidence but I wouldn't be levelling that accusation towards the SNP but instead towards the "unionist" parties determined to keep a two-question referendum off the agenda.

I can understand the logic of the Conservative and Labour parties in adopting this tactic. However, I can not comprehend what Willie Rennie could possibly hope to achieve with this. So much more would be gained by working with whoever possible (the SNP and, perhaps, Labour) to ensure that a solid proposal for "devo max" is on the table and is presented as a secondary option on the ballot paper. Rennie could be far more effective in making the case for a second question than in his misguided and rather pitiful attempts to destroy it.

There is one point on which I must admit to being confused. I'm really not sure what Willie Rennie stands for. On Sunday, the Sunday Herald featured an unusually positive piece which, while not revealing much new, at least hinted at the Lib Dem leader's commitment to facilitate a devo-max settlement. A day later, he is expressing opposition to the very principle of a two-question referendum that would have the potential to make this vision a reality.

Perhaps Willie Rennie should listen to his members. I already know a few who are independence-minded, largely because of frustration at the lack of moves towards further devolution. There are still more - and this represents a much larger section of the party - who, like Graeme, will be inclined to vote for independence if the only other option is the status quo. Most Liberal Democrats do not support the current arrangements, which Henry McLeish and Willie Rennie have already described as "unfit for purpose" and "dated" respectively. Banking on supporters of further devolution voting against independence is a very risky move on the part of the Lib Dem leadership, both at Holyrood and Westminster.

Tactics apart, here is an opportunity to work in collaboration with the SNP to ensure that the hope the Liberal Democrats have for Scotland's constitutional future is put to the Scottish people in the referendum. Refusing to even countenance the idea of asking two distinct questions amounts to the Scottish Lib Dems cutting their noses off to spite their faces. We will surrender any influence or voice we have, while aligning ourselves with the reactionary views of Ruth Davidson's Tories and Johann Lamont's Scottish Labour, neither of which have had much constructive or forward-thinking to say about devolution. It's vital we take this opportunity to press for "devo-max" and become identified once again as the radical party of devolution, rather than what Graeme describes as "the third wheel of a Unionist 'no' vote".

A senior Liberal Democrat who happens to be a close personal friend has suggested I should stop talking about the referendum. I know what he means; there are other things to get my teeth into. However, so long as our leadership continues to put forward rather bizarre and counter-productive press releases I will keep on talking.

Willie Rennie: Union is "out-dated"

2012-01-15T02:54:00.001-08:00

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie has labelled the Union "outdated and over-centralised" in an article written for today's Sunday Herald.

Rennie used the opportunity to advance a liberal Scotland, which he feels can be best achieved through localisation of decision making. He criticises the Union, while stressing that it's the government structure he's opposed to, not a continuing relationship with people from other parts of the UK. They weren't the strongest words ever penned by a Lib Dem leader, but in the current circumstances it's a useful start. He also touches on the Liberals' history of promoting Scottish Home Rule and points towards a Scotland of tomorrow which is fiscally independent while remaining within the "UK family".

In short this wasn't a particularly detailed piece and raises a number of questions, but it was promising and far more positive than what we have heard from other key Liberal Democrats in recent days. I don't accept, for example, that the Lib Dems' "track record of delivery" is strong; having achieved the creation of the Scottish parliament we haven't delivered very much since to further Scottish devolution or our vision of a federalist UK. And while Rennie wisely avoided criticising nationalism or independence, he didn't say a great deal about how his vision of a more autonomous Scotland can be achieved or - more tellingly - whether he will commit the party to campaigning for a "no" vote in a referendum.

All the same, this was a useful contribution. The party now needs to put some meat on this skeleton of broadly constructive ideas - starting with the Home Rule Commission. I also hope that Scottish Conference will have a full and proper discussion on the matter before our leadership commits us to supporting an option many liberals are fully opposed to.

Willie Rennie has, in his short piece, demonstrated three things: a) he's not Nick Clegg, b) he understands that the Union is an outdated concept and c) that to defend such a Union in a referendum campaign would amount to intellectual doublethink.

So thank you Willie Rennie for your carefully chosen words. I look forward eagerly to what you have to say next!

Former Labour First Minister labels Union "unfit for purpose"

2012-01-14T13:49:00.000-08:00

Former First Minister Henry McLeish today used The Herald to express his view that the Union is "unfit for purpose" and to distance himself from Labour's inflexible stance towards the independence referendum.

Echoing many of the same sentiments and concerns I did when asking if the Liberal Democrats should be associated with "a coalition of negativity", Mr McLeish dismissed the approach favoured by current Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont - one of forming an anti-independence alliance - and instead urged Scottish politicians to rethink the Union rather than concentrate on "saving" it.

He is of course right. The Union is not fit for purpose. And the current arrangements should not be championed by Scottish Labour - let alone a Liberal Democratic party that has disowned them for years.

McLeish, arguably the last Scottish First Minister to genuinely believe in devolution, warned of the risks to all parties of failing to recognise the importance of Scottish identity. He also forewarned of the dangers of being identified with "toxic" partners, of ignoring the need to change and of being perceived as campaigning negatively or using fear to "exploit ignorance". The former First Minister proposed advocating a new "autonomous Scotland, with full fiscal and devolved powers" which would be characterised by "federalism, nationality and identity, diversity and difference, reform and renewal." All in all, it seems like he's urging Scottish Labour to adopt a very similar position to the one I would like the Scottish Liberal Democrats to take up and expressing the kind of things that, until recently, you would normally expect from a Lib Dem leader.

I admire Mr McLeish's honesty and positivity, which sits in stark contrast to much of what has dominated the Scottish political conversation in recent days. I agree with much of what he says. Understandably, and not unlike my concerns for my own party, he fears that Scottish Labour will fact years of decline if it continues to view the argument on Scotland's constitutional future in black-and-white terms, but I also believe he's interested in more than the future of Labour and genuinely concerned with the need to create a more democratic Scotland. He can see that the road to further progress on devolution is not to be found in negative oppositionalism or counter-productive alliances. Whatever his motives, it's a welcome and quite significant intervention and transcends the small-minded politics of party tribalism that have been played out this week.

Naturally, it also reinforces my own arguments that the Liberal Democrats need to take a similarly positive view. I used twitter to ask why, if Henry McLeish can make such an observation, why can't Willie Rennie and the Scottish Liberal Democrats. To which Willie responded that I should read his article in tomorrow's Sunday Herald.

I'm intrigued. I hope it this will represent the best indication yet that the Scottish Lib Dems are ready to adopt a positive and liberal stance, being unaligned to any of the "sides" in the campaign and opting to use the referendum to further its own vision for a more autonomous Scotland. We'll see if Willie will simply reiterate the predictable lines Nick Clegg has provided in recent days or whether he can provide something more original. Either way, I think it will be a more than interesting read...

Do we really want to be associated with this?

2012-01-12T08:56:00.000-08:00

Today I've e-mailed Willie Rennie to discuss my concerns about potential Liberal Democrat involvement in any anti-independence "no" campaign.

I accept that the Scottish Liberal Democrats, as a party, will not support independence. I understand that many party members feel that independence is not the kind of thing that a federalist party with a strong devolutionist history should be promoting. But I also feel that such a party should not support the only other option likely to make it onto the ballot form - that of the status quo. Some party members find that equally, if not more, objectionable to independence, particularly as in some respects it sits less comfortably with our history and liberal aims.

I've asked Willie to consider finding the kind of middle ground Nick Clegg appeared to be promoting in his misguided "extremist" intervention. Unwise though some of his words may have been, he was making a valid point that we are not a unionist party but a devolutionist one. Not for us the closed attitudes of the Conservative and Labour parties. There are considerable opportunities for the Liberal Democrats if they are able to take advantage of them, but an alliance with any "no" campaign is likely to negate these.

There is absolutely no advantage into being tied into a Lab-Con-Lib alliance in which our distinctive voice and vision would be drowned out. We can do little for the cause of Scottish liberalism if for the next three years we are simply a minor partner in a coalition of negativity. In any case, the "no" campaign does not need us, and we don't need it. Instead, we have to find means of informing the political debate, speak common sense where necessary, to act as a sobering force, questioning detail and empowering the electorate to make an informed choice.

Already anti-independence campaigners, barely organised, have been attempting to take a lead - however inarticulately. It's been impossible to use twitter in the last few days without reading the normal lines about "ripping Scotland out of the UK" and other ridiculous stereotypes. Not only do such people misjudge the nature of the SNP, they show themselves to be the product of black-and-white thinking in regards the political nature of UK. Others - and some of them respected Labour figures - have targeted Salmond, making silly claims that he somehow lacks a mandate even to ask the question.

Then we've had the three leaders of the main parties in Westminster "uniting against Salmond" - according to The Independent. Nothing is less likely to win Scottish voters over to a cause than having Cameron, Clegg and Miliband backing it. And then there's the criticism from Labour parliamentarians who have suddenly found a voice and are urging an instant referendum in spite of demonstrating no interest in the matter for the previous decade, content to repeat the tired anti-SNP rhetoric without ever advocating a new idea or even suggesting that they understand how the SNP has successfully moved away from the simplistic arguments they naively believe they're challenging.

A unionist group on facebook created the above poster, which is so simplistic in its analysis and conclusions as to be laughable. Why anyone would be positively attracted to such propaganda, I can't begin to imagine. As for the notion of a "Unionist Party" - if that isn't an early warning to the Lib Dems to distance ourselves from this kind of idiotic political talk I don't know what is. It should be pointed out that this is not the product of a political party or an established campaigning unit, but I did see a senior Labour figure making almost identical claims on twitter last night.

Slightly more articulate, but barely any more sober, is Financial Times journalist John Lloyd who sees the pro-independence lobby and the SNP in particular as "narcissistic... with their bilious, medieval populism, slaves to a romanticized tartan past." Such people fail to grasp what drives Salmond, the SNP or non-nationalist sympathisers of independence. Other than the odd eccentric nationalist, no-one is motivated by a nostalgia for the medieval or the kitschy kind of Scottish identity so loved by foreign visitors to Edinburgh. What actually matters is the prospect of building a better society and how this can best be achieved, the role Scotland can have in Europe, future co-operative relations with the UK, creating a prosperous future and becoming a force for global good. These, and other pertinent issues relating to the nature of an independent Scotland should be at the forefront of the political conversation, not backward looking stereotypes of kilts and bagpipes - or juvenile, simplistic and tribalist dialogue coming from elected representatives who should no better.

So far, it's mainly Labour politicians who have done most of the running in recent days - apparently determined to outgun Cameron in their attempts to ensure that the SNP recruitment drive continues in earnest. The Scottish Tories, to their credit, have been more careful in their choice of words. But Toryism remains a toxic brand and however capable Ruth Davidson might be, she's singing from a completely different hymnsheet from the Lib Dems as far as Scotland's constitutional future is concerned.

We have to stop and think - will being associated with this lot be good for us? Already it's beginning to look rather acrimonious and heated - and the campaign hasn't even begun yet.

And just to show the nationalists can be every inch as unpleasant, Joan McAlpine MSP weighed in by accusing opposition parties of being anti-Scottish: "I make no apology for saying that the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Tories are anti-Scottish ... in coming together to defy the will of the Scottish people." Obviously a very sensible choice as Parliamentary Liaison officer. Lib Dem blogger Caron Lindsay responded: "We really don't need poisonous language from either side in this. What I want more than anything else is for Scotland to have a passionate and positive debate on its future."

Whatever our views on independence, I suspect little will be gained by siding - and being seen to side - with the Tories or even with Labour, who have only negativity to offer on this matter. The danger is we could sink without trace, overshadowed by the main parties and an intemperate debate we can't possibly hope to influence. A friend and fellow Lib Dem blogger, Nic Prigg, observed that it "doesn't seem like we can be grown-up about it". Well, it seems true that many can't - but the Lib Dems have the opportunity to stand aside from the hideous, shallow spectacle of political immaturity and articulate something more reasonable, more sensible, more liberal...

I hope Willie Rennie will manage to find the middle ground Nick Clegg referred to and avoid the temptation to become simply another anti-independence voice. He, and the Liberal Democrats, have so much positive to say about Scotland's future if they can only find their voice - and abandon the Lab-Con unionist fundamentalists to their tired prejudices and idiocies.

Independence Referendum announced - what Lib Dems should do next

2012-01-10T13:48:00.000-08:00

And so Alex Salmond has announced that Scots will have the chance to vote on independence in Autumn 2014. This shouldn't surprise anyone. What it means in practice is that we will have to wait almost three years which is positive in the sense that it allows more than sufficient time for a reasonable debate, but is an unusually long time in which to plan and fight a campaign.

I'm quite enthusiastic about taking the arguments to Scottish voters but even I have to admit that after 3 years I might feel a bit of campaign fatigue. No doubt the average Scottish voter, possessing less in the way of political motivation, will tire even more quickly - especially if the campaigning amounts to little more than three years of intolerant namecalling, scaremongering and shallow debate.

Of course, while it will take some time for the campaigning groups to establish themselves, there can be little doubt on both sides that the campaign itself starts now. Already, Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie and former leader Tavish Scott have fired opening salvos: Rennie promised to "fight to protect Scotland’s future as part of the UK family" while Scott used twitter to predict "2 and a half years of fighting over Scotland's future".

None of this is helpful. As I've said too many times to remember, fighting talk like this simply plays into the SNP's hands. We don't need a fight, but reasonable argument and to be a party that can both inspire and empower Scottish voters to make their voice heard. With this in mind, I've drawn up a list of what I'd like to see the Lib Dems do in coming months - granted the party as a whole might not be as independence-sympathetic as I am but it must realise that responding to the SNP bait is counter-productive and damaging.

The first thing I want to see is the Scottish Liberal Democrats getting a bit excited about this referendum campaign, and to be obviously so. After all, we've been asking for it (at least since the SNP's Holyrood majority made it an inevitability). So we should embrace the opportunity to communicate our own vision for Scotland's future - a liberal vision that gives increased freedom to the Scottish parliament and Scottish people.

The second thing I want is for the party not to forget its federalist principles. We are, constitutionally at least, a federal party. Admittedly we've not done a lot in recent years to further a federalist agenda or to achieve further devolution (and we had our chances when in government with Labour, not least with the Steel Commission which should form the basis of current Lib Dem thinking) but here's a great opportunity to rectify that. We should ensure that we use every occasion possible to reiterate our distinctiveness from the Tories and Labour, neither of which have much of a vision for extending Holyrood's powers. Instead of repeatedly the same tired, predictable arguments about why independence would be so bad for Scotland we should be trying to sell a positive, liberal, forward-looking vision for tomorrow's Scotland - the kind that Scots might actually want to live in.

Which brings me to the third point - we need to be positive. Obvious one, isn't it? Voters are not turned on by negative diatribe and relentless personal attacks. The same goes for our attitudes towards Scotland. We need to avoid pursuing the tactics of fear or focusing our energies on everything that we perceive as "bad" about independence.

Fourthly, we should be careful not to align ourselves too closely with what is politically toxic. I know that several commenters will now wish to draw my attention to the make-up of the Westminster coalition. Yes, I know. And if that experience has told us anything it's that there are electoral implications for such alliances. We should also learn from the experience of the "No" campaign in 1997 - it was always going to find the going tough, but being led by figures such as Michael Forsyth made it toxic in the eyes of most voters - including some Tory ones. If the Lib Dems are to ally themselves with the "No" campaign, which would be fraught with dangers in itself, then they must be aware that being identified with senior figureheads from the Conservative Party and perhaps elsewhere could have significant electoral consequences, whatever the outcome of the referendum.

Fifthly, let's cut out the fighting talk. The kind of intervention from Willie Rennie and Tavish Scott was unhelpful. We don't need a fight, but a liberal party championing good liberal principles. And the status quo isn't a particularly liberal arrangement. Admittedly, if the referendum is only a single Yes/No question, then this will pose certain problems for us - we're likely to be tempted towards encouraging people to vote for one of what Nick Clegg has already termed "extremes". We can see this referendum about defending the Union (as Rennie appears to) or how best to take Scotland forward. But however we view it, we're going to achieve very little if we allow ourselves to be drawn into a "fight" with the SNP. We need to avoid all confrontational approaches if possible; not only do they not work given the SNP's almost expert adversarial performances, they are a poor weapon and usually only serve to make us look petty and tribal. On the other hand, when we are sensible, dignified, sober and calm in dealing with our political opponents (as Michael Moore was today), the SNP can be made to appear shallow and more than a little condescending. No doubt the SNP will seek to draw us into the bear pit knowing that if they can they'll invariably win, but the temptation must be resisted. This includes set pieces with Salmond in FMQs, in which we generally tend not to fare so well.

We have to remember that this referendum is about many things, but not the SNP. It has huge implications for the future of that party that Alex Salmond is only too aware of but ultimately it is about independence - and it is our role to be asking vital questions about the nature of an independent Scotland. And so my sixth recommendation is to choose our battles very carefully and, where possible, avoid addressing nationalism - instead concentrating our energies on the detail of what is being proposed, providing evidence-based concern to what will become a more complex political discussion. Ultimately the Lib Dems will be judged by their role in the referendum campaign, but also in how well they deal with more pertinent and pressing issues - not least on the economy and employment opportunities.

Seventhly, we must recognise that our principal challenge isn't with the SNP. It's with ourselves. We have to use this opportunity to recreate a distinct identity for Scottish Liberal Democracy. The SNP will have their own problems to deal with as the referendum date approaches: if it succeeds in achieving independence it will cease to be necessary; if it fails, the cause of independence will have been set back, perhaps irrevocably. Certainly if it is the former, this will present potential opportunity for the Liberal Democrats. However, in the immediate future our energies should be directed towards the kind of liberal renaissance I've spoken of previously and ensuring that the Lib Dems can re-emerge from the referendum as a credible force in Scottish politics. This won't be easy but it is far more necessary for the party to take steps towards revitalising itself than it is to provide opposition to independence (there are already two other parties doing that which, in fairness, don't really need our help).

Finally, we need to put the interests of Scottish people first. In everything we do, we must never forget that we are a federal party , a liberal party, whose purpose is to serve those we represent while building the "free, fair and open society" we so passionately believe in. Basically, we need to be true to ourselves - not slavishly following the "leadership" of questionably useful allies in a "No" campaign but by finding our liberal voice once again and expressing the kind of proposals for Scotland's future that I'm sure would resonate with Scottish people if only we could effectively articulate it.

I've made it clear enough that I'm independence sympathetic. I really would welcome an independent Scotland, and in all likelihood will vote for it. However, I remain a convinced liberal and I long for the Scottish Liberal Democrats to regain their political relevance and influence. I'm personally convinced that the best option for the Liberal Democrats in Scotland (at least if the referendum on offer does not include a "Devo Max" option) is not to formally join any of the two camps but rather champion a federal vision and ensure that instead of becoming constricted around personalities or parties the debate centres on how best to provide increased freedoms for Scottish people. That doesn't mean we shouldn't involve ourselves in the campaign, but that such involvement should be on the basis of asking the necessarily tough and technical questions rather than allying ourselves with what Nick Clegg dismisses as "extremist" philosophies.

There will be opportunities arising in the next few years for a party that is not openly hostile to independence. Any form of alliance with the Conservative and Labour parties, especially one that exists purely to oppose an idea that is arguably more liberal than the status quo, to me seems frankly unpalatable. The Scottish Liberal Democrats could do worse than maintain a position of detachment, using the referendum campaign as a means of promoting their own federalist solutions while refusing to identify themselves with either "tribe".

Will that happen? No, I fully expect that the party will fall in behind the Labour and Tory parties in arguing against independence, thereby tacitly supporting another arrangement we are ostensibly opposed to. But it doesn't have to be like that. The "No" campaign doesn't need us; likewise, we certainly don't need it.

What Scotland, and the UK, has needed for many years is a Liberal Democrat party willing to advocate a real federal alternative to the status quo. If the party can't seize the opportunity this time, why should Scottish voters be blamed for not believing we have the appetite to deliver?

SNP set referendum date

2012-01-10T10:09:00.000-08:00

I must give credit to Michael Moore where it is due - this afternoon he put in a performance as good as any I've seen from a Lib Dem in recent months. He certainly recovered a bit of credibility for the government following yesterday's attempt to manipulate the date of the referendum and the conditions on which it could be called.

Thankfully, Moore distanced himself from the government's previous position that a referendum must be held within 18 months. Fortunately the "sunset clause" was removed and there was no mention of any date or arbitrary timescale. Which is very welcome and suggestive of Lib Dem influence in government helping to reverse a difficult situation of the Prime Minister's making, even if it is disappointing that no progress has been made on allowing all Scots aged over 16 to vote in the referendum.

Moore announced a UK Government consultation on the referendum, designed to give the Scottish parliament the legal powers it needs, which is open to "people living in Scotland and elsewhere". I'm very pleased - I'll get my Polish relatives to offer their views. But this is surely something of a pointless exercise given that every party in Scotland is calling for a referendum?

However, not to be outdone the SNP regained the initiative in typical style, announcing a date for the independence referendum. Not in parliament of course, but to the press. And not a date exactly - it's more like a season. But they have indicated an intention to hold it in Autumn 2014. As you can imagine this is causing a lot of excitement on twitter, but oddly not in the House of Commons, where no-one seems aware of the announcement! Especially not Moore, who has no appreciation that, yet again and in spite of a positive performance, he's been outmanoeuvred by Salmond!

I'm pleased - OK, relieved - that a "date" of sorts has been set. By-products of this will be some constitutional wrangling, "unionist" parties no longer saying contradictory things such as the need for both quality debate and an immediate referendum, the gradual emergence of a "No" campaign in the coming months and Willie Rennie wondering what to ask at FMQs. More importantly, it gives campaigners on both sides a target to work towards, and allows for a reasonable time in which to have the kind of debate Scotland needs if voters are to be empowered to make an informed decision.

As someone else once famously said, "bring it on"! Now, maybe we can get back to talking about something else?

Scottish independence referendum dominates headlines

2012-01-10T09:10:00.000-08:00

Quite amazingly the issue of Scotland’s constitutional future has dominated the UK headlines over the last day. As Prime Minister David Cameron and other cabinet colleagues including George Osborne intervened on setting a timescale and the legal remit of a referendum on independence, the political debate erupted into a hostile and undignified confrontation with both sides making predictable comments accusing the other of jeopardising the Scottish economy.
For the most part it was tiresome stuff. However, there were some serious questions asked about the SNP and its plans for the holding the referendum and equally vitally the tactics of the coalition government were brought under scrutiny.

