The Scottish Labour Party is basically the Scottish Constituency Labour Party as opposed to a national Scottish Party. The Scottish Liberal Democrats, although being a separate Scottish party within a federal constitution are suffering from being able to show real differences and even disagreements with what is happening in Westminster. It certainly doesn’t help that there are Scottish Liberal Democrats in the cabinet. Scottish Liberal Democrats are against tuition fees? Yet Scottish Liberal Democrat MPs voted for them. It’s a hard to argue against that fact. No amount of positioning and debate can truly make Scottish Liberal Democrat polices and politicians very distinct from the federal party. The Scottish Liberal Democrats aren’t even a separate political party registered with the Electoral Commission.

The Tories, full name the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party, are in the same boat as Labour with no real distinction between the party in Scotland and the rest of the UK. Which is one of the reasons that Murdo Fraser, one of the candidates to replace Annabel Goldie as leader of the Tories in Scotland, has proposed that the Tories in Scotland disband and reform as a new Centre-Right Party.

The Tories in Scotland have never recovered from the 1997 General Election and even now have only 1 MP.  As the Scottish Liberal Democrats have found, the Scottish electorate have a tremendous hatred of the Tories. For many nationalists and socialists, the 1979-1997 Tory Government is unaccountably seen as the worst thing to happen to Scotland since the last eruption of the volcano underneath Edinburgh Castle.

There is little chance of a political party overcoming that kind of opprobrium so the idea that the Tories should disband and reform is an attractive one. However, if Murdo Fraser is elected leader and the membership of the party does vote for the idea it won’t actually make much difference in the short-term. The party will still struggle in next year’s council elections and in other elections in Scotland when it is party of the UK. A big reason for this is, like the other Unionist parties, the Tories don’t seem to be able to put forward an argument that offers an optimistic and ambitious view of Scotland within the current constitutional framework. The genius of the SNP since taking power at Holyrood as been to concentrate only on Scotland, offer a positive vision of Scotland and seek as much power for Scotland as possible.

The SNP have governed pretty competently with less scandal and ministerial upheaval than their Holyrood predecessors and those in Westminster. They have a number of competent ministers and, as a party, have stayed pretty much on message and on target for a positive (for them) referendum result.

I wonder if Murdo Fraser can see the way the wind is blowing. I wonder if he can see that there is no real positive campaign message for Scotland sticking with the current constitutional settlement.  He would never admit that of course and campaign of Scotland staying where it is, but in establishing a new Scottish centre right party he could be stealing a march on other parties for the first Scottish election campaign after the SNP win their referendum.

What would happen if Scotland said yes? How quickly would there need to be a general election for the new parliament of Scotland. For any party to govern with a mandate in a new nation there would need to be an election fairly quickly. The SNP would be in a quandary, as one of their key policies would have been met so how many members would stick with them? Should they be a low or high tax party? How many would bleed away to other parties?

What about the other two Unionist parties? The Scottish Liberal Democrats would at least be able to look to their current constitution as the basis of quickly adapting to the new political situation. It would still need ratified and approved at a conference by our members.

Scottish Labour would, arguably, be an even worse position (unless the current review adopts a similar constitutional position to the Scottish Liberal Democrats). What this means is that Murdo Fraser and his new Centre Right Scottish Party would be able to offer Scottish policies and Scottish solutions very quickly and be able to gain momentum that the other two parties would be unable to match. And if those pro-business, pro-low tax SNP members and voters leave SNP for the new party then they could become one of the bigger parties in the new independent Scotland.

Willie Rennie is in the process of establishing a Commission to investigate both Home Rule and devolving more power to local communities. I wonder if its worth also considering more independence for the Scottish Liberal Democrats as well?

This is despite the actions of John Mason and the comments of John Walker. Both new SNP MSPs, elected in May, have caused controversy by voicing concerns about the idea of same-sex marriage. Firstly, John Mason submitted this motion:

S4M-00586 John Mason: The Equal Marriage Debate—That the Parliament notes the current discussion about same-sex marriages and the Scottish Government’s forthcoming public consultation concerning equal marriage; further notes that, while some in society approve of same-sex sexual relationships, others do not agree with them; desires that Scotland should be a pluralistic society where all minorities can live together in peace and mutual tolerance; believes that free speech is a fundamental right and that even when there is disagreement with another person’s views, that person has the right to express these views, and considers that no person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriages.

As you can see it is clear that John Mason clearly mis-understood what recent campaigns about same-sex marriage have been about. The issue is one of equality rather than forcing certain views on people or institutions. At best the motion was remarkably ill-advised and at worst revealed an unsavoury point of view. However, one of the supporters of the motion has most certain revealed his homophobic beliefs. Bill Walker, the new MSP for Dunfermline, stated that “anything that puts homosexual relationships as any way equal to male-female marriages is just not right“. For a man elected in Scotland in 2011 that is a remarkable statement to make.