Essentially, the debate centred around the timing of the proposed referendum and whether it would in fact be legally binding, rather than simply a consultative survey of public opinion. David Cameron appears willing to offer a legally binding ballot if certain conditions are met, including a “sunset clause” and excluding under 18s from the vote – something Danny Alexander seems happy to accept in spite of historic Lib Dem support for extending the franchise to those aged 16 and upwards. Other coalition demands include no question on the “devolution max” option preferred by Willie Rennie, something that brings into question the relevance of the Home Rule Commission. It also appears that the coalition government may wish to call their own referendum if the SNP refused to accept what it was offering – as far as calling Alex Salmond’s bluff goes, this was a rather dismal attempt and underlines the coalition’s anxiety for a quick referendum. The Westminster government has no mandate for conducting such a referendum, which would surely be aimed only at clipping Alex Salmond’s wings.

A fellow Liberal Democrat blogger, Graeme Cowie, has already written clearly and concisely on the “referendum strings”. A law student, he has insights into current legal arrangements that neither I, nor I imagine many who are currently engaged in the hostile debate, have much appreciation of. He observes that all talk of any referendum being legally-binding is intellectually and politically speaking utter nonsense. He also correctly highlights that the SNP has the mandate to ask the question at a time of its choosing and that attempts by other parties to determine the holding of the referendum amount to “disgraceful politicking”. Most tellingly, he notes that what is actually central to discussions is not the referendum itself but the democratic legitimacy of Scotland’s institutions – and Holyrood in particular.

It is, therefore, inconsistent for a “federalist” party such as the Liberal Democrats to support the coalition government’s attempts to influence the outcome of the referendum. We should accept that the SNP, having a majority in the Scottish parliament, has the right to call the referendum when it likes – it has already intimated it hopes to do so in the second term of the parliament and likely to be in 2014. Alex Salmond is not obliged to time the implementation of SNP policy to suit either David Cameron or Michael Moore.

Jo Swinson commented last night on STV that “"We should have the voters deciding the outcome of a referendum, not the courts." She also added that it was vital to “give the Scottish Parliament powers it needs to hold a referendum” which she hopes will be “legal, fair and decisive”. Of course I agree. It is a great pity, however, that for several years the Liberal Democrats have refused to support even the idea of an independence referendum, even one in which we could have helped to shape the question. Labour’s Douglas Alexander, writing in today’s Daily Telegraph, said much the same thing while adding that Salmond “fears the verdict of the Scottish people”. The SNP hedging its bets around when is most likely to give it the result it wants is actually its legal right, and is no more symptomatic of fear than a UK government seeking to ensure a referendum is held as soon as possible for similar reasons.

Nicola Sturgeon accused David Cameron of “interfering” in Scottish matters. I wouldn’t use that language; as Prime Minister he has every right to make an intervention if he wishes. But surely the fact that he can doesn’t mean he should. I would question the wisdom of his intervention and his blatant attempt to influence the outcome: given his standing among Scots voters I would suggest there isn’t a surer way of strengthening the pro-independence cause than having this overbearing and unpopular man, who lacks any credibility in Scotland, appearing to dictate terms. It’s like revisiting the 1980s, with Cameron taking over Thatcher’s mantle as the best recruitment sergeant for the opposition parties (or, in this case, the SNP).

I do agree with Sturgeon when she argues that the UK government setting deadlines and threatening to run its own referendum on its own terms undermines a fundamental democratic principle. The Liberal Democrats, if we are a federal party, must recognise this and ensure that the Scottish government is allowed to do what it has an electoral mandate to do.

I have little concern for the Conservatives. They have little to lose in Scotland in any case: only one MP compared to our eleven. As Nicholas Watt surmised in today’s Guardian, Osborne is in a win-win situation. If he can hold off the nationalist threat and ensure that the SNP’s referendum is lost he will be a hero to the Tory right wing, ever the romantics for the union. But if his identification with the “no” campaign pushes Scotland towards independence, he may achieve an even greater victory – that of ensuring that the Tories in England retain power for a generation.

On the other hand, I am far more concerned for the future of the Liberal Democrats. Ever keen to claim our credentials as being a “federalist” party, we have done very little to actively promote a federal vision for many years. Even Devolution Max for Scotland is not in itself a federalist proposal. Federalism would put Scotland on an equal standing with England, which remains utterly undevolved. I’ve searched our manifestos in vain for any reference to a seriously cohesive and practical federalist vision for the UK and must conclude, pretty much as Nick Clegg appeared to do, that we are not federalist in substance or practice but devolutionist. We’ve had opportunities with the Steel Commission (a vastly bolder and more radical statement of intention than Calman) and in eight years in government at Holyrood, but stopped talking and certainly didn’t deliver anything to bring about the further devolution Scotland so badly needed. And now, in response to the very real possibility of independence, we have established a third commission – the quaintly named Home Rule Commission (Gladstone would have loved that title) – but as yet no policy or detailed direction on this matter for the public to excite themselves about.

Professor of politics at Strathclyde University, John Curtice – always someone whose views are worth listening to – thinks that denying voters a second question, or a middle way between the status quo and independence, is a hugely risky strategy. From a Liberal Democrat perspective, the assumptions that we should oppose independence in a Yes/No ballot and that voters favouring further powers would necessarily vote “no” could prove to be seriously misplaced. I, like many other Lib Dems (and even many SNP members) would happily welcome “Devolution Max” and this is clearly something a genuinely federal party should support. However, if the only options on the ballot form are what Nick Clegg describes as two “extremes”, I imagine many will vote for independence – it is, after all, a more liberal alternative than the status quo. And, as Curtice supposes, questions will be asked about whether “unionist” parties would in fact have the will to deliver any further devolution at all; certainly the Tories have no such intention while the Lib Dems’ five MSPs have little influence and less credibility than they once had. It may all hinge on Scottish Labour...

If there is no second question on the ballot paper, I will certainly vote for independence. In fairness, I probably would anyway but at least if a second question was asked I would have to seriously consider the finer detail of what was being proposed. There are plenty of other Liberal Democrat members who think along similar lines. As for the Liberal Democrats, how can we and our federalist credentials be taken seriously if, in government, we do not urge for an option on the ballot form that more accurately reflects our principles? True, this might represent an equally risky strategy to championing a single question referendum, but at least as a party we would be being true to ourselves and be able to campaign for something we believe, rather than negatively campaigning against independence.

What became very obvious yesterday is that the Lib Dems need to be more positive in their approach, especially within the Westminster government. It was also glaringly obvious that tactically and personally Alex Salmond is more than a match for David Cameron. Willie Rennie and the Scottish Lib Dems, as well as Johann Lamont’s Scottish Labour, must raise their efforts to promote a new devolution while (as Jo Swinson insisted) challenging the substance of independence rather than the process. Anything else will be political suicide: whatever the eventual referendum outcome, we will for many years be remembered for the role we played within it. The referendum will do far more do define us as a party than anything Willie Rennie says or does.

Would I rather the Lib Dems be remembered as a party of negative, cynically opportune anti-independence obsessives or the party that, while perhaps unconvinced about the merits of independence, saw the pursuit of a fairer and freer Scotland as a greater aim than defence of the status quo and did everything it could to realise it? I’m sure you know the answer.

So, Nick Clegg thinks I'm an extremist...

2012-01-07T11:29:00.001-08:00

Apparently he does, if the quote in today's Scotsman is to be believed.

A bit of a storm has erupted over comments reportedly made by Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg while on a brief visit to Scotland. Choosing to comment personally on Scotland's constitutional future, he argued that "all the evidence suggests that [support for devolution] is the mainstream of opinion and the extremists are those who either think that we need to yank Scotland out of the United Kingdom tomorrow, or those who say there should be no further change at all".

As anyone living in Scotland - or, indeed, anyone who has taken the trouble to cast a cursory glance over opinion polls in recent months - will know, this shows Mr Clegg to be rather out of touch with Scottish public opinion. It is simply incorrect to assert that the desire for independence is somehow not mainstream, as if such an attitude was the preserve of a tiny minority of political campaigners. As I stated in my speech after the Renfrewshire North count (paraphrasing Harold Macmillan), "there is a wind of change sweeping across our nation whether some of us like it or not". More and more people - most of whom are not fervent nationalists - are beginning to consider independence as the basis for a sensible and practical arrangement for Scotland's future, and it is unwise to ignore this reality or be dismissive of it. It is more of a mistake, both factually and tactically, to allege that those who support independence in some way represent an "extreme" philosophy - as Alex Salmond later pointed out, the language is unhelpful and should perhaps be "rethought". There are many who believe independence to be preferable to the status quo and even a potentially better option than further devolution - myself and some other Liberal Democrats among them. We are not extremists and don't appreciate being referred to as such.

Admittedly it was The Scotsman who used the word "extremist", rather than Mr Clegg. But the damage was done and someone as experienced and senior as the Deputy Prime Minister really should know better than to give the SNP this kind of opportunity. As Caron observed in her blog post, "by [using] the "extremist" line, it gives that lazy SNP press officer a shot at goal. Nick should maybe have talked up the possibility, touted before Christmas, of enabling legislation to clear up any doubt about the referendum result, something that if it happens will come from a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State. He could have concentrated on all the things the UK Government are doing to benefit Scotland. He should have concentrated more on us not being a unionist party." Quite true. He should also avoid creating the impression of being yet another arrogant out of touch English MP lecturing Scots on how they think. Furthermore, he could have pointed a way forward for the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, rather than taking opportune pot shots at those he perceives as our political enemies.

Nick Clegg might want to believe that "the Lib Dems vision of Home Rule represented the views of the Scottish people", but I don't find too many fellow Scots who are particularly interested or inspired by it. Most don't even seem to know about it. There are certainly far more who are inspired by the cause of independence, or by either Alex Salmond or the SNP.

Nick Clegg clearly fails to understand Scotland and indeed should leave interventions of this kind to Willie Rennie or Michael Moore. But he also fails to understand the SNP, not to mention the ways in which electorates vote. The SNP has no plans to "yank Scotland out of the United Kingdom tomorrow" and this kind of "tearing apart the union" language is almost as unhelpful to the ongoing debate as accusations of "extremism". Also, prior to the referendum in 1997 there was no great swell of support for devolution per se; it was not the kind of thing that excited people. But there was an appetite for change, stemming from dissatisfaction at Scotland's treatment during 18 years of Conservative rule from London, and people identified the "Scotland Forward" campaign as a bringer of such positive and overdue change - a notion reinforced by unpopular figures from a discredited party leading the anti-devolution "Think Twice". Perhaps some lessons can be learned from the past.

I'm not sure why Nick Clegg chose to focus on what he knew would be contentious questions about constitutional matters when he had ostensibly come to visit Dunfermline to lend his support to Willie Rennie's Youth Contract, for which the UK government is contributing £1billion. Perhaps if the Deputy Prime Minister had been wiser in both his choice of words and his choice of topics when speaking with the media, the political conversation may have centred on tackling youth unemployment rather than further uninspiring rhetoric on Scottish independence.

It is a shame that his language overshadowed some of his message, because Mr Clegg did have some interesting points to make. I was pleased to see him affirm that the Liberal Democrats are not a "unionist" party - nor even a "federalist" one - but are in fact "devolutionist". That is a welcome contribution and perhaps a sign that we can expect something a bit more adventurous from the Home Rule Commission after twelve years of not doing very much to promote further devolution. He also appeared to promote an alternative "middle ground" and increased freedom for the Scottish government. But, ultimately, his language betrayed an attitude which was as helpful as his intervention was wise. Whatever Clegg hoped to achieve with these comments, the end result is that they have proved counter-productive.

I am not personally offended by Nick Clegg's "extremist" remark. He did not state explicitly, whatever the Scotsman would like to suggest, that people who support independence are by definition extremists. What he did say was that independence is an extremist option and that the pro-independence lobby is at the fringes of Scottish public opinion. On both these counts he is wrong.

He also fails to realise that, while it is admittedly a minority view, there are Liberal Democrats who are independence-leaning. They see a liberal vision for a truly liberal Scotland and recognise that having an open mind on the question is not anathema to liberalism. In a previous conversation with Willie Rennie I argued that independence could yield benefits for both Scotland and our party that should not be lightly dismissed; I also suggested that the Liberal Democrats' best position could be in supporting whichever option gives Scots most freedoms and being open to the notion of independence even if we remain skeptical about the details. It would certainly be preferable to entrenched, cynical opposition. The Home Rule Commission is welcome, if somewhat overdue, but while it is right to formulate our own preferred option there is no place for political arrogance that refuses to even countenance other perspectives that would help bring about our liberal aims - you know, the kind of arrogance some might view as extreme.

It would be wrong to make a great deal out of this. It is nothing more than an unwise choice of words from a party leader who would have been better advised to avoid any such statements on Scotland's future. However, while Alex Salmond simply wants Nick Clegg to "rethink" his language, I would like him to rethink his attitude - to both Scotland and the constitutional question. The last thing the debate needs is for an unpopular party leader weighing in with his tuppence worth - which was only ever likely to have one effect.

I hope that, in future, Nick Clegg will leave all talk about Scotland's future to the Scottish leader - after all, isn't that what "devolutionism" (if it's a real word) is about?

My predictions for 2012

2011-12-31T08:58:00.000-08:00

So, that was the year that was. It started off moderately well for the Liberal Democrats with a reasonable outcome in the Oldham & Saddleworth by-election, with Tim Farron telling us all that the result showed how unwise it was to write off the Liberal Democrats as a spent electoral force. Unfortunately that was followed by some disastrous by-elections in Barnsley and Inverclyde and a collapse of stunning proportions in the Holyrood elections. And things haven't got a great deal better since, although there have been some indications of the party's willingness to assert itself in coalition on such issues as the NHS, green energy, the proposed tax break for married people and Europe.

It's tough in coalition, as Nick Clegg's grittily realistic New Year message attests. No-one ever suggested it would be anything other, but it's clearly a lot harder for the minor partner than it is for the larger. Here in Scotland, we've taken a particular battering on a greater scale than I imagined when I wrote (in May 2010) that: "from a purely Scottish perspective, identifying ourselves with a Conservative Party which has virtually no electoral base and remains widely mistrusted could prove to be an electoral liability. The old questions of the Tories’ electoral legitimacy in Scotland and the perceived 'democratic deficit' may re-emerge with potential to damage the Scottish Liberal Democrats." I think at the time there were many who disagreed with such an assessment of our electoral prospects; there aren't too many who'd take issue with it now.

I tried my hand at making a few other predictions last year, some of which were less accurate than that above. As it's that time of year again, I've dug out the crystal ball to have another go at foretelling how the year is going to pan out:

POLITICS

The Liberal Democrats

* The local elections will see significant Lib Dem losses, although it is the Tories and the SNP who are best placed to capitalise. Nick Clegg will remain defiant and insist that if only we keep on telling voters how much we're doing in government, they'll eventually reward us.

* Tim Farron's star will continue to rise and he will increasingly be seen as the voice of the grassroots and the party's conscience. Tim will always have a word for anyone, especially representatives of the media who won't believe any of his denials that he's grooming himself to be Nick Clegg's eventual successor.

* Ed Davey will become more visible and will develop his reputation as being a sensible although radical thinker in the heart of government.

* 2012 will see a growth in the influence of the Social Liberal Forum and Evan Harris in particular. Despite accusations of being "a party within a party", the SLF will continue to articulate the kind of centre-left policies many members continue to identify closely with, much to the private disgust of Nick Clegg.

* Here in Scotland, Willie Rennie will become more positive in his approach and less adversarial towards the SNP. Like most Scottish Lib Dems though, he will continue to suffer from Tourette's Syndrome whenever the word "independence" is whispered. The public - or at least the handful who religiously watch FMQs on the Parliament channel - will gradually begin to warm to his performances in Holyrood, which will provide relief from the tribal battle between the SNP and Labour front benches. He will gain credibility from focusing his energies on education, the youth contract and tackling unemployment - and from people finally realising that he has a sense of humour. This won't stop much of the media from continuing to perceive him as something of an irrelevance.

* Rennie will dismiss poor results in the local elections as merely the inevitable effect of the Westminster coalition. Nick Clegg will remain unrepentant, reminding us all that if only we keep on telling voters how much we're doing for Scotland in government, they'll eventually reward us.

The Conservative Party

* Right-wing Conservatives will sense they have their leader on the back foot after the recent European debacle. They will up the pressure on Cameron to continue to pander to their less than progressive whims and unreasonable designs, with limited success. Expect Cameron to reinforce his own party's identity in coalition and Tory MPs to berate the role of Liberal Democrats as a negative force.

* George Osborne will be forced on the defensive over the government's austerity programme but will refuse to consider alternative plans, even in the face of evidence to suggest they might actually work more effectively.

* The Tory vote will hold up well in local elections, which will mistakenly be interpreted as approval of the government's policy direction.

* Ruth Davidson will struggle to adapt to her new role as Scottish Tory leader, but will have an enormous impact on the continuing independence debate.

The Labour Party

* Labour will continue to struggle, with Ed Miliband in particular demonstrating an inability to come to terms with opposition.

* Ed Balls will prove effective at probing the limitations of George Osborne's fiscal plans, but will struggle to champion any cogent ideas of his own.

* Chuka Umunna will demonstrate his enormous value to the Labour Party in a string of skirmishes with Vince Cable in which his leadership potential will become obvious to everyone, including the fearful Ed Miliband. Cue plenty of unsettling talk about replacing the current leader.

* Johann Lamont will start slowly but will emerge as a capable debater (especially in FMQs) and will advocate a stronger emphasis on equality, both of which will set her apart from her predecessor.

The Scottish Nationalist Party

* Even Willie Rennie admits that Alex Salmond has had a fantastic year. So good in fact, that things can't really get any better. And they won't. But as the most respected politician in Scotland by some distance and arguably the most able communicator in Holyrood, Salmond will continue to enjoy high public approval ratings and his party will make gains in the local elections, at the expense of both Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

* Other SNP ministers, most notably Sturgeon, Russell and Ewing will have a successful year. Swinney will find the going tougher but his Budget, which will include welcome action to tackle unemployment and increase investment in green energy, will be supported by the Greens and Liberal Democrats. And cynically opposed by Labour, in spite of them being in agreement with 90% of it.

* Support will not necessarily rise for independence, but as support for the SNP itself shows no sign of waning, confidence in the party's ranks that it will win a referendum appear more than justified. Opposition parties sense the danger and intervene with misguided attacks on the SNP leadership, thus boosting the prospect of a "Yes" vote.

* The SNP will show leadership on equality and will decide in favour of introducing equal marriage. This move will be supported by all parties in Holyrood other than the Tories who, despite having an openly gay leader, still aren't overly comfortable with LGBT rights and retain a telling silence on the matter. Equal marriage will be generally welcomed, although a few senior Roman Catholic clergy, the Wee Frees, the Christian Institute, Willie Rennie's interns, MSPs John Mason and Bill Wilson - and, of course, Dame Brian Souter - will form an unlikely coalition and ensure that for several weeks after the announcement the Scottish press is pre-occupied with reporting the backward-looking attitudes of a self-appointed "moral majority", embarrassing Scotland in the process. The media will rub their hands with glee in anticipation of a breakaway Church of Scottish Homophobes, which never comes into being.

* As the SNP would like, the political debate in Scotland becomes increasingly constricted around the question of independence. Unfortunately for the SNP, this also coincides with a public appetite for a referendum to determine Scotland's future in the EU, which the party are less happy to offer.

International

* The "Arab Spring" proves to be optimistically named. Democracy in Egypt returns a government not overly friendly towards democratic principles and determined to impose its opposition to western "carnality". It will outlaw alcohol, bikinis and generally having fun, thus in an instant destroying the Egyptian tourist industry and ruining the economy. Economic pressures lead to expressions of discontent, which meet the predictably heavy-handed response. Meanwhile in Syria, President Assad finally succumbs to international and internal pressure and quits, only to be replaced by a "transitional government" made up of Ba'ath Party allies and the military.

* The Euro will survive - for the time being. Bulgaria will join the Euro later in the year and at a vastly inflated rate which will eventually prove to be its undoing. The technocratic governments of Greece and Italy do what they were designed to do in the short term but have no long-term answer to dealing with Europe's debt problem. Bizarrely, the East African nations of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi rate the Euro so highly want to replicate its "success" and will launch a new single currency for the East African Community mid-way through the year.

* France will elect Francois Hollande to replace Nicolas Sarkozy as President.

* North Korean premier Kim Jong-un will prove himself a worthy successor to his father and grandfather and will behave in an similarly erratic and irresponsible manner, only more so. Anxious to make a name for himself on the international stage, Kim is keen to play up his nuclear capability and makes thinly veiled threats towards his Southern neighbours.

* The US Presidential will be the closest run and the toughest to call since Truman defeated Dewey. The Republicans select Mitt Romney from an admittedly limited pool of talent, who proves himself to be a safer pair of hands than some feared. Whatever the outcome, the rest of the world breathes a collective sigh of relief that Sarah Palin didn't run.

Football

* St Mirren will finish a barely believable and thoroughly creditable 7th in the SPL, with Morton putting together a good run at the end of the season to finish 4th in Division 1. Celtic will win the SPL, as well as the League Cup beating Kilmarnock in the final. My own Albion Rovers will miss out on the play-offs. In England, Manchester United will have the experience that matters at the business end of the season giving them a record-breaking 20th title; Alex Ferguson still won't retire.

* Euro 2012 proves a disappointment, although Scottish fans will enjoy watching England losing to Italy in the second round. Russia will lose to Germany in the final, after which they complain about the facilities, the refereeing and Ukrainian nationalism.

Olympics

* The Olympics will be a huge success for the GB team. They will do well in athletics, rowing, sailing, swimming and diving. They will do less well in the beach volleyball, but it will be fun watching them try.

* Unfortunately, the games will bring a lesser economic benefit to the country than the public were led to believe. Lacking the kind of foresight possessed by that of the organisers of the games in Barcelona or Sydney, the GB Olympics' lasting legacy is a couple of London football clubs arguing about who uses the stadium.

* However, the most lasting memory will be mayor Boris Johnson fumbling through a typically disjointed speech at the closing ceremony during which he slips on the wet grass while demonstrating the British origins of synchronised swimming, suffering a fracture to his collarbone and having to be carried off to an ambulance, which doesn't arrive for 30 minutes as it's stuck in traffic around the Elephant & Castle.

In lighter vein...

* A number of political scandals will rock Westminster, including a Tory MP having a string of affairs, a Labour frontbencher hailing the Thatcher legacy and a Lib Dem admitting that he's not gay.

* The Liberal Democrats' electoral fortunes will pick up slightly, with a creditable third place in a by-election in which they come ahead of the BNP, UKIP, the Monster Raving Loony Party and the National Liberal Party which, ironically enough, is campaigning against what it perceives as a merger of the Tories and Lib Dems. The Monster Raving Loony candidate will save his deposit, campaigning with the slogan "The only Tory of any use is a lava-tory".

* Theresa May will propose constructing an electric fence around Britain's coastline to keep out both immigrants and any pet cats they bring along with them.

* Jo Swinson's Real Women campaign will be so effective in championing body confidence and challenging stereotypical perceptions of beauty that the "in" thing for fashionable models to do will be to pile on the pounds. Katie Price gets in on the act, opting for a breast reduction to reveal the extent of her "new tummy". Such is the change of culture, a size-12 Glaswegian teenager will win X-factor and will court controversy posing nude for the cover of Playboy as she's considered "too thin" to be a model.

* I will get round to having the washing machine repaired. Eventually.

My top ten posts of 2011

2011-12-30T02:33:00.000-08:00

My most popular (or at least most viewed) posts of the last year:

1. Is this the stupidest cartoon in Scottish political history? I question the wisdom of the Liberal Democrats publishing a cartoon playing up "similarities" between Qatar and Alex Salmond's vision for an independent Scotland.

2. The psychology of a deluded dictator. I ponder the Libyan leader's fragile psychology after his hour long murderous rant on international TV.

3. Theresa May sets the cat among the pigeons. The Home Secretary makes an unwise and misleading reference to an illegal immigrant being allowed to remian in Britain on the basis of pet ownership. Fortunately myself and several other bloggers are on hand to point out how infantile her comments are.

4. Scottish Lib Dem leaders "links" to fundamentalist Christian group. The Sunday Herald reveals Willie Rennie receives interns from CARE, a far-right "Christian" group that opposes equal marriage and campaigns against abortion. I am, naturally, more than a little irked.

5. Which way forward for the Scottish Lib Dems? I ask the question after a disastrous election for the party.

6. Rennie is new leader of Scottish Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems have a new leader. And he's a former coal-carrying champion, no less.

7. Disaster in Inverclyde: what next for the Scottish Lib Dems? We suffer a humiliating defeat in my home constituency. I am so angry that I resort to bold type to get my points across.

8. Brian Souter receives a knighthood - an insult too far. I, like many other Scots, couldn't quite understand why this peddler of homophobic prejudice was rewarded for his "charitable" work.

9. Dear Nick, The cause of Scottish Liberalism has been set back 50 years. I write to Nick Clegg about my fears for the party's future following the crushing electoral defeat in May. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't reply or even acknowledge my concerns.

10. Democracy v Populism. I look at the use of referenda, taking some lessons from the Icelandic experience.

In which I am mentioned in First Minister's Questions...

2011-12-29T08:49:00.000-08:00

I've taken a bit of a break from blogging, largely due to increased workload and family commitments in the run-up to the festive period.

In fact, so detached have I been from political developments that I was was completely oblivious to the fact that I was mentioned by Alex Salmond during FMQs on 22nd December. That is simply typical - I watch FMQs all year religiously and then miss the only one in which I am personally mentioned.

Fortunately my MSP Derek Mackay alerted me to this rather unexpected reality and I have spent the last few minutes watching last week's FMQs. Unfortunately it is not terribly interesting or even particularly entertaining, but the official report quotes the engagement between Willie Rennie and Alex Salmond as this:

Willie Rennie: The First Minister must be judged by his actions. I accept that he says that he will support the youth contract, but will he actively promote it? The answer to my question is simple. The youth contract can benefit 160,000 young people. The suspicion is that the Scottish Government is soft pedalling the policy because it was not its idea. By engaging with and promoting the policy, the Scottish Government can do something positive for young people. It also still has in its pocket £67 million from the UK Government. The First Minister can use that to reverse the cuts to colleges. He should take the steps that he can, rather than whingeing about the ones that he cannot.

The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick): Can we have a question, Mr Rennie?

Willie Rennie: The First Minister has had a great year.

Members: Yes!

The Presiding Officer: Order. Settle down.

Willie Rennie: Will the First Minister finish off the year with some good news for other people? Will he embrace the youth contract and save colleges?

The First Minister: In terms of the youth contract, yes, yes and yes again. In terms of colleges, Willie Rennie will have seen the wide welcome for the initiative and transformation fund in the college sector two weeks ago.
I confess that I have been a follower of Liberal Democrat tweeting—not just of Willie Rennie but of Andrew Page, the former Liberal candidate for Renfrewshire North and West. In looking at Willie Rennie‟s attacks at First Minister‟s questions, Andrew Page said: “Rennie‟s attacks on the SNP leadership have been weak and played directly into Salmond‟s hands while making our party appear small-minded, tribal and idiotic ... it is no surprise the public aren‟t attracted to our broader message.” In the interests of the Christmas spirit, I will disassociate myself from that Liberal candidate‟s criticism.

Willie Rennie: In the interests of the Christmas spirit, I think the First Minister should focus on the needs of the unemployed, rather than making cheap remarks about other politicians.

The First Minister: They were not my remarks; they were the remarks of a Liberal candidate.

The quote came from my blog, not from my tweets, and were in particular reference to criticism I directed towards the publication of a cartoon, which I considered offensive and symptomatic of a misguided and negative approach to campaigning within our party. It is true that I have also been critical of what I consider an unnecessarily adversarial approach towards the SNP but the quote was certainly not an assessment of Willie Rennie's personal performances at FMQs, although I don't blame Alex Salmond for using the quote in that way - the article was in the public domain; I expect it to be used (and misused). But I think it's right to put the record straight - my desire is simply for the Scottish Lib Dem leadership to expend more energies on articulating a strong, liberal message that resonates with the public than in opposing independence and attempting to score points over the SNP's more than capable front bench team. The latter is not a good tactic in any case as more often than not such attempts fail spectacularly.

What did concern me however was the First Minister's determination to use this quote for party-political interests, even when it clearly had very little to do with the pertinent question Willie Rennie had asked in relation to the youth contract.

Still, it's nice to know that the First Minister reads my tweets.

Willie Rennie's response was absolutely correct; refusing to be drawn into any kind of action which could have been construed as, well, "small-minded and tribal" he instead focused on the needs of unemployed people and highlighted the First Minister's responsiblities to tackling joblessness while refusing to be distracted from making progress on the youth contract. In taking this approach he showed the kind of positivity I hope he can demonstrate more frequently in future.

You might wish to watch FMQs on iPlayer: Alex Salmond refers to me at around the 26:00 mark. Watch out for former leader Tavish Scott's excessively outrageous response to the mere mention of my name (before the quote from my blog was read out) - it is really rather disturbing that someone of my limited influence should have this kind of impact on such an experienced politician.

More equal marriage consultation responses are needed!

2011-11-21T02:28:00.000-08:00

From Tim Hopkins, Equality Network

URGENT !!

More equal marriage consultation responses are needed!

Your help is needed now more than ever…

We know that the majority of Scots support same sex marriage, but we are in danger of losing the Scottish Government’s consultation response count because of very well resourced campaigns by the Catholic Church and Christian Institute (see below).

It is vital that we encourage everyone we know who supports equality to submit a consultation response to the Government, using this form:

http://www.equalmarriage.org.uk/consultation.php

If you have not yet submitted your own response, please do that, and please forward this call for action to everyone you know who supports equality!

THE PROBLEM

14,000 people in Scotland have filled out the Catholic Church’s postcards objecting to same sex marriage. The Church is now contacting those people to encourage each of them to submit a personal response against same sex marriage, to the Scottish Government’s consultation:

http://www.sconews.co.uk/news/14015/new-appeal-in-marriage-campaign/

The Christian Institute runs big organised lobbying campaigns against every LGBT equality measure. They have just set up an online response system for the Scottish Government’s consultation. They are encouraging their members to use it to submit consultation responses opposing equality:

http://www.christian.org.uk/marriagescotland/

THE SOLUTION

Please take action now to ensure that the Scottish Government continues with its proposals to introduce marriage equality, using this form:

http://www.equalmarriage.org.uk/consultation.php

Thank you!

Basil D'Oliveira CBE dies aged 80

2011-11-19T10:58:00.000-08:00

To those of you who have little appreciation of the sport of cricket, and I know there are many such people in Scotland, the name Basil D'Oliveira may not mean much to you.

But it should. Because not only was this enormously talented man a world-class cricketer who in all likelihood would have achieved even more if his skin had been white, in 1968 the "D'Oliveira Affair" not only highlighted the injustices of apartheid but it threatened to challenge them head on. D'Oliveira, a black South African who had just scored 158 against Australia at The Oval, was dropped by his adopted country - England - from the forthcoming tour of South Africa in order to appease the Vorster government. A truly international controversy ensued in which the English cricketing authorities emerged with little credit intact as they insisted that the decision was made for "purely cricketing reasons", while D'Oliveira himself always retained his dignity and sense of reasoned perspective.

What D'Oliveira had inadvertently done by single-handedly defeating the Australians was to set off a chain of events that would ultimately lead to South Africa being boycotted from international sporting competition until the early 1990s. The Olympic team had been barred from participating in Tokyo four years previously, but it was the overtly racist treatment of an international cricketer hoping to ply his trade in the country of his birth that resulted in the popular call for longer-term actions from the sporting world. No-one seriously believed the "Dolly simply isn't good enough" quote attributed to one English selector and an enormous public outcry resulted. Following the withdrawal of Tom Cartwright from the England squad, the selectors had little option but to include the hero of The Oval.

Vorster responded with a string of barbed and racist comments, insisting that following D'Oliveira's selection the team now represented "the anti-apartheid movement" and that it would "not be welcome" in South Africa. The political controversy it sparked in South Africa was predictable, but it also inspired liberals in Britain to crank up calls for action to end apartheid.

Young liberals - including Peter Hain who initially believed D'Oliveira to have been misguided even to consider playing against a white South African team - were spurred into action by events and provided leadership in popular anti-apartheid campaigns. There is little doubt that the call for direct action against the Vorster government unsettled Jeremy Thorpe and the political establishment as a whole. Certainly the Liberal Party leadership was tolerant of the "Red Guards" - in all probability because it recognised that their call had incredible popular appeal and because, while suspicious about the remedy, the party recognised the need to advocate tackling the shameful shadow apartheid continued to cast on the world. Thorpe had, after all, been an active champion for human rights within the Anti-Apartheid Movement. The party's consistent line in condemning apartheid may have had some effect on the Liberal vote in the February 1974 election.

D'Oliveira, always opposed in principle to apartheid, was not particularly politically motivated - preferring to let his sporting talent talk for him. But liberalism and the anti-apartheid movement owes him a great deal: without his unwitting but telling contribution the South African team may well have continued to play an active role within the international sporting community and the events and political victories that led to the dismantling of apartheid might have taken longer to achieve.

It is easy to read Basil D'Oliveira's story as a tragic one; one of unfulfilled potential, a victim of prejudice and exclusion. It is certainly true that in a different time he would have won more than 44 England caps. But it is also true that his success in England created major headaches for the South African government and increased support for the anti-apartheid cause. His refusal to allow racist attitudes to hold him back and his determination to simply play at the highest levels caused the barriers and obstacles he had experienced to be broken down so completely that in today's South Africa the aspirations of young blacks to play professional sport in their own country are no longer unattainable.

D'Oliveira was, of course, the victim of injustice. But he was so much more than that: he was, in the bigger scheme of things, a victor - and the only person to emerge with credibility from the 1968 selection debacle. He continued playing professional cricket until he was 48 and since retiring has been an inspiration for many South Africans. The tolerance and belief in equality that embodied his outlook on both cricket and the world continues to provide an example to the rest of us - especially at a time when FIFA presidents are making ill-considered statements on the subject of racism in sport.

What happened in 1968 deprived D'Oliveira of achieving his dream of playing cricket in South Africa. But he lived to see another dream fulfilled; that of a South Africa liberated from the oppressive philosophy of apartheid. I'm sure he'd be the first to agree that if the former in any contributed to the achievement of the latter it was a price worth paying.

Government for the people - or the Euro?

2011-11-14T23:10:00.000-08:00

The economic crisis affecting the Eurozone has now seen off the governments of Burlusconi and Papandreou - evidence, if any were necessary, that every cloud has a silver lining.

I shed no tears for either, but what does concern me is how the economic and political needs of the moment appear to have sidelined democratic values in favour of "stability". In both Greece and Italy incumbent leaders have been replaced with unelected economists as fears of pending financial collapse have led to faith being put in the apparent expertise of Mario Monti and Lucas Papademos, rather than in the electorate, in order to appease the markets - and to save the Euro.

So far, the move seems to have offered the markets some reassurance. It is, of course, vital that such reassurance is given if the Eurozone is to survive the current crisis. However, the notion that only political authoritarianism can provide economic stability is facile and the assertion that democracy somehow acts as an impediment to economic growth both insulting and seriously mistaken.

It could also be pointed out that, if the recession has proved anything, it is that the "wisdom" of the markets is questionable. They do not always know what is best and, although the influence of market confidence should not be underestimated, the democratic structures and practices of the EU and its member states should not be dictated in this way. International markets, after all, are by nature reactionary rather than progressive and have greater ability to undermine the Euro's future than any one of the governments of the 17 countries making up the Eurozone; the economic situation actually requires more democracy and greater imagination regarding potential solutions, not a stronger hand from proponents of the status quo.

Greece's new Prime Minister, Papademos, is seen as something of a potential saviour on account of his experience as Vice-President of the European Central Bank and as a former governor of the Bank of Greece who championed Greece's transition to the Euro. I am far from an economic expert but I would struggle to put my faith in a man who has consistently promoted the single currency in spite of the evidence that having 17 different economies being forced into mechanism with a single interest rate would prove hugely damaging in the long term for nations such as Greece. But then, his appointment owes very little to the particular concerns of Greeks and everything to the needs of his pet project - the ailing Euro.

Italy's new Prime Minister is Mario Monti, already being applauded as "Super Mario". Here is another Europhile economist whose love of the Euro defies economic logic. A former European Commissioner, he appears to have had a more interesting career than his Greek counterpart, having been involved in bringing anti-monopoly charges against Bill Gates' Microsoft and an influential voice calling for facilitating further European integration. Monti's experiences and achievements suggest he is more suited to politics than Papademos, but once the initial relief that has greeted their respective appointments eases off, there will inevitably be concerns about the lack of democratic legitimacy.

The fact that Monti was only appointed a lifetime senator on Wednesday with the express purpose of replacing Berlusconi speaks volumes about Italy's commitment to democratic values. However serious the economic situation becomes, I can not foresee any circumstances in which Mervyn King would be given a life peerage in advance of taking the reins from David Cameron. Democracy demands better than the appointment and promotion of technocrats simply to reassure the markets and aid the political ambitions of Angela Merkel.

The Italian and Greek electorates also deserve better. I am not calling for imminent elections, which would also be unsettling and destabilising to economic progress. But Papademos and Monti are where they are because Europe trusts them. While the appointments may see off the immediate crisis, there will almost certainly be difficulties further down the line when governments lacking a democratic mandate and listening only to the logic of the markets have to implement unpopular reforms.

Make no mistake - this is government for the Euro, not the people of Greece and Italy. A cynic might go as far as to suggest this is government by the EU, for the EU. Monti and Papademos should not be perceived as economic saviours ushering in a new era of consensual politics, but representatives of the elite European Order, an ancien regime striving to maintain its own significance and salvage something from its misguided vision for European economic and fiscal unity.

If Monti and Papdemos can bring some calm to European politics then to an extent the appointments will have been justified. However, the willingness to dispose of democratic principles is thoroughly disturbing and could yet come back to bite - especially if the necessary bailout and austerity programmes fail to have the desired effects.

I'm standing for Scottish Executive Committee - please vote!

2011-11-08T04:09:00.000-08:00

As Scottish Lib Dem members who have received their ballot papers will now realise, I am standing for election to the Executive Committee.

My friend Caron blogged yesterday that the way forward for the Scottish Liberal Democrats is to "be awkward, wearing our hearts on our sleeves and not letting anyone put us in the corner". I couldn't agree more and, if that's the kind of Liberal Democrat you want on your Executive Committee, then I'm pretty sure I meet the criteria!

I'm not into indulging in an internet campaign of self-promotion and you won't find any facebook groups called "Andrew Page for Executive Committee" or the like.

But these are challenging times for Scottish Liberal Democrats and it's absolutely vital that we elect the right people with the vision, the awkwardness and the unwillingness to be put in a corner that Caron rightly identifies as so important to our political future. We also need people with an understanding of our past as well as the nature of our current challenges; people with the courage of their convictions with a positive political outlook. But, most importantly, we need Liberal Democrats who are ready to stand up and be counted even when it's uncomfortable, who won't conform to a robotic orthodoxy, who aren't afraid to take on the attitudes that hold us back and who are unafraid of honesty.

There are some good candidates on the list. There are tough choices to be made in these important internal elections - and not only for Executive Committee. But this is a time like no other in the history of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, and we need the right people on board to take the party forward.

So I would encourage our members to vote, and to think carefully about the kind new direction for party that their votes could help to create. Of course, if I am elected to the Executive Committee I will do my very best to...well, be myself!

Don't like our strategy? Don't tell me, tell Willie Rennie!

2011-11-06T04:21:00.000-08:00

There has been a considerable reaction to Tuesday's blog post - Is this the stupidest cartoon in Scottish political history? It seems I struck a chord with many and touched a nerve with others; while not anticipating the level of the response I am pleased I appear to have kick-started a rather interesting and overdue discussion about both the strategy of the Scottish Liberal Democrats and their attitude towards the SNP and Scottish independence.

I'm going to reproduce a lot of the comments that have been made in various forums, as well as some of the messages I have received in recent days. What has become astonishingly clear is the frustration of many Lib Dems towards the leadership's negativity, as well as the number of former liberals who have found a new home within the SNP. The "cartoon" was received extremely negatively, even by Lib Dem members who were questioning the judgement of its publication and (in some instances) their membership of the party.

Comments from Lib Dem members and supporters:

“Excellent post by Andrew. It's about time someone called out HQ on this relentless negative SNP bashing. Are we really so poor on reasons why people should vote SLD that we resort to tactics that we actually went to Court over in Oldham?”

“I'm not sure whether it is the stupidest cartoon. It is indicative of a party that has yet to produce much consistent confident leadership over same-sex issues. Policy generated by members has been fine. Gaffs and scandals by senior party members have been numerous.”

“For what it is worth, I've not renewed my party membership. It is as much these issues that I'm uneasy about as the coalition.”

“Andrew's a decent guy. I met him at Conference and he's one of a significant number (myself included) who really can't understand the leadership's obsession with the SNP at all.”

“An excellent post and one that certainly sums up my own feelings. If HQ have so much spare time on their hands maybe they could actually consider a new positive narrative for our party which addresses the key question - Why should people choose to vote SLD.”

“As a party member it worries me that someone at HQ thought this juvenilia was worth putting out. Beyond that, it worries me more that much of our campaigning has been relentlessly negative and personal without in any way offering an alternative vision for Scotland.”

“I've also considered my membership. There is nothing or little positive coming from the top. No inspiring message or vision. It's like Willie is under direct instructions by Clegg/Alexander/Moore to go hard against Salmond nonstop just to win brownie points from the press. There is a difference between holding government to account and tasteless propaganda. I hope people at SLD HQ have this read this eloquent blogpost.”

“As a longtime member of the party and former candidate for in Scotland and Westminster I was pretty appalled at the poster. It hints at some of the worst aspects of US political campaigning and is not in keeping with either the tradition or the spirit of the Lib Dems.”

“Last night's disaster proved to me the Liberal Dems in Scotland have lost the plot. Rennie is out of his depth as are Moore and Alexander - they care more for themselves and their own future than they do for the people of Scotland. Last night I joined the SNP because they are the only party with a realistic view of Scotland's potential and future”

“Well said. When I left the party I didn’t rule our rejoining at some point, but at the moment I can’t see myself even voting Lib Dem unless there is a change in tone of the message – which as you point out highly negative and overly critical of the SNP”.

“Your article reveals good liberal thinking...”

“A good blogpost, encapsulating what appears to be the general consensus on that dreadful cartoon”

“The SNP shouldn’t have a monopoly on independence!”

“I would suggest that Andrew is more instinctively a 'Liberal' than a Libdem robot climbing the slippery rope, than he understands. This piece reflects old fashioned Liberal views on society and its conduct - maybe he is channelling the ghost of Jo Grimmond ....”

and just in case you thought it was all positively supportive:

"I have to say that Andrew's blog comment is the very acme of over-reaction. Its one thing to be critical of a schoolyard-level snipe and quite another to indulge in a massively dramatic production of horror and disgust."

“While I can see the obvious errors involved in the publication of this cartoon, I'm not going to condemn colleagues for one mistake when I've seen them work hard and long hours, putting in excellent effort in the past. Nobody would ever have wanted to put the leader in this position and I'm absolutely certain that they will learn from this for the future.”

To which I will respond that my motivation wasn't simply expresing anger towards a distasteful and insensitive cartoon. The real issue I was attempting to address is the extreme negativity running through our message, of which the cartoon is merely a symptom. I'm not simply asking for Lib Dem HQ to be more careful in how they produce and release propaganda, but to completely rethink their message and the tone of what the party is saying. This is the latest in a long line of unnecessary assaults on the SNP, which only serve to strengthen Alex Salmond and make Scottish Lib Dems look petty and silly. As I've observed in the last week, many members seem to agree...

Also, a fair number of SNP members and supporters took the time to make their own views known (a surprising number of them being former Liberals):

“Let's not forget that people in the Lib Dems sat down and spent time working out this pathetic piece of garbage. They are perhaps even more infantile than the Labour Party.”

"I tend to agree with your assessment of Liberal "little Labourism" & its queer anti-Nat pathologies."

“I used to vote Lib Dem, but they stopped talking about home rule and became unionist”

“More positive discourse like this Is badly needed in politics. Time to put the horrendous media and Westminster style of Politics in the bin."

“I hope the fool who dreamt up the ridiculous "cartoon" reads your article and apologises for the damage it has done on so many levels.”

“I slag the Lib Dems a lot, and have done for years, I think its the sense of betrayal more than anything else, given that I agree with some of their principles. But when it comes down to it, their hypocrisy on independence frequently disgusts me, to the extent that I hope that party is obliterated. However, this is an excellent piece by a Lib Dem member.”

"I very much understand your frustration at that silly poster - if such an infantile act had been done by the SNP, heads would have rolled. It really shows a party who has lost its way and sense of reasoned political coherence."

“Whatever happened to your party? I would expect this sort of 'tripe' from Labour but not the Lib Dems.