When John Mason submitted the motion it was initially supported by MSPs Dennis Robertson, Gil Paterson, Richard Lyle, Mike MacKenzie as well as Bill Walker (all SNP). Following the uproar about the motion Gil Paterson, Richard Lyle and Mike MacKenzie withdrew their support for the motion. In fact, Gil Paterson now supports an excellent amendment by Scottish Green Party leader Patrick Harvie (so good that it needs a full viewing). The amendent motion looks like this:

That the Parliament notes the current discussion about same-sex marriages and the Scottish Government’s forthcoming public consultation concerning equal marriage; further notes that, while some in society approve of same-sex sexual relationships, others do not agree with them; considers that the balance between these views has changed substantially over recent decades, with the 2006 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey showing 53% in agreement with equal marriage and only 21% in disagreement, and a poll in 2010 showing 58% support with only 19% against; congratulates the Scottish Youth Parliament on the launch of its Love Equally campaign for equal marriage and civil partnership, a campaign that it voted to select after consulting over 42,000 young people across Scotland; believes that the Scottish Government is recognising this shift in public attitudes with its forthcoming consultation on equal marriage; considers that allowing same-sex marriage and mixed-sex civil partnerships would in no way undermine the rights and freedoms of those who do not wish to participate in them, and further believes that it would be both right and popular for secular and religious Scots alike to be free to reach their own view on the legal status that is right for their own relationship instead of being banned by law from having their relationships recognised on equal terms.”

Same-sex marriage is about equality as well as religious freedom not one or the other. There are religions in Scotland who want to be able to perform marriages for gay couples but are prevented from doing so by that law as it stands. This should change and, as with other policy areas like smoking bans, Scotland is leading the UK on this.

The full consultation can be found here.

There has been a lot of talk about “Independence Lite”. Surprisingly, one of the proponents of this idea is the former “fundamentalist-nationalist” Jim Sillars. He recognises that there are still benefits to maintaining strong links to the United Kingdom that benefit Scotland in the short, medium and long terms. These links are based on issues such as currency, monarchy, international relations and defence. Other media stories highlight the research done by Prof James Mitchell who conducted a number of interviews with senior SNP figures where, again, Independence Lite has become the favoured option.

It will be a difficult position to argue against because, at a stroke, it negates several of the usual positions against independence. The arguments about issues like a different currency, a different Head of State, and passport controls at Gretna will be pushed onto the back burner. What the SNP is offering is basically the Scotland we have right now but one with the ambition to do things for itself, a Scotland that does not need to look to England and Westminster constantly for new powers and permission to meet the needs of its people. Try arguing against that on the doorstep during the independence referendum.

That’s not to say that Independence Lite will resolve these things. Many SNP commentators and bloggers cite potential future referendums on things like the monarchy and currency.  That is the genius of this approach – get the fiscal powers that you want and delay the more difficult “real independence” questions. With each new referendum Scotland could move further away from what was the UK.

The response by those parties seeking to maintain the current constitutional position are slowly but surely delivering the referendum result to Alex Salmond. I have yet to hear an argument from anyone opposed to independence that presents a positive ambition for Scotland remaining in the UK. All the arguments are negative ranging from Scotland being unable to bail out the banks to Scotland being unable to pay its welfare bill to the old arguments about currency & passports. Even now we have government ministers hectoring the SNP about “getting on with the job” in Scotland when the SNP have been trying to seek new powers to aid them to get on with the job in a better way. Again, that’s not going to play well on the doorstep during the referendum campaign.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats, through its predecessor parties, has a long history of supporting home rule for Scotland. In fact, it is the only party that can claim to have consistently supported Home Rule for over a century. However the party’s reaction to the SNP has not been to offer a different vision and ambition for Scotland but instead a full-blown retreat into the crudest Unionist arguments. This is despite the fact that there is a third option on the table. During its first term in office the SNP conducted a National Conversation on Scotland’s future where independence was one option but another was increased powers for the Scottish Parliament. This is the line that the Scottish Liberal Democrats should be advocating. We are a federal party and seek believe in a federal United Kingdom.

It is true that in the Coalition we are delivering most of the Calman Commission proposals and that will result in great changes in the fiscal powers of the Scottish Parliament. There has, however, been a better option to build upon for some time. The Steel Commission proposed moving towards full fiscal federalism where Scotland was responsible, and therefore accountable, for all the taxes raised in Scotland with agreed payments to the UK for non-devolved expenditure like defence.  Not dissimilar to the SNP’s argument is it?  In fact, what it does do is deliver everything that the SNP are asking for just now but without taking a single step to leaving the UK. Why are the Scottish Liberal Demorats not taking this stance? As the report of the commission clearly states:

“The objective is to grow the Scottish economy in a way which is increasingly sustainable, raising more revenue ourselves in a higher wage, lower unemployment, high knowledge, modern, liberal economy and society, where we are able to utilise our whole potential workforce and to eliminate the current challenge of the excess number of people who are not in education, employment or training”

The Scottish Liberal Democrats should embrace this statement and offer support for full fiscal federalism for Scotland. This presents a positive ambition for Scotland but also a positive ambition for a United Kingdom.