“I would be happy to return to a Liberal Party who could define what they stand for and a series of clear policies which seek to achieve it. That is not the case with the Libdems either in Scotland or the UK overall so, for now, I have lent my support and vote to the SNP because they know what they stand for and have a clear plan on how to achieve it. If you really want to see a Liberal Party revival there needs to be a clear understanding of what we mean by 'Liberal' in the Scottish context and a clear idea of how we will achieve it.”

“Eloquent, moderate and well reasoned. Need one say more? I look forward to a multiparty movement for independence”

“Nice to see such positivity from a different shade of the spectrum. “

"The constant negative line taken against the SNP be it in this or saying no to SNP polices for the sake of saying no makes you look opportunistic, petty and frankly more interested in yourselves than Scotland. I find Willie Rennie, in combination with Michael Moore, to be an appalling advert for the Lib Dems in Scotland. Both come across as blinkered unionists devoid of ideas and integrity."

“I'm glad you saw fit to write this very eloquent, thoughtful and hard-hitting response to what was clearly a very irresponsible deed. Sadly, however, I'm uncertain as to whether the Liberal Democrats in Scotland will ever recover from dire consequences of their own actions over the last two years.”

Andrew, you are to be applauded for your honesty and your integrity in posting this critique of the situation. Serious debate in the run up the referendum is required from all corners of our political spectrum. There is no place for the yah-boo politics of this flyer and thanks for condemning it."

“I'm an SNP member but had always respected your Party and hoped for a day when PR would give you a fair place in politics. But your party's attitude to coalition with an SNP minority government and the subsequent behaviour like Wallace's over the North Sea territorial line andin coalition of people like Moore and Alexander have damaged you almost beyond redemption. I hope there are more like you and you can take your party back?”

“Andrew you have shown more political vision and leadership in this article than Willie Rennie has in 6 months.”

"As a natural Liberal but a supporter of the SNP I am heartened to hear that there is still a small candle of true liberalism at the heart of the party in Scotland as demostrated by Andrews article and many of the responses to it. That candle is in real danger of being extinguished by the boorishness or the current leadership (Moore and Rennie in particular). I truely hope that the party does survive the referendum and that it flourishes in a new and confident independent Scotland."

“Just think, after Independence, you could be the first Liberal Prime Minister of Scotland!”

“I came over from NNS to read your blog and I was pleasantly surprised. I did not expect honesty from what I consider your party to be a Unionist party. For the sake of independence I implore you to stop being honest and continue with the rabid lies that originate from the Unionist parties because your summing up of the situation is spot on. I look forward to the time when all politicians follow the will of the constituency rather than their party line.”

“A brave and honest post”

“I respect you for taking a principled stand on this though, Its not often one does stand up and be counted.”

“Andrew has hit several nails bang on the head.”

“It seems to me the leadership of the Libdems focussed entirely on hating the SNP and Alex Salmond in particular.Personally,I dont understand why the Libdem leadership is so anti-independence,to the point it would not allow a referendum in the past parliament”

Willie Rennie's challenge couldn't be more obvious. A softening of our approach towards the independence question in combination with a less adversarial form of politics would be a positive start on our road to recovery; it seems obvious to me that our recent attitudes (as much as the unpopularity of Nick Clegg) have alienated many who have traditionally voted Lib Dem.

A Labour supporter added "I couldn't agree more. I know SLDs having a rough time but this surprised even me." While a Morton fan, over on the supporters' forum, posted a link to "a forthright and honest article by Lib-dem activist Andrew Page".

Other commenters, of unknown political affiliation, weren't slow in expressing themselves either:

“Andrew - you deserve the appellations liberal and democratic. You have my respect for a courageous and principled stand.”

“Is this the stupidest cartoon in Scottish political history? Agreed in regards tone of LD media recently”

"I am less concerned about this cartoon slipping through the net than I am about the existence of the net, behind which presumably there must be a lot more of this kind of drivel. What a waste of energy! Given the Liberal Democrat's current standing in Scotland and the upcoming local elections, surely they should be expending every iota of available effort trying to communicate a positive message about what they stand for instead of this guff."

“Some great points there, and all well put. Andrew is exactly right to feel angry about this so-called 'cartoon'; it's so ill-considered in nature that it's almost inconceivable that someone in a position of authority at a political party looked at the completed image and thought, 'Aye, that'll get 'em riled.'"

"A rational and measured response. Well done Andrew, your party does not deserve you."

I think the Liberals' problems run exceptionally deeply. I have been interested in politics all my life and, quite frankly, I have no idea what the Lib/Dems really stand for and I certainly don't like the apparently childish way they have been acting in the Scottish Parliament either.

I have had a conversation with Willie Rennie about this and the various issues I perceive to be at the heart of it. Private conversations with the party leader should remain just that, but Willie did admit that "I set the strategy and agree the message content and tone. If you disagree with any of the party's message and strategy then that's my fault...If have any specific suggestions in the future don’t hesitate to [contact] me at any time."

I would invite all those within and outwith the party who have concerns about the direction, purpose, vision and strategy of the Scottish Liberal Democrats to get in touch with Willie and make your feelings known. It seems that there is a groundswell of support for a positive, less adversarial and more collaborative political direction being championed by our leadership, as well as a desire for a more professional campaigning unit. It also seems there is significant apprehension about the stance adopted on the independence question, while some have expressed understandable fears about the actions of the coalition in Westminster and the Scottish party leadership's apparent willingness to be its mouthpiece. So, while I appreciate the many messages I've received both supportive and otherwise, I would ask you to take Willie up on his challenge and forward him your own constructive ideas and suggestions for rising to the various challenges ahead.

Friends, it's over to you...

A lesbian is elected leader of Scottish Tories - is it really a big deal?

2011-11-05T03:29:00.001-07:00

Ruth Davidson is the new leader of the Scottish Conservatives. The first openly gay Tory leader, 32, emerged victorious over Murdo Fraser - whose grand vision to reinvigorate his party's fortunes was to disband it.

I have noticed that there has been much made of Ruth's sexuality in the media, not all of it accurate - such as the announcement that she is the "first gay leader of a UK political party". I can only imagine what Patrick Harvie makes of that. The Daily Mail is also keen to highlight her sexuality as super-significant, leading with the headline "Tories elect lesbian kick-boxer as new Scottish leader". As a passionate advocate for both LGBT rights and a more inclusive political system, I welcome the fact that the Tories have had the courage to elect Ms Davidson; only ten years ago this would be unthinkable. It demonstrates that the Conservative Party's attitudes towards LGBT issues have progressed a little since 1999. Whether this will coincide with a more proactive approach towards LGBT equality remains to be seen, but I am cautiously optimistic her election could coincide with a shift in outlook among the Scottish Tories. It will be rather hard for Tories to express the kinds of anti-LGBT prejudice they've historically been associated with when their future is dependent on the leadership of an openly gay young woman.

I am, however, disappointed that many have found nothing more interesting to say about Ruth Davidson than the fact she is a lesbian. Why the fixation with this aspect of her life? While the Tories' refusal to pay much attention this this fact perhaps says a great deal about that party's changing perspectives (although I suspect it might have more to do with a rejection of Fraser by the more conservative elements of the party), the media obsession with this small detail is suggestive of an inability to share such an inclusive attitude. Why do people have to be definied by their sexuality? And surely in a genuinely tolerant, open society such things become irrelevant? No-one really should care that Ruth Davidson is a lesbian - shame on sections of the media that think it's the only interesting thing about her.

What really matters? Ruth Davidson's sexual preferences or her ideas for Scotland's future? Hmmmmm..

Actually, I'm more surprised that the Tories elected as their leader a proud Glaswegian!

Scotsman journalist David Maddox announced on twitter that Ruth's election made the Tories "the progressive party of history" - also pointing to the election of Disraeli as the UK's first ethnic minority leader in 1868 and that of Thatcher as first woman leader in 1975. That really is an absurd thing to suggest. True, in Scotland they've elected two women is succession, one of them openly gay. But does that in itself make a party progressive? What I can say is that Mr Maddox's emphasis on labelling people according to their sexual preferences hardly stands up to my definition of "progressive". His historical argument is also flawed; Disraeli and Thatcher were hardly great champions for ethnic minority or women's rights.

What can be deduced from this result is that the Scottish Conservatives seem more adept at electing women and minority leaders than other parties. I can only surmise why this might be the case. Perhaps the fact that they don't use patronising all-women shortlists or promote "positive" discrimination allows more women of real leadership calibre to emerge? Ruth succeeded without any such "help", and despite only having been an MSP since May.

Ruth Davidson is an interesting individual - for many reasons aside from her sexuality. She's the first leader of any Scottish party to be a product of the media era, and has previously worked for the BBC. Will this mean the Conservatives become more media-savvy; can her evident presentation skills compensate for her relative political inexperience? She's also, in seven very brief months, been embroiled in a number of controversies - even before being elected. Her determination to ride out the storm and her stiff resolve in difficult situations bodes well for her futrure - and is far more worthy of media attention than interest in her sexual orientation.

There are tough challenges ahead for Ruth Davidson. Her campaign centred on revitalising the party (in stark contrast to Fraser's determination to wind the Scottish Conservatives up and found a new centre-right party) but, now elected leader, she has to both communicate a radical vision for how to actually do this, while taking on those within her party who genuinely felt that Murdo Fraser had the right ideas for the party's future when he argued that "we don't need a new captain, but a new ship". She will also have to detoxify the Tory brand in Scotland - the fact that she is a young, gay woman brings a sense of the party having woken up to the modern era, but it will take more than that to remove the memory of Thatcher's legacy from the minds of Scottish voters. Plus there's the challenge of the SNP's rise and current standing with the public and the forthcoming referendum on Scottish independence, during which she will (predictably) be going head-to-head with Alex Salmond, arguing for the status quo.

The real challenge, however, is how to build on Annabel Goldie's considerable achievements as Conservative leader. For all the Scottish Tories' lack of appeal, Goldie successfully presented herself as a skilful and forthright debater as well as an amiable, likeable and down-to-earth person. Goldie was the acceptable face of a party that is still judged for its negative legacy of the 1980s and 90s. Whether Ruth Davidson can foster a similarly positive public image remains to be seen.

By-election victory in Inverness South

2011-11-04T09:13:00.001-07:00

I have received some unexpected but welcome news from John Thurso and Martin Hayman. Carolyn Caddick of the Scottish Liberal Democrats emerged victorious in a close-run contest with the SNP in Inverness South, a huge boost to the party in advance of the local elections next May.

The full result and breakdown can be found here, on Highland Council's website.

There are some interesting observations to make. Firstly and most obviously, that the Liberal Democrats are still very much alive in their traditional heartlands and that we can win by-elections. It also demonstrates the importance of campaigning for every vote and fighting local elections on local issues. But there are some other interesting observations to be made, especially if we compare the result with that of 2007.

The first preference votes cast in 2007 were as follows:

Crawford (Independent) 524
Haycock (Independent) 353
Holden (Labour) 671
MacDonald (Conservative) 413
Pedersen (SNP) 1058
Prag (Scottish Liberal Democrats) 902

What we have seen here is the almost complete disintegration of the independent vote. Independents traditionally do very well in the Highlands and form the largest group on the council. I am not in a position to determine why this particular candidate fared so poorly and can only speculate that this was either because of their stance on key local issues or, more likely, the product of a "squeeze" in a contest between the Lib Dems and SNP. But finishing behind the homophobic Scottish "Christian" Party is a failure in anyone's book and what seems fairly certain is that the collapse in the independent vote worked to our advantage rather than that of the Nationalists.

It is also startling to see how poorly Labour performed. Labour have yet to master the art of opposition, either at Westminster or in Holyrood and as a result have struggled to re-assert themselves - it is worth pointing out that this by-election was held as a result of the resignation of Labour councillor John Holden, who was recently convicted of fraud. While the STV system we have in place in Scotland means that this "Lib Dem gain from Labour" can not be interpreted as the dramatic fall from grace that such a result in England could be, it is certain that the party finishing only 230 votes behind us last time weren't even at the races. There was evidence of tactical voting against Labour, with many former Labour supporters choosing to vote either Lib Dem or SNP. And this in spite of concerns about the Lib Dems' role in the Westminster coalition and the very recent reverses suffered by Lib Dems in Highland seats at the Scottish Parliamentary elections earlier this year. A strong second place was the very least Labour should have expected given the Lib Dems' current perceived weaknesses. Serious questions must be asked of the local Labour campaign.

It may be, of course, that confidence in the local Labour Party has dipped following Holden's conviction, but evidence elsewhere (not least Barnsley and Oldham & Saddleworth) is that Labour voters are apparently forgiving of the indiscretions of former elected members. Or at least they don't hold such misdemeanours against new Labour candidates wishing to succeed them. Perhaps Highland electorates are made of different stuff.

Whether this is symptomatic of a wider shift in the Highlands away from Labour and towards the Lib Dems is uncertain. In these kinds of contests, there are usually very strong local factors in play which determine the final outcome. It would be very unwise to read too much into it, other than that the SNP will be hugely disappointed - on the basis of the 2007 result alone they could realistically have expected to have won this contest quite comfortably.

Scottish Liberal Democrats are justified in taking encouragement from this result. Of course, this one result does not in itself constitute a fightback or a turning point. But we should be uplifted by the outcome, while being realistic about the need to redefine our message and building strong local campaigns.

How many Lib Dems does it take to change a light bulb?

2011-11-03T11:17:00.000-07:00

Inspired by Caron Lindsay on facebook, and being the kind of person who can laugh at themselves, I suggested these:

a) None. Lib Dems don't change anything.
b) None. The blub has to be given the liberty to change itself. We'd deny it the referendum to give it the freedom it needed though.
c) 1000 - one to do it, the other 999 to point out that Alex Salmond didn't do it first.
d) None. Lightbulbs, like communties, can't be changed - simply regenerated.
e) It's funny, but since the Holyrood elections it's been very difficult to find any Lib Dems around...
f) None. The Big Society will do it.
g) Remember Iraq! We're against lightbulb regime change!
h) Is it the blub that needs changing, or is it us?
i) It doesn't matter...the lights went out on us last May!

Please add any amusing (and hopefully original) ideas below!

Is this the stupidest cartoon in Scottish political history?

2011-11-01T05:04:00.000-07:00

It’s certainly one of the most ill-considered, misguided, offensive, juvenile and plainly idiotic political stunts ever attempted by a mainstream political party.

As a Scottish Liberal Democrat member and activist I am frankly appalled that we have resorted to such shameful gutter politics that reflect badly on our leader, Willie Rennie, and the party as a whole – as well as Scottish politics more generally. This attempt at satirical humour at the expense of First Minister Alex Salmond is misjudged to say the very least. But it is also deeply offensive, irresponsibly indulging in scaremongering of the worst type and in shockingly poor taste.

The “cartoon” suggests that Alex Salmond, for whom I have enormous respect, has sinister designs for an independent Scotland which include virtual dictatorship, the death penalty and the suppression of LGBT rights. This is not funny – not even remotely. Neither does it say much for our supposed pluralism. It’s also seriously flawed – not only has Salmond been supportive of LGBT rights and is opposed to the death penalty, an independent Scotland (which I am currently minded to vote for in a referendum on the basis of increased freedoms for Scots) would not belong to the First Minister at all but the people of Scotland.

It’s useful to put this excuse for a political message into some kind of context. Alex Salmond is currently touring the Middle East, promoting business links and exploring possibilities for the future of low-carbon energy. Following a meeting with Qatari business leaders, he is reported as stating that there are “remarkable similarities” between Qatar and Scotland, which is what the cartoon seized on. However, what he actually said is far more interesting:

"As nations, we both have considerable expertise in oil and gas production, but as we look to the future and a low-carbon economy, we must increasingly develop new technologies. We discussed the remarkable similarities between our respective nations. Although both Scotland and Qatar have common strengths in the oil and gas sector, we are both seeking to develop our low carbon energy industries. This is where Qatar's focus on becoming a global knowledge hub links well with Scotland's considerable reputation as a world-leading education nation."

I see nothing in that worthy of ridicule. In fact, it is a positive vision for Scotland as a centre of a global move towards low-carbon economics and sounds more than a little similar to a statement issued by the Cabinet Office following a visit Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg made recently to Qatar:

“The Deputy Prime Minister and his counterpart discussed the deep cultural and economic partnership between the UK and Qatar, including our strategic relationship in the energy sector. This meeting signifies the importance the Government places on building close ties with Gulf partners."

And so what Salmond has been doing is playing up Scotland’s role in forging a global green energy economy. That sounds to be like something he should be praised, rather than derided, for. It certainly should not be an opportunity for any party to disingenuously misrepresent what he said in pursuit of political advantage.

I spoke about this with both SNP and Liberal Democrat friends on twitter last night. Most agreed that while it was Halloween this release was uncharacteristically horrific. However, I was surprised to find that one or two defended the cartoon, arguing that is was simply “humourous” and that “we might laugh at it if it was on the cover of Private Eye”. Well, I for one wouldn’t, because it isn’t funny. And I’m not going to defend something which is stupid and petty, not to mention embarrassing.

It’s concerning on other levels too. I’ve always been critical of Willie Rennie’s apparent obsession with the SNP and Alex Salmond in particular. That’s not to say that attacks can’t work, and good political satire (you know, the kind that actually makes you laugh) can be devastatingly effective. If you’re going to throw a few punches you really have to make sure they hit the target. To date, Rennie’s attacks on the SNP leadership have been weak and play directly into Salmond’s hands while making our party appear small-minded, tribal and idiotic. It’s not just this one misguided poster, it’s the whole tone of what the party leadership is saying: we’re so anti-SNP, so cynically negative and so focussed on targeting the First Minister personally that it’s no surprise the public aren’t attracted to our broader message. Where is the pluralism we supposedly embrace? The rational discussion? The positive vision? All this is lost in Rennie’s view that opposition leadership requires adopting an aggressive negativity towards the SNP government.

I refuse to defend the indefensible, especially when it demeans Scotland, her people and her politics. Liberal Democrats should be better than that. And the public need to see us being better than that.

What is also worrying is that the party thought it would be acceptable to release the cartoon. Willie Rennie, speaking today on Good Morning Scotland, explained that it had been published on one of his days off; however, he admitted that “"Although I did not approve its publication I accept responsibility for it. It has been interpreted in ways that were not intended. It has now been withdrawn. I apologise."

Which begs the question: how was it intended to be interpreted? The implications were more than obvious, as should have been the ramifications to any PR or advertising executive worth their salt. It should have been plain to see that this would lead to exactly the kind of reaction we have seen, with further self-inflicted damage caused to the party’s image in Scotland. I am genuinely concerned that what passes for a PR/Communications department at Clifton Terrace seems to find this insulting propaganda both funny and acceptable, while not foreseeing the potential damage it would cause.

I hope some serious questions will now be asked. Who thought this was a good idea? Why can’t the party consider the ramifications of an action before embarking on it? And why is it so determined to indulge in a campaign of negativity towards the SNP?

Mr Rennie admitted to being rightly “embarrassed” by the cartoon which had not been approved by him. “It wasn't right and it shouldn't have gone out", he explained. "It is actually not right to compare countries like that in the way that we did”. Quite. In a separate message to myself, he apologised and assured me that he is working on ensuring future approval of communications is more tightly controlled. This is welcome, but it amounts to putting the genie back into the bottle. The damage has been done, the party looks like an amateur campaigning outfit (to put it rather politely) and it is plain to see that the quality of some of our staff is not perhaps what it should be.

I was horrified when I saw the cartoon. It is unwise on so many levels. However, on reflection, I am more concerned with what this says about our party in Scotland – our strategy, attitudes, professionalism, public perception and direction – than I am about a misjudged joke. The party is surely in crisis when our media staff are resorting to this kind of tactic. It's not quite the "responsible" or "grown-up" politics we've been championing in the recent past.

Of course, this overshadows the Liberal Democrats’ far more newsworthy announcement of a "home rule" commission, as Rennie admitted this morning. He is right of course. But it also highlights the deficiencies at the heart of the Scottish Liberal Democrats’ campaigning mechanism. Lessons must be learned.

I will be utterly honest and confess that this, in combination with Willie Rennie’s acceptance of support from CARE, has caused me to reconsider my membership of the party. I am pleased that Mr Rennie took the time to respond to my concerns which has gone some way to reassuring me, although his explanation offers further reasons for concern. The only thing that has prevented me from returning my membership card is that none of the other parties are sufficiently attractive to me as a new political home.

On a positive note, the only way has to be upwards. Perhaps we could employ someone with a better grasp of campaigning strategy rather than the clown with a questionable sense of humour. In the meantime, can we cut out the unnecessary anti-SNP rhetoric, adopt more constructive and pluralistic relationships with other parties and forge a new positive, liberal message?

Scottish Lib Dem leader's “links” to fundamentalist Christian group

2011-10-19T10:12:00.000-07:00

Tom Gordon, in the Sunday Herald, reported that Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie “is receiving personal support from an evangelical Christian group which is opposed to...gay marriage”.

The first thing to point out is that the Sunday Herald does not seem to appreciate that using terms such as “gay marriage” is itself unhelpful and contributing to the polarisation of the debate on marriage equality. Like the many bishops who are keen to express their intolerance towards “gay marriage”, I too am happy to put on record my opposition to the term, although not for the same short-sighted reasons. I’m not asking for something different for gay people, but the basic equality for people of all orientations to be allowed to marry. Marriage is marriage is marriage – gay, bisexual, heterosexual – it’s all the same to me and the vast majority Scots seem to agree. What we want is marriage equality. Got it, Mr Gordon?

Mr Gordon’s piece revealed that Willie Rennie receives “help” from an organisation known as CARE (Christian Action,Research & Education). This “help” takes the form of Mr Rennie being provided with one of CARE’s interns who works in his office on a full-time basis. CARE effectively sponsor Mr Rennie, who has to declare his “benefit” in the Register of Interests.

What do we know about CARE? Unfortunately, quite a lot. CARE has a colourful if somewhat unenviable history. It was actively supportive of Brian Souter’s “Keep the Clause” campaign, when it targeted many pro-change campaigners. It remains, predictably, completely unrepentant of its role in the Section 28 debate and continues not only to oppose marriage equality but homosexuality itself. CARE is also opposed to the woman’s right to choose and, I’m led to believe, has been associated with groups who aim to “cure” gay people of their homosexuality. Particularly unhelpfully during the current debate and consultation on equal marriage, CARE have already made statements that government proposals are ““deeply flawed and socially corrosive”.

CARE has a history of sponsoring MPs by providing them with interns and researchers. The Independent, in 2008, noted that 12 MPs received “help” from CARE – most of these MPs were known to have strong religious views. As another Independent article explains, CARE aren’t offering “help” to parliamentarians out of the goodness of their heart. “The intern programme isn't only about rewarding friendly Christian parliamentarians, it's part of a plan to build a new generation of committed Christian politicians. The idea is that the interns will go on to become MPs furthering the Christian agenda ."

Curiously, CARE withdrew support for gay Christian Labour MP Ben Bradshaw when they discovered his sexuality. So, all in all, quite an unusual group for the Liberal Democrats to be associated with. Which makes me all the more concerned with Willie Rennie’s apparent willingness to be associated with them.

My friend, Caron, has blogged about this herself – in which she takes a different view, interpreting the Herald article as an attempt to suggest we should discriminate against people on the basis of their religion. Rennie’s willingness to accept support from CARE is, in her view, evidence of “the sort of openness and tolerance he talks about”. You can't have proper tolerance if you don't properly engage with people you disagree with”, she rightly adds

But it’s not engagement I have a problem with. I have no issue with Willie Rennie opening up dialogue with those who are diametrically opposed to our values and politics. As a pluralist, I welcome open debate and discussion. I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t talk to CARE – just that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be associated with them. Why any MSP – let alone the leader of a liberal party – would wish to be perceived as being supported by a fundamentalist religious group I honestly have no idea. Given Rennie’s conference speech in which he turned on the spiritual forces of reaction and intolerance, declaring the Catholic Church’s “threaten[ing] to invoke some sort of block vote” as “an affront to liberal democracy and one that we must challenge”, the revelation that he is being sponsored by CARE makes him look inconsistent, even hypocritical.

It’s hard enough to accept that CARE’s Scottish spokesman, Gordon MacDonald (a former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, no less) believes that “marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, not two people of the same sex” and that “the Scottish Government is making a grave mistake by seeking to redefine marriage”. That this kind of organisation is providing staff to our party’s leader undermines our firm commitment to marriage equality and is even tougher to accept.

As for the argument that this association is evidence of Rennie’s openness and tolerance, this doesn’t really ring true. I don’t doubt that Willie Rennie is indeed and incredibly tolerant person. But would we be making the same argument if, for example, overtly pro-life groups were providing interns to politicians? Or groups opposed to racial equality or women’s rights? I mean, would anyone seriously argue that an MP was simply embracing diversity by allowing the English Defence League to provide them with an intern? The association would be at the very least embarrassing, which is precisely how I view our leader's links with CARE.

My problem isn’t with who Willie Rennie’s intern is. He’s entitled to employ who he likes, even if their views might not be those of the party as a whole. My issue is with CARE as an organisation, our leader’s political naivity and poor judgement in associating himself with them and the damage this could cause during the current political discussion on marriage equality - which is already being dominated by a fundamentalist lobby that compensates for its lack of arguments with its disproportionately loud voice. Accepting an intern is hardly a tacit acknowledgement of support for CARE, but it could be interpreted as such. The benefits Mr Rennie receives are far outweighed by the political risks of association with religious fundamentalism.

I have written to Mr Rennie on account of my concerns. I know he is a passionate advocate of LGBT rights and equal marriage. He could never be described as homophobic. But by accepting the intern he has opened himself up to the charge that he is either naive, hypocritical or both – a misunderstanding that could have been so easily avoided. The unfortunate truth is that this one decision could undermine a lot of the good work that he and the party have done on this issue

What I can’t quite understand is why Mr Rennie felt the need to accept an intern from any kind of organisation – religious or otherwise. I would imagine there would be a string of talented, suitably experienced people more than happy to work for the leader of the Liberal Democrats?

Liam Fox finally resigns

2011-10-14T10:05:00.000-07:00

The seemingly inevitable resignation has finally been announced. Dr Liam Fox has resigned as defence secretary in the wake of a series of allegations and an investigation into his working relationship with former housemate Adam Werrity.

In one of the least unexpected resignation statements in political history, Dr Fox admitted he had “mistakenly allowed the distinction between personal interest and government activities to become blurred”. That certainly is one diplomatic way of admitting his guilt in allowing a friend and self-styled “advisor” to accompany him on at least 18 foreign trips. What it is not is an apology; nor does it answer crucial and necessary questions about Fox’s foreign policy towards Sri Lanka.

In recent days accusations of impropriety and inappropriate activity on the part of Mr Werrity have increased. Not only has this man clearly and dishonestly masqueraded as an official advisor to a cabinet minister, serious questions have been raised about those funding him and his links to party donors. Whatever Dr Fox’s role in this shambolic deception, there can be no denying that Werrity was never anything more than a friend of the defence secretary, and that his egomaniacal and vanity-feulled conduct essentially constitutes fraud. As The Sun’s Trevor Kavanagh observes, Werrity “had a role in the life of Dr Fox which was not appropriate for a serving secretary of state". It is hard to disagree.

At best, Dr Fox has been unwise in his choice of friends. In all likelihood, he is also guilty of breaking the ministerial code and being less than honest about his relationship with Mr Werrity and how it impacted on his decision-making. He may also be guilty of perjury. I am in agreement with Labour’s Jim Murphy MP who asserts that “this issue has centred solely on [Fox’s] judgment and his conduct in one of the most serious jobs in the country. With so much at stake for our forces the defence secretary must be focused solely on his public duties.”

Murphy is also within his rights to point out that the Prime Minster has visibly been attempting to keep Dr Fox in his job. There are a number of reasons why David Cameron has been keen to do this. Firstly, he had little wish to be forced into a cabinet reshuffle so soon; secondly, dismissing Fox could alienate the Tories’ right wingers who saw Fox as a champion of their rather narrow political perspectives; thirdly, and most crucially, Cameron had wanted to establish key facts via Gus O’Donnell’s investigation before making a judgment on Fox’s fitness for office. But his political judgement was appalling simply because he failed to appreciate that, with so many serious misjudgements and breaches of ministerial standards on Fox’s part, the end was never in doubt. The Prime Minister seemed to think that keeping Fox in office would alleviate the pressure on the defence secretary, when in actual fact more and more damaging allegations were appearing on a daily basis.

As the saga continued to dominate headlines and undermine both Dr Fox’s position and the government’s credibility, the resignation became not only inevitable but necessary. Strangely, aside from the Prime Minister many other Tories didn’t recognise this and have expressed disappointment at his departure. Louise Mensch, for example, used twitter to broadcast her view that “[Fox] was an outstanding Secretary of State for Defence and a completely dedicated minister” while Peter Bone argued that "it's typical of Liam to put the country first" by resigning. "I think it was largely a media-driven [story]. I didn't see the hanging offence, I'm afraid." I can only suppose that Peter Bone is either politically naive, wilfully blind or both.

If it was right for David Laws to have resigned in May 2010, then it was unquestionably right for Liam Fox to have resigned today. He had nowhere else to turn. Jim Murphy made a point of emphasising that he did not call for Fox’s resignation - but that must in part be due to the fact that he didn’t have to given the pressure from the media. Murphy also stated that he “feels sorry for Liam as a person”, which is more than I do. I feel little other than a sense that Fox has reaped what he has sown, as well as some relief that the most objectionable member of the cabinet apart from Teresa May will be finding a new home on the backbenches.

Jim Murphy is, however, absolutely right when he calls for answers. The resignation itself does not close the door on the affair. Questions must be asked about why and for how long the minister was able to behave like this. Fox’s activities in Sri Lanka and allegations of “maverick” foreign policy must also be made clear, as well as detailed information about who knew what – including the civil service. The establishment of truth is far more important that a high profile resignation.

What I would also say in response to Peter Bone is this: there is nothing typical about Fox putting the country first. It seems, if the allegations made contain even the smallest grain of truth, that he has put his own interests and those of his friend above those not only of the country but also those of parliament, his party and the cabinet. As for Louise Mensch’s assessment of his performance as “outstanding”, I beg to differ. This was a man who presided over a rushed and ill-conceived defence review, marked by short-termist decision making – somehow, I can’t see the personnel of RAF Leuchars and Lossiemouth or the people of Fife being quite so impressed by his uncompromising stance and poor strategy, which Menzies Campbell described as “wrong and inept”.

Can I allow Sir Ming to write Fox’s epitaph: “Liam Fox, wrong and inept”. It seems quite fitting in the circumstances...

A tribute to a great friend

2011-10-11T03:13:00.000-07:00

My friend Bill Beaton would have been 100 years old today.

I call him my friend, and I count it a privilege to have known him as one. But the truth is that Bill was far more to me than that.

I was 16 years old when I first met Bill who, at the time, was a young 82. I was away from home for months at a time - such was the reality of living in the Hebrides and attending school in Oban. Spending so long away from family can be a difficult experience for many, but Bill was a valuable source of support for me and - at a time when family life at home was quite fraught and emotionally challenging - provided some much needed stability.

I came to regard Bill as my adoptive father, but he was, like all fathers, a counsellor, a guide, and an encourager. In fact, Bill's greatest contribution was to empower me to have some faith in my own abilities; a belief in myself was not something my volatile family life had done much to foster. He was also a sounding board for my anger, my many frustrations and sometimes quite frankly ridiculous worldviews.

I got to know Bill through the church. He had been a minister in the Church of the Nazarene and his brother was minister of Oban's liberal-leaning Congregational Church which did a significant amount of work with local youth. For cultural reasons Bill liked to attend the Wee Free as well, I think largely because of associations with his time in the Outer Hebrides. But he would have no truck with the puritanism of the Frees, their intolerance or their rigid interpretations of morality.

I found out that Bill had been a member of the Gay Christian Movement and had also been a passionate advocate of an inclusive church. His house was full of visitors from his previous church, many of whom were of LGBT orientations. His relaxed attitude and championing of LGBT rights, accompanied by his serious and scholarly take on "practical theology", enabled me to come to terms with my own developing sexuality while also allowing me the opportunity to see Christianity at its best - a million miles away from the inflexible and judgmental religion I had grown up with.

He also had an outrageous sense of humour, although as I found out that didn't extend to teenage jokes about women or semi-biographical "life stories" in which I ridiculed teachers and members of my family.

Bill had been a chef by profession and, prior to entering the ministry somewhat later in life, and worked in some of the most prestigious hotels in Europe and America. Before retiring he was chef to the British Embassy in Washington, and spoke with fond memories of serving various dignitaries and politicians. Politics was in fact an equally important part of Bill's personal identity: he was an affirmed liberal, a supporter of the Liberal Party and (later) the Liberal Democrats and a friend of the great Ray Michie, MP for Argyll & Bute, for whom he had nothing but praise.

Bill was a native Gaelic speaker and while I was unable to inherit his fluency in the language, his love for it transferred not only to myself but the many other people he came in contact with.

I have very many memories of Bill, most of them positive. Like all of us, he could at times be infuriating. His obsessions with snooker and tea-pot collecting I could never entirely comprehend. But the most striking thing about Bill was the ease with which he was able to mix and socialise with all types of people, to bridge generational and cultural gaps, to enthuse people with his infectious humanity.

Simply knowing Bill in the way I did made a huge impact on my life. He was the kind of person who once met was never forgotten. It was almost impossible to spend any time with him and not be changed by the experience. Certainly his influence, friendship and belief in me have helped create the person I am today.

Bill died in his 94th year, shortly after his brother Donald who lived to 98. I would have loved Bill to have survived until his hundredth birthday and received his telegram from the Queen - unlike myself Bill had great respect for Her Majesty. Unfortunately he left us over five years ago and will not be with his friends as we celebrate his remarkable life. What is inescapably true however, is that his memory will continue to inspire, encourage and entertain us.

Do something positive for World Mental Health Day...

2011-10-10T10:00:00.000-07:00

...tell the Scottish government how to improve mental health services!

You might not know, but currently the Scottish government is involved a consultation exercise to establish the views Scottish people have on an issue vital to facilitating tolerance, understanding, diversity and societal well-being.

And I'm not talking about the not-very controversial consultation on marriage equality that most Scots are not only aware of but feel positively towards. Instead I'm referring to an equally, possibly more, important consultation being conducted on the future of mental health provision in Scotland.

The SNP government are quite rightly looking to promote "a new national mental health strategy bringing together work to improve mental health services and mental health improvement". This is the kind of thing that I imagine should receive cross-party support and, while I have some very minor concerns about the operational detail, it should be welcomed as a very positive step forward with the potential to facilitate a huge cultural shift not only in the way people with mental health problems are treated but also how mental ill-health itself is perceived.

Particularly welcome is the overdue priority given to widening access to talking therapies and implementing a National Dementia Strategy with additional support for carers. I am also pleased that the government is actively reviewing the relationship between community services and inpatient provision because, as someone who works within adult mental health, I appreciate that so often the interface between services is not what it perhaps should be and community services are often not sufficiently responsive to local need. There is a great deal more that can and should be done to improve community mental health services (especially crisis intervention) in a way that reflects local health priorities rather than centrally-driven targets. One of the highlights of my parliamentary election campaign was meeting a group of local mental health service users and finding how much agreement there was between their own concerns for the future of mental health provision and mine; I am immensely pleased that many of the recommendations of this group and others are now being advocated by the government.

But the most positive aspect of the government's stated new strategy is its admission that it does "not yet know what changes would deliver better outcomes" and therefore is seeking "to develop a better understanding of what changes would deliver better outcomes". This suggests a willingness to listen to those directly affected by mental ill-health or who have experience of using existing services. Inevitably this is how governments often talk during consultation but I sense there is a genuine desire by the SNP government to work with people rather than for them - and to deliver a strategy for mental health that not only effectively tackles discrimination and stigma but can significantly improve upon current mental health outcomes.

Today is Mental Health Day. Improving mental health is something I passionately believe in - not only do I currently work in mental health services but have in the past used them. I could have written about the requirement to champion preventative approaches rather than reactive ones; about progress being made in delivering psychological therapies; about how to more effectively tackle stigma or the need to adopt with urgency the recovery-focused model for mental health improvement. All these are important. But, in the end, I decided to leave the talking to you. If you're a Scot - and you care about mental health - tell the government what you think they should be doing to improve mental health services. You have a rare opportunity to shape the future of the nation's mental well-being - please make your voice count! You can have a look at the various consultation documents and respond here.

However, if you're not sufficiently fortunate to be a Scot, why not contact your MP and make your own suggestions for delivering modern, fit-for-purpose and effective local mental health services?

Taking a photo of your wee girl? That's terrorism, sir!

2011-10-10T05:34:00.000-07:00

In the news today is the scarcely believable but sadly very true story of the father prevented from taking photographs of his daughter eating an ice cream in Braehead Shopping Centre.

The basic fact is that a 45 year old man was innocently taking pictures of his young girl on his mobile before being approached by security personnel and police officers who advised him that his activities were illegal and that his mobile phone could be confiscated under the terms of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Braehead has issued a rather patronising and contradictory statement in which it argued that "Retail staff at an ice cream stall in Braehead became suspicious after they saw a male shopper taking photographs of a child sitting at their counter. The staff thought the man had also been taking photographs of them and they alerted one of the centre’s security staff...Like most shopping centres, we have a ‘no photography’ policy in the mall for two reasons: to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers and [because] we live in a world of potential threats from terrorists and everyone is being urged by the police to be vigilant at all times. However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures."

I am a professional photographer. I often take photographs in public places. Last year I snapped some rather inventive images of Glasgow's Sauchiehall Street, capturing the vibrancy and energy of the place throughout the course of a day. Obviously it would have been very difficult to request permissions from each of the persons who happened to appear in the pictures, and taking this kind of photograph without the public being featured within them would have been both impossible and defeating the purpose of my project. Similarly I took several pictures at the recent Lib Dem conference in which many ordinary delegates may have been inadvertently snapped. I've heard this argument time and again; that it should be illegal to take photographs in a public place. But the truth is that it isn't - and so long as no improper pictures are being taken there really shouldn't be an issue. If taking photographs in public places was a crime the fascinating art of lomography, not to mention the city scenes and event photography so vital to maintaining a photographic history of our proud nation, would be lost to future generations.

As the law stands, "there are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place and no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place" (House of Lords, 16th July 2008). The Bureau of Freelance Photographers also confirms that "individuals do not have a legal right to stop a photographer from [taking] photographs in a public place."

Braehead may claim that initially they thought that the man at the centre of this - Chris White - was acting "suspiciously" and may have been taking pictures of staff. In fact, the pictures he took of his daughter (which can be seen here) did not feature anyone else - either staff or customers of the shopping centre. A polite request to have a look at the pictures would have surely been enough to dispel any such suspicion.

Of course, Braehead point to the fact that there are signs up prohibiting photography within the shopping centre. Legally speaking, as the centre is private property they can request this although I suspect it would be rather difficult enforcing a conviction and it seemed unnecessary to involve the police. What they can not do is threaten to confiscate photographic equipment. Braehead also admits in its statement that "it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures." But they did. And they have since been utterly unapologetic.

After unnecessary and apparently intense interrogation Mr White was ordered by security staff to leave Braehead and is now barred from the premises. Braehead should admit that they were wrong to have taken the actions they did against Mr White. His treatment was deplorable and the claim that he was dealt with in this way due to a suspected terrorist risk is so facile as to be laughable. If it's got to the stage that a father can't take a photograph of his daughter eating an ice cream without anti-terrorist measures being employed then the terrorists really have won.

I have been in conversation on twitter with some people who felt that the staff reporting Mr White to security services were only doing their job. Perhaps; I certainly have some sympathy for them. But they might have been doing a more effective job in serving the public if they had politely asked to see Mr White's photographs to ensure their suspicions were groundless while reminding him of the no photography policy. I suspect there was nothing in their job descriptions requiring them to turn a trivial event into a national incident. The fact that the staff initially made a poor judgement is understandable and forgivable. The authoritarian response that followed in combination with what passes for public relations from Braehead are definitely not.

Mr White has written a letter to the Evening Times describing what was obviously a personal ordeal for both himself and his daughter. As Scott Douglas, writing for CIPR, observes: "First he was detained by security staff and made to feel like a pervert. Next he was questioned by police and made to feel like a terrorist. Thirdly he was interviewed by traditional media and portrayed as a victim. Now he is being championed by social media and becoming a cause celebre."

All this could have been preventable. Braehead must offer a sincere apology to Mr White and review the ban on photography which, according to their own statement, is clearly unworkable and not enforced in most cases. Braehead also must recognise the reality that for many people, especially families, visiting shopping centres can be in itself a social activity which they may want to capture with images to upload to facebook, twitter and so on. In fact it must embrace new consumer habits rather than show utter contempt for those who are enjoying the freedoms modern technologies bring. People want to use their mobile phones and other basic equipment to take quick snaps. The plain truth is that this situation was a product of Braehead's mistaken and dangerous assumption that photography is by nature intrusive and objectionable (except where staff choose to use "discretion"). This is the wrong way to look at the situation: Braehead should adopt a new policy whereby people are not deterred from taking photographs while allowing staff to use their discretion to deal with genuinely suspicious behaviour in an appropriate way.

There was no need for Braehead to act in such an overbearing and authoritarian way - either towards Mr White or the facebook users whose furious comments were apparently deleted in an act of almost Stalinesque censorship. Braehead should firstly apologise. Secondly, it should reconsider its photographic ban in light of changing consumer habits (and the law) and, thirdly, bring its PR department kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Teresa May sets cat among the pigeons

2011-10-04T12:35:00.001-07:00

How can anyone take Home Secretary Teresa May seriously?

It's hard enough to accept that the Home Secretary appears to have declared war on the Human Rights Act. Worse still, she appears to have fallen into the same trap as the Daily Mail and The Sun in associating the Human Rights Act with a supposed myriads of illegal immigrants who have misused it to extend their stay in the UK.

Ms May says the Human Rights Act "needs to go". Well, something certainly does. I'm just not in agreement with her that it's the legislation.

Addressing the Conservative Party Conference today Ms May took the predictable populist and right-wing approach, blaming the Human Rights Act for the non-removal of immigrants and vowing to amend immigration law to ensure that "misinterpretation" of the right to family life didn't result in illegal immigrants outstaying their welcome. Why it was necessary to remove the protections enshrined within the Human Rights Act (which can not actually be done without negating Britain's obligation to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law) in addition to adapting immigration policy Ms May didn't say. It didn't seem to matter to the party faithful in any case.

Neither did Ms May reveal that only a tiny number - a little over 100 - illegal immigrants have used the Human Rights Act to remain in the UK. Many of these are people who genuinely have either strong family connections here or face potential persecution if they return home. But the Home Secretary did draw our attention to the curious case of Maya the cat which she cited as merely one example of the ridiculous unintended consequences of Human Rights legislation.

"We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat." Yes, we all know stories - many of them fabricated or fantasy. Just like this one. Unfortunately, in spite of her protestations to the contrary, it seems that Ms May was, in fact, making it up. Within minutes the UK's best investigative journalists were able to establish that the decision made in this case by the Royal Courts of Justice had absolutely nothing to do with a cat and everything to do with the Home Office's inability to follow its own rules in relation to unmarried couples.

I can only imagine why someone of Ms May's supposed experience and expertise thinks that relationships with pets should have some bearing on immigration status. I should state here that my pet cat is a Bengal...perhaps that entitles me to an Indian passport?

Fortunately, not only journalists have been on hand to ridicule the Home Secretary's unwise intervention. Justice Secretary Ken Clarke bluntly admitted that "I cannot believe anyone was refused deportation just because they owned a cat". He also added that "this certainly has nothing to do with the Human Rights Act and nothing to do with the European Convention on Human Rights...I think it is a good idea that we remain adhering to the Convention on Human Rights and the cases are heard here by British judges." Tellingly he advised the BBC that Ms May had not in fact discussed any potential change to immigration law with him and that under existing arrangements any claim made to avoid deportation must be "extremely compelling".

Amnesty International have also hit out, branding Ms May "misinformed" and arguing her speech fuelled "myths and misconceptions". The Cat Society of Great Britain has yet to comment but as a lover of our feline friends I am personally outraged that cats are the latest in a long line of innocents to be blamed for the state of the country. It is a ludicrous situation that someone as senior as the Home Secretary can make such a mockery of her own position and the status of her office with a fabricated story about a cat. Firstly, the poor cat deserves better than to be the object of derision at Tory Party conference. Secondly, Ms May's researchers should be given their P45s.

This threatens to undermine David Cameron's attempts to portray his party and modernising and progressive, while reinforcing May's own assessment of the Conservatives as "the nasty party". Quite frankly, May looks ridiculous and so does her party.

However, this episode demonstrates there is a clear need for Liberal Democrats and other progressively minded politicians to both challenge the Tories' negative and misinformed opposition to the Human Rights Act while actively championing the principles enshrined within it. There is a great deal of public ignorance about both immigration and the impact of human rights legislation which, it seems, includes the Home Secretary. What is needed is a drive to promote the Human Rights Act, explaining its importance as a cornerstone of a tolerant, non-discriminatory society in which human rights apply to everyone equally.

We can laugh at Teresa May. Personally, I pity her: it must be difficult to sustain such an illogical worldview. However, the stark reality is that there are many people who believe the very myths she herself has perpetuated and reinforced - myths that must be broken and shattered if we are to move towards a more inclusive Britain.

Defending the Human Rights Act is the responsibility of all of us who care deeply and passionately about basic freedoms. However, while Ken Clarke's and Amnesty International's responses to Ms May's comments have injected some sanity into the conversation, there can be no escaping that senior Liberal Democrats, especially Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, must become more adept at challenging illiberal and thoughtless proposals from their Tory counterparts.

Amanda Knox: released but not free

2011-10-04T09:31:00.000-07:00

I am pleased that Amanda Knox has been released from the Italian prison in which she should never have been incarcerated in the first instance.

While we may never know what happened to Meredith Kercher (lest we forget, the real victim at the centre of this) and while her family will inevitably be seeking answers to emotionally tough questions, I welcome the fact that a miscarriage of justice has been rectified.

The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was never compelling and should not have been sufficient on which to make a conviction.

And so, as Amanda Knox travels home to Seattle, there are more questions left open than there are answers. Why did the Italian police stop looking once they had pre-determined the guilt of Knox and Sollecito? More pertinently, why was effective trial by media, with the emphasis on Knox’s alleged sexual preferences and physical attractiveness allowed to dictate events? “Foxy Knoxy” was assumed guilty because she was deemed to have a voracious sexual appetite and was sufficiently unfortunate to be young, good-looking and female. Newspapers across the world were keen to depict her as a sex-obsessed killer, with even prosecutors describing her as a “she-devil”, an “enchanting witch”. Even during the hearing last week, prosecution lawyer Carlo Pacelli, obviously taking inspiration from the celebrated 1612 trial of the Pendle Witches, launched into an attack on Knox in which he described her as “"diabolical, satantic, demonic... She was muddy on the outside and dirty on the inside. She has two souls, the clean one you see before you and the other." He went on to intimate that Knox “likes alcohol [and] wild sex.”

The implication is that no-one could possibly be innocent if they like alcohol and sex. Well, not in this warped man’s mind. Sadly, it’s the public expression of primitive attitudes such as this – emphasising the sexual power of women – that demonstrate that there is more that needs reforming in Italy than the way in which its police services obtain evidence.

Can anyone seriously imagine a man being subjected to such ridiculous and damaging character assassination, or being targeted by the tabloid press on the basis of their personal physical attractiveness? That moral judgments can be – and were – made on the basis of such superficial criteria not only evidence the sexist prejudices at the heart of what passes for a justice system in Italy; it speaks volumes about similarly prejudicial perspectives that have been allowed to be perpetuated by the mainstream media here in the UK.

The crime was dreadful enough without having to create pantomime villains in the shape of witches and she-devils and playing up the alleged sexual deviancy of the accused without a shred of evidence to back up such claims. Even the supposed “fact” that a “sex game” preceded Meredith Kercher’s murder was never more than supposition and hypothesis, but the world’s media were not likely to let such detail get in the way of a good story involving a beautiful but evil sexual predator: an object of both male heterosexual fantasy and anti-feminist bigotry. None of this served the interests of justice.

The case – and more tellingly the media’s transformation of a frightened young woman into “Foxy Knoxy” – made Knox a celebrity, albeit one whose identity has largely been invented for her. How she uses her fame now her freedom is secured remains to be seen. Such freedom that Knox has will inevitably be limited by the way in which she has been portrayed. It is one thing to be released from prison; labels and artificial personalities created by the world's media are less easy to escape from. She has been released but perhaps will never be free from her ordeal or the image in which she has been created.

What is certain, however, is that her celebrity status overshadows the appalling tragedy of Miss Kercher’s death and trivialises the seriousness of the crime as well as the pain the Kercher family are so obviously experiencing. Media obsession with Knox has not only provided the American with the unenviable task of rebuilding her life after four-years' imprisonment in the glare of the world's media, it has belittled and marginalised the needs of Meredith Kercher's grieving family. There are no winners in this sorry saga - unless of course you happen to be editor of The Sun, today making money-spinning headlines as it hails the freedom of the young woman it had previously declared guilty...

The internal conflicts of Ed Miliband

2011-09-28T10:09:00.000-07:00

Ed Miliband is a conflicted and compromised man. That much was evident from his keynote speech to his party’s conference in Liverpool yesterday.

There is so much that can – and has – been said about the speech, not least its intellectual incoherence. But more importantly is what the speech says about the man. It reveals personal insecurities, inner turmoil, divided loyalties, a confused policy direction and a certain fear of powerful interest groups - whoever they might be.

So, what does the speech tell us about Ed Miliband that we perhaps didn’t know before?

1. He wants to be his own man, but he doesn’t know who he is. He knows he isn’t Tony Blair, and his insistence on proclaiming this to conference brought unexpected and embarrassing cheers from some quarters. But Ed Miliband’s problem is that he doesn’t know who Ed Miliband is. He announced that he intends to “be true to myself...my instincts...my values” but it was difficult to establish what that meant in reality. He seemed particularly keen to distance himself from the previous Labour government of which he was part, effectively declaring war on the legacy he helped to create. Oddly for someone who is so keen to project his independence and individuality, there was more than a suggestion that he was playing to the gallery – notably one including trade unionists – in relation to his anti-business rhetoric, his populist statements on taxation and his views on the filthy rich (of whom John Hutton famously said he had no problem). For someone so keen to be “his own man” he failed to set a distinctive policy agenda or even a coherent set of personal ideas. Which begs the question: who is Ed Miliband other than a tribalistic oppositionalist?

2. He’s caught between two worlds. And two ways of thinking. He claims to be reaching out for “new values” but the indelible evidence points to a conviction that Miliband has rejected progressive social democracy and instead believes that Britain would welcome a government whose socialist agenda would undermine business and further damage the economy. As The Guardian’s Julian Glover points out, “not since 1974 has an election been won by a leader as leftwing as Miliband showed himself to be today. Or, to be cruel, Tony Benn’s got his party back”. Miliband essentially wishes to rebrand the same, tried left-wing remedies – a bit like New Labour but only less interesting. Martin Kettle, also writing in The Guardian, considered that the speech amounted to little more than “an eloquent restatement of the old-time religion”. Miliband desperately wants to make his party relevant to 21st century Britain and deliver a new, radical agenda. But, sadly, it was painfully obvious he has little idea how to do this without returning to the politics of the past. I have no doubt that he wants to bring fresh ideas to the political discourse but wasted the opportunity, being constrained by a retrograde philosophy from which he is unable or unwilling to detach himself.

3. He lacks humility and is either deluded about his personal record in government or determined to erase the memory of it. He was keen to distance himself from previous Labour leaders and, by implication, New Labour. As a tactic, this might make sense. As an intellectual stance it is unsustainable. More tellingly, while keen to play up the role of the innocent bystander swept along by events over which he had no control (this does not reflect positively in respect to his leadership capabilities) at no point did he acknowledge Labour’s culpability in creating the current crisis. How much more effective could his speech have been if he had admitted the more negative aspects of Labour’s legacy: the toxic economic inheritance, failure to reform the welfare system, insufficient delivery on the NHS and education, ill-conceived foreign policy, the attack on civil liberty or the excesses of big-business and the financial industry?

4. His rewriting of history in his own image speaks of personal insecurities. Deep insecurities. Is it simply the case that he can not face up to painful realities? Is he a cynical populist who is seeking to take advantage of his party’s disaffection with Blairism and its heritage? Or is he merely keen to move on from the past and look towards a new Labour future? The context and content of his speech suggests the last is unlikely. My own view is that he is, in some obsessive Orwellian-style way, attempting to recreate himself because not only is he uncomfortable with who he is but he is unable to accept himself and projects these feelings onto others. Whatever his reasoning, there can be no escape from the truth that Miliband is racked by fear of unions – unions whose support he both needs and dreads, whose power and influence he resents yet seeks to cultivate to secure his own political future. He knows he doesn't have the power to take the unions on - at least not yet - but realises he will have to if the party is to genuinely be reformed. I have sympathy with him – it’s enough to make you believe in conspiracy theories, jack it all in and take it easy in the Scilly Isles. It must be hard to formulate a political vision when you have limited control over and trust in those who pull the party strings. Miliband is racked by conflicting anxieties, which appear to have sapped his personal confidence and clarity of thought. Even his rather pitiful and juvenile attacks on Nick Clegg (imaginatively calling him a “Tory”) served no other purpose than a rather unconvincing mask for his own insecurity.

5. He’s an authoritarian to his core. How else can his determination to reinforce the division between the deserving and undeserving poor be interpreted? His announcement that social housing will be allocated on the basis of behaviour rather than need is electorally risky and socially irresponsible, not to mention discriminatory. The welfare system should favour the “responsible” he said. Aside from the obvious problems this approach will both cause and exacerbate, Miliband refused to announce how he intended to determine who was good and deserving and, conversely, who was bad and undeserving. What this announcement did demonstrate was Miliband’s inflexible thinking, his authoritarian worldview and the level to which he completely misunderstands the complex web of social problems at the heart of the matter – not least that making people homeless is not the best remedy for creating productive citizens.

6. His economic thinking is seriously deficient. He referred to the economy in terms of household budget analogies: “the Government believes Britain can address our problems of debt without addressing our problems of growth. They are wrong. Think of how you pay off the credit card bill. You need to make savings in the household budget. But if you lose your job and the money stops coming in, you can’t pay off the bill.” But as any A-level student knows, national economies are completely different from households so the comparison is a weak one. Miliband continued by suggesting that under New Labour, the “good times did not mean we had a good economic system. We changed the fabric of our country but we did not do enough to change the values of our economy.” Unfortunately this timely observation was not accompanied with any vision of a new economic structure but a succession of easy swipes at Sir Fred Goodwin, bankers more generally, energy companies and David Cameron. He clearly likes his pantomime villains far more than he does promoting a responsible economic alternative. Other than an unspecified commitment to change banks “so that they are part of the solution” he had very little to say.

As an apparent afterthought, he did mention the importance of low-carbon creative industries alongside a commitment to the environment and tackling climate change which required breaking the stranglehold of the large energy suppliers. You would have thought whoever was Labour’s Energy Secretary in the last government would have considered attending to that problem.

7. He is a mass of contradictions. Yes, the man who is favour of a graduate tax and opposed to any hike in university tuition fees simultaneously supports increasing fees to a level only double what the previous government had set. And this in spite of evidence suggesting the only beneficiaries to this back-of-an-envelope policy idea would be the highest earners. His speech was littered with other contradictions, most obviously his stance on Blairism which ranged from rejection to wholehearted approval and his confused perspectives on social issues which saw him berate the coalition government while advocating right-wing and authoritarian schemes for approving social housing tenants, utterly failing to appreciate that social housing is not in fact a handout but an integral and vital part of the housing economy as well as a key means of tackling a nyriad of social problems.

8. He craves approval, as the above contradictions make clear. Approval from within his own party (“look at me, I’m not Tony Blair!”), approval from the public (“see, those nasty rioters don’t deserve a council house”) and approval from the unions (“those evil bankers will be a thing of the past come the revolution!”). Perhaps this is because he is racked by self-doubt and lacks confidence in himself. It is, of course, not unusual for politicians to be populist. Ed Miliband’s problem is he’s trying to appeal to multiple groups at once – the inevitable result of what in the Labour Party passes for internal democracy.

9. He still doesn’t understand that attempting to score easy points by knocking the Liberal Democrats is counter-productive. Firstly, it makes him look like more of a tribalist than a statesman. But, more crucially, it shows he hasn’t learned the lessons from the Scottish experience, where Iain Gray’s obsession with the Liberal Democrats led to a transfer of Lib Dem votes...to the SNP. Admittedly Alex Salmond’s electoral influence should not transfer too far south of the border but Miliband should think carefully about wishing to contribute to Lib Dem woes (as both Kinnock and Thatcher did in the immediate aftermath of merger) given that for him to acquire a majority at the next election the Lib Dems will need to hold on to some key Lib-Con marginals. A Liberal Democrat meltdown would hardly aid the political ambitions of the Labour leader.

More tellingly, he has no appetite for working with the Liberal Democrats or even for establishing common ground between the two parties, despite the fact that this would represent a more serious attempt at undermining the coalition's prospects than painting the Lib Dems as "Tories". I can only wonder what Donald Dewar would make of this. Surely I am not the only Scot who valued the close working relationships in the past between Labour and the Lib Dems but clearly Miliband wants his party to move on from such pluralistic achievements and into a new era of tribalism.

10. He’s not an orator. In that sense he’s right that he isn’t Tony Blair. That may not necessarily be a bad thing: Clem Attlee, Edward Heath, John Major and Gordon Brown achieved the highest office while being neither inspirational nor charismatic. But while in the case of these the perceived decency of the men proved to be an asset (at least during the early part of their respective tenures) Miliband lacks such appeal and can be more easily compared to Michael Foot, a predecessor who will forever be remembered for his delusional conviction that Britain wanted to move radically leftwards. Miliband's oratory was the most nervous and least convincing party conference speech from a leader since Iain Duncan Smith decided it was a good idea to declare himself “the quiet man of politics” and a few more efforts like this could see calls for him to take a similar exit.

Miliband is a leader of limited ability and, judging by yesterday’s performance, even more limited political vision. There were, inevitably, some positives in his speech and a number of potentially useful ideas that will hopefully be explored in more depth in the months and years ahead. Unfortunately, what the speech suffered from most was identified by Miliband himself: “You need to know that there is an alternative. You need to know that it is credible”, he stated. Indeed. But credibility comes from a credible policy platform and a credible leader and currently Labour have neither. Labour desperately needs a leader who can look beyond the politics of opposition and take the party, wandering confused in the wilderness of the post-Blair/Brown era, into a new place flowing with purpose and vision.

Ed Miliband's internal conflicts are undeniable and rapidly undermining his leadership. The biggest problem Labour faces is Miliband’s determination to “be his own man...going to do things [his] way.” Not only because that man is contradictory, insecure, undecided and paralysed through fear but due to his crippling lack of any kind of appeal. Letting Ed be Ed, argues Daniel Finkelstein in The Times, is “poor strategic advice”. Indeed; it verges on the suicidal. Several Labour delegates were happy to tell the BBC that they were delighted with their leader’s speech but my suspicion is that nobody will be happier than David Cameron.

How can "social mobility" become more than a political soundbite?

2011-09-27T10:05:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the most depressing feature of last week’s Liberal Democrat conference, at least from a personal perspective, was a fringe meeting I attended on social mobility. Hosted by CentreForum and the ACCA and supposedly debating “breaking down barriers to social mobility”, I was particularly attracted to the event because of the promised attendance of Guardian journalist Polly Toynbee.

Unfortunately Ms Toynbee’s invite must have got lost somewhere but there was still a distinguished panel of current and retired academics as well as Norman Lamb MP. What solutions did they have for “breaking down the barriers”?

Lamb started off positively, citing the now standard Liberal Democrat position that it is unacceptable for an individual’s life chances to be largely determined by their parentage. He gave a short presentation broadly supporting an agenda of “fairness” and then promptly disappeared to another meeting. Thereafter the meeting became an expression of CentreForum’s inward-looking intellectualism, its disconnection with reality and its patent lack of any idea that could actually make a meaningful contribution to tackling inequality.

In fact, the word “inequality” was seldom mentioned. Neither was “social injustice”. Instead, we were subjected to a lengthy and uninteresting debate about what “mobility” means, especially in relation to getting a more diverse range of people into Russell Group universities which seemed to be the only measure of “mobility” they were interested in. This in turn was followed by an even more unnecessary discussion on “climbing the mobility ladder”. Ah, but what type of ladder? And is it really an escalator? Or maybe even a spiral staircase? This went on for some time.

Fortunately a teacher interjected and angrily but correctly insisted that talk of “climbing” was missing the point. Surely what is needed is equality of opportunity for everyone, not reinforcement of a system that keeps an elite few on a “ladder”? No-one is served by extensive discussions about what “social mobility” might mean to different people, he protested; the chief objective must be to challenge unfairness? This took the CentreForum academics by surprise. To their credit, one of them referred to the aspiration deficit but then was dismissive of commonsense approaches to tackling it. “What are your views on the need to improve careers advice to young people?” asked a young woman from The Prince’s Trust. “Erm, careers advice makes no difference to outcomes” came the reply.

It was thoroughly depressing stuff. The hardest thing to accept was that CentreForum , a think tank associated with but not directly affiliated to the party, has influence in shaping Liberal Democrat policy. A few soundbites, pseudo-intellectual discussions about ladders and recommendations that there should be a few more paid internships hardly amounts to a cogent philosophy on “breaking down barriers”.

The problem with CentreForum’s well meaning but ultimately futile response to the problem is that it is a reaction to political dialogue rather than a genuine exercise in recommending pragmatic solutions. And, for all the debate about the nature of social mobility, there was one stark truth that sticks with me – none of these people knew anything about the crippling effects of social immobility. I asked the panel what they would recommend for someone in my own position and proposed that the “social mobility” they were discussing was a myth (as previously discussed here). The more human member of the panel listened before apologising and explaining that he couldn’t offer any encouragement. Well, at least he’s honest. Obviously in his view the barriers to my own social mobility are so severe thay can not be “broken down”.

The lack of ideas from a think tank disappointed me, but if I’m truthful the thing I found most objectionable was the inability of these people to talk like ordinary people about the things that ordinary people talk about. You know, about someone’s wife not having a job, someone not able to break free from the cycle of unemployment that keeps them down, someone who can’t afford to feed the children never mind think about sending them to university – Russell Group or otherwise. Basically, they were completely unable to relate to people who find themselves “socially immobile” or identify with their problems. Worse still, they had little obvious interest in exploring the complex web of social reality that lies beneath.

I also find it utterly incomprehensible that people can talk about “improving social mobility” without ever referring to the challenge of unemployment.

Is this also true of our party as a whole though? Nick Clegg’s speech was full of his familiar rhetoric: “I have a simple, unquenchable belief: That every child can do good things, great things if only we give them the opportunities they deserve... I have had all the advantages – good school, great parents. I was lucky. But it shouldn't be about luck... In terms of opportunity, we are a nation divided...Odds [are] stacked against too many of our children. A deep injustice, when birth is destiny. That's why I've been leading the charge for social mobility - for fairer chances, for real freedom.” So far, excellent. But what did Nick have to offer beyond platitudes? Not much new, other than a catch-up summer school for disadvantaged children (in my view probably not the best remedy for levelling the playing field). And the welcome emphasis on children is vital, but if the accepted truth that life chances are determined by parentage stands why isn’t more being done to improve opportunities for parents?

As I’ve argued previously, this was a conference of missed opportunities. This is certainly true as far as improving social mobility (and tackling the problems associated with social immobility) is concerned. Simon Hughes talked of a “redistribution of work” that merited further consideration but received none. More obvious economic solutions to relieve unemployment were intentionally avoided in Clegg’s speech. No attention was given to the possibility of enabling more people to reskill and retrain. The reality is that crisis management has replaced dynamic political vision and, as a result, action to alleviate social immobility and its related problems is minimal.

No-one likes impersonal politics or when discourse is dominated by hacks, geeks, party machines or out-of-touch intellectuals. People in Inverclyde and, I imagine, everywhere else are easily turned off by political rhetoric that fails to appreciate them as individuals or understand their concerns. As far as I know, no-one in Port Glasgow sits awake at night contemplating whether the route to finding a job is a theoretical ladder or an escalator. Neither do they think in terms of “social mobility”. They think that life isn’t fair, that maybe it would be different if they had better opportunities to work and train. And they think politicians are out of touch.

The only way for social mobility to become more than an a Liberal Democrat aspiration is for a coherent strategy that simultaneously facilitate economic growth, creates employment, develops an education system that is both life-long and genuinely open to all, improves quality of living in Britain’s more deprived areas, tackles the social injustice of widening income inequality and gives people new aspirations. It is quite a challenge but not one that can afford to be shirked. Bottom-up political approaches can also help – at the very least party policy will be informed by the realities experienced by ordinary people rather than the distant, uninformed and sometimes prejudiced views of the likes of CentreForum.

I despair of all the political talk about social mobility which is often well-intentioned but is doing little to practically improve the life chances of myself or the many others who are struggling to escape from the harsh consequences of social inequality. Certainly social justice requires more than some fighting talk from our leadership and a few short-term initiatives.

Forgive my impatience but time really isn’t on our side, especially with the threat of a double-dip recession and the insecurities it will bring. I know Nick Clegg recognises this. There is so much more to do – I am convinced our party is better placed than ever to deliver the fairness we all believe in, but we can only do it if fine sentiment is matched with bold action.

A conference of missed opportunities

2011-09-25T09:58:00.000-07:00

In my review of last week’s Liberal Democrat conference, I drew attention to the positivity of the party, the belief that Liberal Democrats can and are making a positive difference at the heart of government and the determination of minsters to distinguish themselves from their Conservative partners

All that is true as anyone attending conference could testify. But there was another key characteristic of conference that has not been sufficiently explored: this was a conference of missed opportunities.

Let’s start with Nick Clegg’s speech, which was well-delivered and equally well-received by most delegates in the hall. The big surprise was that there was no big surprise. While not disagreeing with most of the substance of his speech (there was, indeed, much praiseworthy within it), Clegg essentially said everything I thought he would: the predictable defence of the coalition and his party’s role within it, a reiteration of his commitment to “social mobility” and “fairness”, a few half-hearted asides at the Conservatives and some encouraging words for activists. “You've shown – immense strength” he told us. Well, that’s nice. But it lacked both the humility and conviction of Tim Farron’s address as the leader spurned the chance to demonstrate some overdue modesty or a real understanding of members’ concerns and fears. He also failed to move beyond the oft-repeated call to keep on keeping on: “it’s not easy but it is right” he explained. I don’t disagree with the truth of that, but I would have hoped Nick Clegg would have been able to adopt a more pragmatic attitude than “let’s take this on the chin, we know we’re right – just keep telling people how much we’re doing in government”. It’s a tired line and Clegg’s inability to say anything remotely new in regards appealing to the public was positively depressing.

Unlike the party president, Clegg didn’t refer to Scotland or address directly the problem of regaining the faith of the electorate: another missed opportunity to gain credibility. On policy, Clegg also failed to promote any meaningful strategies for promoting social mobility (especially for those of us who are not children) while turning down the option of laying down an alternative economic vision (something that would have been timely given the IMF’s intervention days earlier and the increased likelihood of a double-dip recession). I’m not necessarily talking about a radical u-turn or a “plan B”, but a new liberal take on the current government strategy - an amendment if you like - that can reassure both markets and voters. A series of jokes at the Conservatives’ expense from Lib Dem ministers does not disguise the fact that, at least as far as economic policy is concerned, our leadership have simply acted as the front men for George Osborne. The economy is the issue that matters most, and the issue on which we are singularly failing to be distinctive.

Cable attempted to suggest a different approach in his speech, during which he drew parallels between the Social Democratic economic theories of Roy Jenkins and the route he has chartered. But even he failed to provide any detail or substantial alternative ideas and no-one else seemed willing or able to challenge the Osborne wisdom of cutting our way out of economic downturn as quickly as possible.

Charles Kennedy picked up on another missed opportunity: to identify key aims, run with them and win the necessary battles. We are fighting on too many fronts, Kennedy told The Independent; what we need to do is “pick a few important fights and win some of them”. Clegg’s chief weakness isn’t on policy, but his inability to define clearly achievable goals. Conference represented an opportunity to “pick our fights” and set our agenda, but the chance was never grasped.

What Clegg needs to do is identify what his and his party's chief priorities are in government for the next three and a half years - preferably priorities shared by the general public - and do everything he can to deliver on them. His conference speech made many references to Lib Dem successes, including ending child detention. The problem is that the average voter doesn't wake up in the morning and think "Yippee! Thank God for that Nick Clegg - without him we'd still have child detention". Of course it's important to deliver on this and other issues we passionately believe in, such as Lords reform, but if the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg are to regain their credibility in the eyes of the electorate they have to identify areas of public concern they can both act on and use as a basis for a distinctive new message. At the moment the leadership's core strategy consists of asking activists to remind the public how grateful they should be now we've safeguarded chequebooks and made wheel clamping illegal, while labouring under the false belief that voters will reward us when they finally understand the significance of our role in government.

Mark Pack has touched on something I have long been critical of: the party’s incapability to communicate what it is for. “The party was much better at saying what it was not and what it was against” he explains, and turns his attention to the many and often mixed messages sent out by the party during conference. There is little sense of cohesion and no clear theme or “common message” – and far too many inconsistencies, he claims.

Pack picks up on the party’s lack of economic ideas with a criticism of the party’s failure to promote its achievements on banking reform. Why are we so keen to promote lesser “achievements” over more radical and far-reaching successes?

The message is a simple one, says Pack: “there isn’t a message. That’s a problem.” It is, and it’s something I’ve been concerned about for some time. Identity is ultimately connected to the message. So why doesn’t the leadership grasp this reality; why have we allowed another conference to go by without seizing the opportunity to formulate a positive and truly distinctive characteristic that encapsulates who we are?

One thing we’re good at is telling the public what we’re not. There was a time it worked for us, especially during by-election campaigns in the 1990s. It’s now time to change tactics. Minister after minister taking to the platform and telling the converted that we’re not Tories isn’t a promising long-term strategy. Neither is the mysterious silence on economic issues.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats will be holding their conference in Dunfermline on 8th October. The agenda contains many opportunities for the party to express its distinctively liberal policy philosophies, but the key challenge for the party is to portray itself as politically relevant. This won’t come from a few unreported conference motions, but through Willie Rennie deciding what his message is, determining key priorities, picking his fights carefully (and winning them) and effectively communicating what we are for as a liberal party in Scotland. Hopefully he will be better equipped to seize the opportunities to forge the fresh, intellectually liberal “message” Mark Pack rightly identifies as so necessary to progress than Nick Clegg, who appears so convinced of his own “rightness” that he has closed his eyes to potential openings.

For further photographs from Conference, please see the Photographic Review of Conference on my facebook page:

Photographic Review of Conference (Part 1)
Photographic Review of Conference (Part 2)

Review of Liberal Democrat Conference

2011-09-23T10:52:00.000-07:00

And so, that’s the end of conference for another year.

It was certainly interesting.

Prior to the start of conference, I was unsure how proceedings would pan out. Would conference see a stand-off between the rank-and-file and the leadership? Would discontent with the coalition, especially on tuition fees and the Health Bill, overshadow events? Would conference demand a change of direction from Nick Clegg, or would it embrace his determination to keep on keeping on?

Well, in spite of media speculation some things are now very clear. We may not like the Tories and we may not like every policy idea emanating from the coalition, but we’re in this for the long haul. There were no calls to abandon ship or to turn our back on the pluralistic approach to politics. This may well be due to the almost tangible feeling among party members that we’re actually becoming quite adept at influencing the government, especially with right-wing Tories lining up to convince the public of how effectively we’ve curbed their excesses. The mood among activists was far more positive than I would have imagined and, although tempered with a certain amount of realism, there was no call for any short-termist approaches to lift the party’s fortunes.

Certainly, Ed Miliband’s assumption that Liberal Democrat activists would warm towards Labour as relationships inevitably strained between the coalition partners has proved to be nothing other than wishful thinking. A survey of members by the Daily Politics found that almost as many Lib Dem members favoured working with our current partners rather than Labour in the event of another hung parliament (I refused to vote, as there was no option for the possibility of working with the Greens). Similarly, while many of us are concerned that the austerity programme is cutting too deeply and too quickly Lib Dems are not championing a plan B, realising that any such change in strategy would seriously undermine the markets and the wider economy. Basically, we might not like George Osborne, but we’re not thrilled with the performances of Ed Balls and his leader – or their lack of substantive policy ideas or economic strategy.

What was also apparent was the distinctiveness of Liberal Democrat policy. There is of course a distinction to be made between party policy and the policy of the coalition government. No-one could have sat through the debate on Education Credit, Social Care or Community Politics and seriously suggested we are a Tory-light party. Similarly, the motions passed in respect to drugs policy and nuclear power show a similarly distinctive and intellectually liberal policy direction that neither the Conservatives nor the Labour Party would have the courage to debate, let alone provide leadership on.

It was a good conference for Tim Farron, the party president. I’ve not always been impressed with his trademark mixture of populism and comedy routine. However, on this occasion he hit all the right notes. Charismatic and genuinely funny, Farron kept the conference entertained, but also took the opportunity to show some humility on the part of the leadership. Referring to Scotland, he said “Liberal Democrats who have served their communities and worked their backsides off for years, got their backsides kicked. I want to say this to you now, if you lost your seat, I stand with you; I am angry on your behalf; I take the responsibility and I absolutely will not insult you by claiming that this was collateral damage, or an understandable mid term blip. Frankly, as your President, I owe you an apology.” Excellent and honest – and the kind of thing I was hoping Nick Clegg would have said during his recent visits to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Farron’s speech was seen by some in media circles as a bid for the leadership. It was of course nothing of the sort, but a direct appeal to party supporters to keep faith in Lib Dem ministers and the leader in particular. Praising the role of Lib Dems at the heart of government and in standing up to their Conservative opponents on issues that matter he said: “they are busy in their departments doing the right things. On those very, very rare occasions when Michael Gove says or does something stupid or wrong, Sarah Teather doesn’t come out and slag him off. Instead she fixes it...When the Tories showed hesitancy about committing to true and fair banking reforms, Vince Cable laid on the pressure and forced that commitment. And when George Osborne flew the kite of cutting income tax for the wealthy, Danny Alexander cut the string, and stopped him.”

He was also not afraid to criticise the Conservative Party or its more toxic policies, something that went down well with party loyalists. His belief that “we are a radical Liberal Party putting radical liberal politics into action and blocking Tory policies every day” reinforced his reputation as the party’s social conscience. That’s a matter of some debate, especially given Evan Harris’s interventions on a range of issues this week. But Tim’s certainly our foremost comedy talent.

Which is more than can be said of Sarah Teather. She made some puerile and misguided jokes at the expense of George Osborne and Peter Hain. It might have helped if they were funny, and her speech never really recovered. Other ministers fared better in their asides: Chris Huhne’s speech promoted a responsible energy programme and a radical compensation system aimed at clipping the wings of the energy companies but was more notable for his criticism of the Tories’ actions during the AV referendum campaign, while Vince Cable, again hitting all the right notes, spoke passionately on the need for political pluralism, the roots of the economic crisis and his view on the detail of a stimulus package for British business. He even had the courage to turn against “irresponsible capitalism” and gave his vision of a Social Democratic economic future in which he saw himself leading in the footsteps of Stafford Cripps and Roy Jenkins (I wasn’t able to see David Laws’ facial expressions at this point, but I use my imagination). It was terrific. Unfortunately, he was unable to resist describing key Tories as “descendants of those who sent children up chimneys”. It didn’t fit in too well with his championing of coalition but the party didn’t seem to mind.

There were some real achievements this week, most notably in the motions to end the ban on gay men donating blood, on ensuring our party has a genuinely liberal policy on reducing the harm stemming from drug misuse, on reiterating that the 50p tax rate is going nowhere and reigniting environmental issues, advocating a “green stimulus for economic recovery”. The party reasserted its philosophical liberalism, perhaps most notably in the debates that the media paid little attention to, such as those on Lords reform and the unnecessarily robust security measures used for accrediting delegates to conference.

Admittedly, the agenda could have been more adventurous and the more cynical of us might have considered the “feel good” motions to have been intentionally designed to avoid any major conflict with the leadership. The refusal to allow a full debate on the progress of the NHS Bill proved counter-productive and both Evan Harris and Shirley Williams were expressing their commitment to further concessions and amendments to the Bill at every given opportunity.

At the fringe meetings the growing influence of the Social Liberal Forum was indicative of the mood within the party. I am not entirely sure whether this is altogether positive, with a greater proportion of members than ever apparently identifying themselves with either the “social” or “economic” wings of liberal philosophy; further polarisation is in no-one’s interests. But the SLF clearly has a role to play in reinvigorating the party and seems to have an almost unique opportunity to do so with a strong appeal to members and activists.

The media predicted anger and frustration among delegates; there was, but generally this was largely confined to discussions on education and the NHS. The overall mood was broadly positive and my abiding memories will be of delegates from across the country providing encouragement and support to each other. I am convinced Nadine Dorries is partially responsible: what better antidote to the Liberal Democrats’ collective depression could there have been than loud and very public outbursts from far-right Tories attributing anything remotely progressive to our influence? There was certainly a belief that we are doing many of the right things in government and that these successes are all the sweeter for frustrating the Tories in the process.

The most crucial characteristic of Conference as a whole was the party’s resilience and determination to make the most of our opportunities in government. The next few years will not be easy, as Nick Clegg and Tim Farron are keen to remind us. But we are a party that for the most part believes in itself, has adopted a more mature and pragmatic approach to political achievement, has a positive attitude towards its role in government than any in the media could have imagined and – at least for the time being – is backing its leader.

Lib Dem Conference: Caption Competition #10

2011-09-23T09:16:00.001-07:00

Finally, what does Danny Alexander find to say to Miriam Gonzalez Durantez? Or what does she find so entertaining?

Lib Dem Conference: Caption Competition #9

2011-09-23T09:11:00.001-07:00

Alistair Carmichael enjoys a glass of whisky...surely it's not hard to come up with some suitably entertaining captions for this one?

Lib Dem Conference: Caption Competition #8

2011-09-23T09:03:00.000-07:00

Another caption competition, this time featuring Vince Cable and a BBC reporter.

What is Vince saying?

Lib Dem Conference: Caption Competition #7

2011-09-23T08:59:00.000-07:00

Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander share a word during Lib Dem conference. But what are they saying?

Lib Dem Conference: Caption Competition #6

2011-09-23T08:57:00.001-07:00

What is Chris Huhne thinking?

Lib Dem Conference: Caption Competition #5

2011-09-23T08:53:00.000-07:00

What is going through John Thurso's mind as he listens to Michael Moore's speech?

Lib Dem Conference: Caption Competition #4

2011-09-23T08:48:00.001-07:00

So what could Paul Burstow be suggesting here?

Please leave your ideas below, but surely you can do better than "I caught a fish that was this big!"

Lib Dem Conference: Caption Competition #3

2011-09-23T08:39:00.001-07:00

Shirley Williams finds something hilarious - what has tickled her?

Please leave your caption ideas below - winner will be announced next Friday.

Lib Dem Conference: Caption Competition #2

2011-09-23T08:30:00.001-07:00

Here's the second picture in the Lib Dem Conference caption competition - this time featuring Steve Webb MP.

What could he possibly be thinking?

Please leave your (hopefully) humourous ideas below - the winner will be announced next Friday.

Lib Dem Conference: Caption Competition #1

2011-09-23T08:12:00.000-07:00

I took a lot of photographs at our annual conference in Birmingham. Some were quite good, others more "interesting".

Some were quite frankly hilarious. Some of these are deserving of fittingly amusing captions, which is why I'm putting them on my blog - in the hope that some witty and imaginiative individuals can provide a hilarious take on them.

In the truest of liberal traditions there is of course no prize other than the knowledge that you are the wittiest reader of A Scottish Liberal!

We'll start with this photograph of Nick Clegg answering members' questions. Allan Heron has already suggested this: "Nick sings 'I did it my way' but finds the note leaves a bad aftertaste". Well, that's pretty good. But I'm sure you can do better.

Please leave your ideas below - I'll announce the winner next Friday!

My speech to Lib Dem conference

2011-09-22T09:30:00.000-07:00

On Sunday I gave a speech at Lib Dem conference supporting the excellent motion "Protecting Individuals and Communities from Drug Harms".

The full motion can be found here, and essentially amounted to a call to decriminalise those affected by substance addiction while advocating a new drugs policy that was evidence-based and could more effectively tackle the damage drug misuse can do to individulas and wider society.

My speech is below:

I would appeal to Conference to support this motion which is well-written, carefully constructed and thoughtful in both its diagnosis and prescribed remedies for a problem that is responsible for reinforcing poverty and further marginalising already disadvantaged individuals and communities.

There is a welcome emphasis on the very real and serious consequences, both personal and societal, as well as a reiteration of the need for evidence-based policy. I particularly support the call to consider re-evaluating the law, being informed by the experiences of the Portuguese model, to increase investment in treatment and rehabilitation and all-round better provision for those affected by drug dependency.

In regards amendment 2 I am not convinced it is necessary and, as the motion proposes an overdue impact assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 it is probably unwise to be constrained by the terms of legislation whose fitness for purpose is actively being questioned. However, I am in support of amendment 1, with its emphasis on prevention and tackling some of the precipitating factors leading to substance dependency.

In 1997, I was homeless in Glasgow, and then for five months a resident in a rehabilitation centre for people with addiction problems. I don’t wish to discuss my personal history, but the rehab was not the most empowering place. While it had some positive results, it was unable to deal with some of the wider problems experienced by those affected by drug misuse. Most of the clients were homeless. Most had experienced various social problems. Most experienced mental ill-health. And all of us were unemployed. These factors created various problems once “rehabilitation”
was complete – this led to a revolving door syndrome with the same people returning to the same service time after time.

I moved on to a council flat in Sighthill, which Jo Swinson will know as a thoroughly depressed and disempowered council estate with poor housing and living standards and an unacceptably low life expectancy. Unfortunately, support for recoverers was limited and drugs were more easily available than anywhere outside of Barlinnie Prison. But what I recall most about the place was its poverty – not just material poverty, but a poverty of hope and ambition.

So we’re not dealing with one problem but a complex web, a cycle that enslaves. This is why I support the simple amendment, which promotes a shift in emphasis as well as a reappraisal of policy.

Finally, I would like to mention the Kerr Report, which applies only to Scotland but whose principles are transferrable. This is a document championing a new approach towards improving standards of health in Scotland. We are, after all, talking about a medical issue, a health issue; I currently work in adult mental health and there is an inescapable relationship between drug use and mental illness. The report recommended more preventative rather than reactive approaches, the need for evidence-based practice and for services to be “as local as possible and as specialised as necessary” to provide for the needs of service users.

This approach needs to be fully incorporated into the government’s drug policies. Support this motion and amendment 1, and hopefully it will be.

Immediately following the speech, I was intrigued to note that several people had opted to follow me on twitter. I also received the following tweets of support, including the following:

"Well done for speaking in the drug debate in the capacity of someone in
recovery. Taking away the stigma."

"Speech was great."

"FANTASTIC speech in favour of the drugs motion. Looks like only one
speaker against."

"Incredibly passionate, moving & personal 1st time speech on drug
policy by Andrew Page"

"Impressive debut. I look forward to seeing more of you up there."

Later I bumped into Chris Davies MEP who congratulated me, as well as my many friends who were keen to tell me "well done". I fully appreciate it - thanks to all of you.

It is in debates like this that I am most proud to be a Liberal Democrat: setting out a distinctively liberal stall and daring to be different. Of course what is now needed is for responsible, science-based government policy to tackle the scourge of drug dependency. This sensible but politically bold motion was passed and now the challenge has to be to ensure that our party policy is transformed into appropriate action with a programme that can actively reverse the dehumanising and socially destructive effects of drug misuse.

In other words, we've shown leadership as a party on this issue. The Conservatives must now do likewise.

I have previously written about the need for a practical approach on the issue: It's time to talk sensibly about drug misuse.

Off to conference...with history in the making

2011-09-16T13:02:00.000-07:00

It's Conference time again, my favourite time of the year. This year I'm actually attending various fringe events at the Conservative and Labour conferences as well, which will hopefully give me a more rounded view of political developments as they occur.

Unlike last year, where I updated the world with conference news via my blog on a daily basis, I will not be doing so on this occasion. I don't think it's possible to get the most from conference, either socially or in terms of political revitalisation, if I'm chained to a laptop. However, I intend to indulge in some critical analysis of events upon my return, in addition to providing some witty banter and curious anecdotes.

The Liberal Democrat Conference in Birmingham will be many things. What it will surely be is one of the most crucial conferences in our party's history. The leadership faces key challenges which are well-documented, but so does the party as a whole: the Liberal Democrats have to ask themselves how to move forward, how to respond to the task of winning over an electorate while delivering in government and how to facilitate a liberal revival. Unfortunately what seems to have happened even before conference kicks off is that discontent over tuition fees, security measures and the NHS Bill have set many activists and members against the party leadership - understandable, but not the most promising nor positive of starts.

There is nothing that conference seems to like more than to get one over the leadership, as was famously the case in 1986 (on defence) but also last year on the issue of free schools. Nick Clegg, like Steel before him, seems to relish the opportunity of such conflict with the rank-and-file. None of this is helpful. As Matthew Green spells out on his Thinking Liberal blog, it's time for the Lib Dems to grow up. It's time to move beyond the oppositional role we are so used to and grasp the new political reality. As David Laws suggested in The Sun, "it would be a disaster if the Lib Dems were simply to evolve into an internal Opposition". If we are to be successful, both in government and in projecting our values to the country, we have to adapt to our new responsibilities. This also applies within the party: while we should be vocally critical where necessary, and while we will never fully embrace a lot of government policy, we must resist the temptation to allow the formation of a party within a party - which would result in a divided party and a core of sincere but oppositionally-minded individuals on a collision course with the leadership. The Tories' internal difficulties, especially on Europe, during the 1990s and early 2000s when they became virtually unleadable are testament to the consequences of such oppositionalism. That's the antithesis of the kind of grown-up politics Matthew Green is championing.

Conference has the opportunity to put the leadership under pressure, to ask serious questions about policy direction and promote the liberal values of its members. I am confident it will. But we can not allow ourselves to be caught up with internal matters and be seen as inward-looking or self-satisfied fighting for "principles" no-one else in the real world cares much about, however important they are to us as liberals. What I genuinely hope is that this Conference will serve as something of a reality check for all of us as well as providing a platform for facilitating the kinds of positive changes we all want and our country needs.

Will it be that kind of Conference? It's tough to tell. The media no doubt will play up the divisions between Clegg and the wider party and between parliamentarians and the rank-and-file. Some of those are very real, others less so. But I imagine the dozens of reporters present, weighing up every word of Nick Clegg's carefully constructed and polished speech, will overlook the passion and purpose of delegates or what actually brings the party together: the desire to create a more fair and liberal society. In fact, by focusing on Nick Clegg or even the actions of the coalition both the media and the oppositionalists do the party a disservice, effectively sidelining progressive policy motions and broader matters of what the party stands for and how it can project its values.

The Liberal Democrats have to think carefully about how to approach the future. The answers will not all be found at this year's Federal Conference but I hope that many of us who dislike what was falsely labelled the "new politics" by Ros Scott will at least see the value in the responsible "grown up politics" espoused by Matthew Green.

Total Politics Blog Awards - Top Lib Dem Blogs

2011-09-16T01:54:00.000-07:00

Well, more results from the Total Politics Blog Awards - this time on the UK's best Lib Dem bloggers.

I am, astonishingly, placed 7th in the top 100 - alongside Liberal Vision and one place behind the inspiring and insightful Mark Pack. I am personally delighted for some of my friends, not least Caron (at 2nd place confirming her status as best individual blogger) , Stephen (5th), Lisa (14th), Gavin (23rd), Gordon (76th - a strong first showing) and Douglas (89th). It is also appropriate to see Andrew Reeves at 4th place - I can only imagine what he would make of it.

This is a great result for Scottish bloggers, who make up 5 of the top 10 (I'm counting Stephen as Scottish!) and demonstrates the health of the "MacBlogosphere". Other notable Scottish mentions are WiLD Women (49) and Nic Prigg (88).
1 (1) Lib Dem Voice
2 (3) Caron’s Musings
3 (6) Liberal England
4 (10) Andrew Reeves’ Running Blog
5 (7) Stephen’s Liberal Journal
6 (5) Mark Pack
=7 (4) Liberal Vision
=7 (-) A Scottish Liberal
9 (18) Cllr Fraser Macpherson
10 (2) Mark Reckons
=11 (17) Peter Black AM
=11 (-) The Potter Blogger
13 (-) Jack of Kent
14 (36) Spider Plant Land
15 (-) Living on Words Alone
16 (23) Birkdale Focus
17 (8) Jennie Rigg
18 (-) Nick Thornsby’s Blog
19 (11) Cicero’s Songs
20 (-) Olly Grender
21 (-) A View From Ham Common
22 (15) Millennium Dome , Elephant
23 (-) View From The Hills
24 (-) A Brief History of Liberty
=25 (-) Eric Avebury
=25 (14) Lynne Featherstone
27 (-) Liberal Burblings
28 (16) A Lanson Boy
29 (73) Jonathan Fryer
30 (26) Lib Dem Child
=31 (71) David May
=31 (-) The Rambles of Neil Monnery
33 (-) Too Liberal
34 (-) Ginger Liberal of Medway
35 (-) Solution Focused Politics
36 James Taylor
37 A Life Inside and Outside Politics - Mark Cole
38 Political Parry
39 Sanjay Samani
40 Craig Murray
41 Cllr Jeremy Rowe
42 (33) Liberal Bureaucracy
43 (46) Virtually Naked
44 Richard Kemp
45 Disgruntled Radical
46 Jock Coats
47 Eaten by Missionaries
48 Quaequam blog
49 Wild Women
50 Hannah's Liberal Journal
51 Liberal Landslide
52 Climbing Russell's Mountain
53 Gareth Epps
54 Keith Nevols
55 Keynsian Liberal
56 Meols Lib Dems
57 Paul Edie
58 The Yellow Bastard
59 Adrian Sanders
60 Decline of the Logos
61 Kingsholm Councillor
62 Nick Clegg
63 The Collected Stephen Tall
64 Aremay
65 David Boyle
66 Gyronny Herald
67 Lester Holloway
68 Lindylooz Muse
69 The World is Watching
70 Thinking Liberal
71 CentreForum Blog
72 Liberal Democrats in Northern Ireland
73 Meral Ece
74 RCT Lib Dems
75 Ron Beadle
76 Social Liberal in the Pursuit of Fairness
77 ALDC
78 Bracknell Blog
79 Brian Robson
80 Cllr Steve Bradley
81 Lib Dems Pointing
82 Liberal Unionist
83 Neil Stockley
84 Political Valley
85 Southport Liberal Youth
86 Lib Dem Blogs
87 Liberal Ramblings from Petersfield
88 Nic Prigg's Blog
89 An Independence Minded Liberal
90 Anders Hanson
91 John Hemming
92 Liberal Youth Scotland
93 Social Liberal Forum
94 Strange Thoughts
95 Max Atkinson's Blog
96 The Will Patterson Notebook
97 Andrew Hickey
98 The People's Republic of Mortimer
99 Stephen Williams MP
100 Craig Murray

Well done to everyone in the top 100! I am, quite simply, more than surprised to feature so highly but am naturally appreciative of all those who voted for A Scottish Liberal - it's sometimes comforting to be recognised!

Total Politics Blog Awards - Scottish Blogs

2011-09-14T06:52:00.001-07:00

The Total Politics blog awards are being revealed over the next few days, culminating in the overall rankings for the best 100 political blogs in the UK.

Today though, Total Politics published the only real result that matters - the best 25 Scottish blogs. The result is as follows:

1 (-) Better Nation
2 (6) Bright Green Scotland
3 (2) Underdogs Bite Upwards
4 (15) Lallands Peat Worrier
5 (-) A Burdz Eye View
6 (-) Labour Hame
7 (-) Andrew Reeves' Running Blog
8 (9) Sub Rosa
9 (26) Bella Caledonia
10 (-) Dundee Westend
11 (23) Scot Goes POP!
12 (17) Go Lassie Go
13 (-) A Scottish Liberal
14 (-) Newsnet Scotland
15 (-) Suitably Despairing
16 (35) Moridura
17 (22) Kezia Dugdale
18 (47) Munguin's Republic
19 (-) SNP.org
20 (24) Gerry Hassan
21 (-) View from the Hills
22 (27) Iain Macwhirter Now and Then
23 (-) Alba Matters
24 (-) The Shoogly Peg
25 (-) Universality of Cheese

last year's positions in brackets

A few observations:

* I am incredibly pleased that Better Nation emerged top of the pile - a thoroughly well-deserved achievement.
* Andrew Reeves' contribution to Scottish blogging is recognised with his appearance at number 7 - a fitting tribute to a fantastic man.
* I am pleasantly surprised to see A Scottish Liberal featured as highly as number 13, only one behind Joan McAlpine's Go Lassie Go and ahead of Newsnet Scotland, SNP.org, Kezia Dugdale, Iain McWhirter and Gerry Hassan. Thank you to everyone who voted!
* Where is Caron's Musings? It's absence from the top 25 seems completely illogical.

Looking beyond 9/11

2011-09-12T05:46:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was the tenth anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in human history. Like many, I remember watching the Twin towers collapse - I recollect being numbed by the shock, stunned by the scale of inhumanity towards innocents and positively terrified of the new world that had just been created. Nobody could have been left in any doubt that in an instant the world as we knew it had changed beyond recognition; an era of relative confidence, global stability and innocence can crashing down alongside the symbol of American economic supremacy.

What was clear in the immediate aftermath of the atrocity was that, at least in the case of the UK and US governments, logic would so easily give way to irrationality, and that many broadly progressive, considered foreign policy positions would be exchanged for a counter-productive "war on terror". What the 9/11 attacks actually called for was a sober-minded response from the international community, with an honest analysis of the factors leading to the hijackers' radicalisation and their determination to destroy what they perceived the US to represent in political, economic and religious terms. The understandable rage could have - and should have - been channelled into a constructive plan to reinforce the values under attack, while the effects of key foreign policy positions on the Middle East were honestly re-evaluated. Unfortunately, what actually followed was to play into the hands of al-Qaeda and create a destructive myth of an "Axis of Evil" that not only proved an effective recruitment sergeant for militant Islamists but polarised society with a prejudice-fuelled and ignorant rhetoric. Al-Qaeda dreamed of enticing the West into a religious conflict against the Islamic world and in this respect it succeeded: George W Bush was only too pleased to give al-Qaeda the "crusade" it badly wanted.

Like many others across the world, I have been indirectly affected by the 9/11 attacks and their legacy: no-one living in Tony' Blair's Britain could have failed to see the impact this had on UK race relations.. As Bush and Blair cynically and wrongly heightened fears, so a culture of suspicion developed towards Asians - and Muslims in particular. This, combined with the UK government's illiberal determination to cast aside even the most basic tenets of human rights in the name of "security", served to disenfranchise many British Muslims with fatal consequences. Meanwhile the US, equally oblivious to the counter-productive and naive nature of its response, established a string of torture centres including the infamous Guantanamo, while peddling the frankly laughable line that the secularist Saddam Hussein was in some way linked to Osama bin Laden.

Unfortunately, in political terms at least, the legacy of 9/11 has been almost entirely negative: two disastrous wars (one of dubious legality), a misguided attempt to "democratise" the Arab world, heightened tensions between increasingly polarised communities and worldviews, a growth in Islamic militancy, loss of Western political and economic credibility and tens of thousands of lost lives. (On a slightly more positive note, the flagrant disregard for human rights led me - and, I am sure, others like me - to join Liberty. And, later, the Liberal Democrats).

This dreadful legacy is largely the product of the Bush/Blair inability to provide the necessary leadership in a crisis: the kind of leadership that calms nerves and champions democracy in the face of a full-frontal assault on its fundamental principles. Fortunately, ten years later, it is clear that al-Qaeda have ultimately failed: recent events have confirmed that the Muslim consciousness it attempted to facilitate is virtually non-existent and that the supposed tendency of the Middle east towards theocracy is nothing more than an ignorant delusion. But the US and UK also failed for the same reasons as al-Qaeda: they did not understand the people of the Arab world. progress towards democracy has occurred in spite of, rather than because of, the Bush-Blair obsession of shaping the Middle East in their image. In addition, the costs of intervention has been high with lost economic opportunities and increased distrust of Western influence.

George W Bush told Time magazine: "I know that when you're leader of an organisation, you've got to be resolute, compassionate, and you've got to know what you need to do. And I knew what we needed to do. I knew we needed to use all resources of our government to defend the American people". Perhaps if he had used those resources more wisely rather than rushing headlong into foolish wars, the interests of the US and its people might have been more robustly defended.

Bush's actions were wrong, precisely because he misunderstood Islam and the nature of the Middle-Eastern psyche. If the optimistically named Arab Spring is testament to anything, it's how wrong Western political commentators have been. The Middle East is no hotbed of fundamentalist Islamic militancy. Its people have not only rejected the despotic dictatorships that have dominated the region's politics for a generation; they've also rejected jihad. No-one's calling for a holy war - just democracy.

The victims of 9/11 deserve a better legacy. So to, does the US, the UK and the Middle East. While the events of the previous ten years can be neither reversed nor forgotten it is vital to look beyond them, to learn the necessary lessons and build a more just future as an appropriate and lasting tribute to those who died on 9/11 and during the actions that followed. While the focus of the media in the last few days has understandably centred on reconstructing events and emotive reflections on personal stories - many of which are truly inspiring - the memory of the victims is not honoured through recollection and remembrance alone but through political action to ensure such a horrific and indiscriminate act of mass murder will never be repeated.

Firstly there must be a recognition that 9/11 was not simply a crime against the US, or even Western democracy. It was a crime against humanity. It was an international event, and therefore the response should be international. Bush's "war on terror" was in fact something of a misnomer; what he was actually promoting was a strategically flawed conflict with a single extremist organisation struggling to gain the respect and recognition of the very people it claimed to speak for. What Bush did was to give al-Qaeda a profile, gravitas and status it previously lacked and didn't deserve. But terrorism is not confined to al-Qaeda; neither did it originate on 11th September 2001 not conclude with the death of Osama bin Laden earlier this year. All parts of the world have experienced terrorism; what is needed is a cogent international strategy and a global anti-terror network, ideally one which refuses to be driven by the narrow interests or whims of any nation or individual, however powerful. The world must unite against inhumanity.

Of course, this requires a revitalised international community. The UN, already badly damaged in the Balkans, was rendered virtually impotent in the lead-up to the Iraq War by the arrogance of British and American determination to have their war at any cost and on the basis of any rationale, however questionable. The UN was essentially sidelined and has never truly recovered. The challenge now is to rebuild, re-energise and equip the UN to become a more effective player on the world stage, at least as far as global governance and peacekeeping are concerned, while ensuring it is protected from being forced into a subservient role by the world's superpowers.

An international political philosophy of hope and tolerance, rather than the fear and prejudice of Bush and Blair, based on understanding, collaboration and democratic empowerment would have marginalised al-Qaeda in 2001 and will prove equally as effective a weapon against terrorism in the future, as we have seen recently in Norway. The greatest enemy of the terrorist is optimism; the greatest enemy of the fundamentalist reason. The surest way to defeat terror, especially that of a fundamentalist nature, is through education and the promotion of hope in humankind. There could be no greater or more fitting memorial to those who perished at the hands of terrorists . Even in 2001, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, it was possible to discern a sense of unity of hearts and minds as people drew together in solidarity; the news stories were not of kamikaze suicide bombers or destruction but of the bravery and survival of individuals and communities refusing to cower or be crushed. Sadly, neither that sense of togetherness not the faith in the inherent goodness of humanity have been cultivated by our political leaders, and the world is the worse for it.

It is impossible to consider the challenge of creating a positive 9/11 legacy without reflecting on the future for the Middle East. Whether the Arab Spring will prove to be a turning point in world history or simply another false dawn remains to be seen. The politics of the Arab world are immensely complex and there is an uncomfortable tendency for Westerners to generalise and ignore the reality that the area is made up of multiple and diverse peoples and countries, each with its own unique cultural, social, political and religious heritage. What we can be assured of is the overwhelming, and for so long unexpressed, yearning for the advent of democracy. My own instinct suggests that the transition to democracy will be easier and quicker in some nations that in others; the obvious challenges for any fledgling democracy in establishing new structures of accountability, especially in areas where there remain elites with vested interests, can not be overstated. However, democracy will have a greater opportunity for success if the international community, and Western democracies in particular, can encourage and the facilitate the birth of Arab democracy without either attempting to move it at too fast a pace, shape the outcome towards its own ends or intervene in an unnecessarily ham-fisted way. The Arab peoples must simply be empowered to shape their own destinies, with international support and encouragement but not direct interference. Any attempt to impose a system of democratic rule will ultimately fail: strong, effective democracies are not be created but the product of evolution.

To use a biblical analogy, the challenge for Arab democracy is to prepare a wineskin to contain the new wine. If the west can actively, but not forcefully, act as a catalyst for change while allowing Arab pro-democracy movements the freedom to design their own "fit for purpose" systems, however imperfect, the long-term by-product could be the emergence of a new progressive political consciousness throughout the Muslim world that would marginalise the backward-looking philosophies of al-Qaeda and its ilk.

Arab people must be allowed to carry the torch of democracy, unhindered by enforced orthodoxy or the constraints of Western designs. However, the flame should be kindled by all those who care for the triumph of democracy and the defeat of terrorism.

Closer to home, there is a more novel means of defeating jihadist values: reducing oil dependency. There are, of course, many other perfectly sound reasons to pursue this aim, but it is an inescapable statement of fact that it was this dependency that sustained the appeal of the al-Qaeda philosophy as well as Bush's neo-colonial aspirations in Iraq. Taking action towards implementing a responsible and sustainable new energy policy isn't merely environmentally sensible but also a vital contribution towards the ultimate death of al-Qaeda's creed.

Liberal Democrat Party president Tim Farron yesterday used twitter to declare:

Today we'll stop to remember the innocent victims of Sept 11. We'll never forget them. My thoughts and prayers are with their families today.

That is a sentiment that clearly most of us can identify with. But our thoughts at this time must move beyond simply remembering the past and onto forging a new post-9/11 era which is hopeful, respectful of new political realities and focused on the maintenance of peace. In a nutshell, the kind of legacy 9/11 victims deserve.

Are the Lib Dems liberal – or even democratic?

2011-09-10T11:25:00.000-07:00

So asks Daily Telegraph reporter Graeme Archer, who concludes that “the junior Coalition partner’s policies have made a mockery of its historic name”. The title of his piece was so provocative – and so obviously aspiring to intellectual critique – that I felt compelled to read further. Mr Archer’s piece certainly touches on some of the key challenges facing a party experiencing something of an identity crisis and is definitely worthy of a critical and analytical response.

Archer begins by asking “if the Liberal Democrats didn’t exist, under what circumstances would you choose to create them?”; a pertinent question which he evades answering throughout his lengthy piece. Being pre-occupied with the name of our party to the point of obsession, Archer defines liberalism as “the autonomy of the individual over either stateist or corporatist collectivism” and proceeds to demonstrate why he feels that the Liberal Democrats’ policy platforms and actions fail to conform to this neat and tidy classification.

Curiously, Archer concedes – much as Nadine Dorries tacitly affirmed - that the Liberal Democrats have been “politically effective” in coalition. His argument is that such effectiveness has come about not because of the minor party’s inherently liberal guiding principles but from political opportunism; as a result coalition has been “a disaster for the Lib Dems”, who have been “anything but liberal” in government and whose tactics have “demonstrated that the 80 years without them [in government] were not a political loss for Britain”. That is a stinging criticism that requires some rebuttal, but also calls for some sober reflection from the party leadership in regards the public perception of our role in government: there is no point in being effective at the cabinet table if we are viewed as sacrificing the very principles that define us.

Archer’s political bias is made evident is his admission that his political hero is Margaret Thatcher. This does not render invalid his observation that our liberal identity should be valued higher than “success” in government, whatever the current view of the party leadership. However, Archer’s more detailed criticisms should be viewed through the prism of his Tory party loyalties and his intense dislike of the “social democratic clay from which the Lib Dems are formed”. The social democratic tail, he maintains, is wagging the liberal dog.

It’s an interesting idea, and one I’ve heard many times during the last twenty-three years. The Liberal Democrats are not liberal, so goes the logic, but social democrats who support big government and left-wing economics. Of course, it is both simplistic and false. But there was always a danger of being identified as a “Labour-lite party” and the consequences of this are only beginning to be felt. Archer makes further valid points in respect to the Liberal Democrat identity, insisting that claiming as liberal victories “policy which the larger party would implement anyway” (such as the identity cards issue) is counter-productive and, more convincingly, contends that “anyone can call themselves a 'liberal'. The trick is to convince voters that such an instinct requires a party to carry it.” And with that he hits the nail on the head: that, my fellow liberals, is the challenge for our party at all levels in the coming months and years. Can our instincts, as well as our principles, be trusted by an increasingly skeptical electorate? And can we resurrect our party not only as an effective electoral machine but as a rallying point for liberals and for those who believe in an open, tolerant and inclusive society?

Archer’s more specific identification of illiberal actions by the coalition’s junior partner unfortunately causes his wider arguments to lose some of their conviction if not collapse altogether. Not only are his Conservative prejudices revealed but his almost rigid, exclusive interpretation of liberalism is laid bare along with an intolerance to those who think differently. His “liberalism” is one which adheres to “the Right-wing view of taxation” and those who beg to differ are dismissed as illiberal. He regards the Liberal Democrats’ participation in government as “not even democratic, let alone liberal” largely on the basis of our stance on such great liberal ideal as free schools, Lansley’s confused vision for the NHS, sub-Thatcherite taxation proposals and the election of police commissioners.

I will take each of these in turn. Archer insists free schools are the epitome of liberalism in action. “Academic excellence through freedom of choice: what could be more liberal than that?” he asks. And if that was the only issue at stake I would be happy to concur: who doesn’t want to see a more liberal education system facilitating “excellence”? The devil, as ever, is in the detail and Nick Clegg has been right to express concern about the potential risks of applying market principles (as were delegates at last year’s Lib Dem conference) to state-funded education - such as unfair admission policies, a two-tier educational system, increased social inequality and worsening the life chances of our more disadvantaged children. There remain questions about how free schools work in practice and to date it would appear that the principal beneficiaries are those who, in the words of Liberal Youth’s Michael Atkins, possess “the social capital to take advantage of them”.

The top-down way in which the legislation has been passed and in which the schools appear to work hardly conforms to even Archer’s definition of “liberalism”. No-one could reasonably promote the evolution of a system that relegates local authority schools to second-rate status or the promotion of choice to a select view as fair, but this seems not to trouble Archer. “Fairness” and “liberalism” to him are diametrically opposed forces, which is why he reduces Clegg’s complex arguments to mere concern about profit motive. Archer simply can not appreciate that for liberalism and freedom to prevail the creation of a more level playing field is required – whether in regards educational opportunity, access to health services, taxation or human rights.

Archer is particularly furious about the way the Liberal Democrats have undermined Lansley’s Health Bill. As well he might be. Conveniently forgetting the influence of Spring Conference, he targets Shirley Williams and Evan Harris, citing the outspokenness of a Peer and a former MP (an “unelected peer and dis-elected ex MP” he terms them) as evidence of undemocratic practice. Only someone who believes that the parliamentary party in the Commons has a monopoly on democratic expression could peddle such an argument; I for one am grateful that I belong to a party in which unelected members are empowered to influence policy. That is clearly an expression of liberalism alien to Mr Archer. On the detail of the Bill itself, Archer mutters that the Liberal Democrats’ insistence that GP consortia should contain “hospital doctors and nurses” represents “a prioritisation of the producer over the patient”. Perhaps. But it’s certainly preferable to a prioritisation of the interests of an exclusive section of an exclusive profession over those of patients, carers and members of other health professions, which can not be considered “liberal” in even the loosest interpretations of the word. As for the implications of economically "liberating" the NHS by increasing the scope of private providers, Archer fails to even consider whether these aspects of the Bill would bring about the “autonomy of the individual” he claims to passionately believe in.

Archer denounces the 50p tax rate as “economically illiterate”, insists the case for the increase in personal allowances in unnecessary and criticises the Liberal Democrat view of taxation as an exercise in “social engineering”. I agree with him that the ultimate aim of any liberal taxation policy must be “free[ing] people from state dependency”. Most Liberal Democrats would agree with that sentiment, but where we would perhaps disagree is on the means being championed. Archer’s promotion of rampant classical liberalism as the one true liberal expression demonstrates his regrettable lack of intellectual dexterity. He clearly has little idea of the social dimension to liberal philosophy and in all likelihood sees David Laws as some kind of authoritarian Marxist.

“Lib Dems also want to delay the election of local police commissioners. Anti-democratic!” roars Archer. By a mere six months he fails to add - and this largely because of perceived operational difficulties. If Archer really knew anything about the potential ramifications of elected police commissioners, not least the consequences of politicising senior police officers (he should look no further than Jersey), he might begin to understand why rushing headlong into this may not be the wisest move. Besides, surely the Liberal Democrat policy of a directly elected oversight of the police is both more democratic...and liberal?

Archer’s arguments truly break down when he turns on the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to the Human Rights Act, reducing our promotion of a progressive, liberal-thinking emphasis on the rights of the individual to a glib “Votes for Prisoners” mock-slogan. Not only does Archer fail to see how the Human Rights Act is in keeping with this stated definition of liberalism, his right-wing instincts again evidence his complete lack of social conscience. “It’s not quite the heady fight of the People’s Budget of 1909, is it?” he asks. Well, no. But neither were the 2010 Conservative Party manifesto or Chancellor Osborne’s first two budgets. So let’s call it even.

I don’t believe I have a moral monopoly on the word liberalism. I am not sufficiently arrogant to suggest that Graeme Archer is not philosophically liberal, or that the Liberal Democrats are the only potential home for those of a liberal inclination. Unlike Mr Archer, I will not assert that I am a liberal and everyone else is not. What I will claim is that the liberalism of the Liberal Democrats is far broader in scope, far more pragmatic in its outworking and far more consistent in principle than the narrow interpretation being espoused by Archer.

Archer’s criticisms of the Liberal Democrats’ role in government are understandable in the same way that Nadine Dorries’ increasingly hostile attacks have been. They represent the predictable frustrations of arch-Tories whose reactionary right-wing ideals have been marginalised by the politics of coalition. However, whereas Dorries’ incessant ranting and conspiracy theories are rapidly becoming the political joke of the decade, Archer at least presents his arguments in a sober-minded and considered way. There is a danger that many will accept his accusations of Lib Dem “illiberalism” simply because they want to.

Such criticisms can be taken with the proverbial pinch of salt they thoroughly deserve. What Archer does do effectively is to question the Liberal Democrats’ identity as a party, the commitment to liberal principle and the ability to remain a focal point for the promotion of liberalism. These are all challenges that must be risen to and met.

More importantly, Archer raises the issue of mistaken strategy and on this point I wholeheartedly concur with him. The challenge for Nick Clegg is not securing victories around the cabinet table or scoring points at the expense of his political partners, but to forge a fresh and liberal identity for his party. A failure to do this adequately could lead to a further eighty years in the political wilderness and the cause of liberalism set back irrecoverably.

And so, to conclude, I will answer the question Graeme Archer posed but refused to answer: “if the Liberal Democrats didn’t exist, under what circumstances would you choose to create them?” Perhaps when the main two parties are either redundant of responsible policy ideas or expressing dangerously right-wing ideology; when neither has a coherent view on Europe; when one or the other’s response to social unrest is either knee-jerk authoritarianism or political opportunism and when the Prime Minister’s response is shameless moralising; when there is a need for a liberalism that is inclusive and fair; when a firm stance has to be taken on human rights; when communities need to be empowered and revitalised to take control of their destinies...