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 “two and a half years of fighting over Scotland’s future”.

None of this is helpful. 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 – while this is understandably an issue that arouses strong emotions, we must realise that responding to the SNP bait is counter-productive and often 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 likely 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 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 view this referendum as about defending the Union (as Rennie appears to) or how best to take Scotland forward. But however we see 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, 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 the party so desperately needs and in 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 am 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?

This piece featured on my blog, A Scottish Liberal, on Tuesday 10th January.

Scotland punches massively above its weight in the UK.  It has often been punished for having the audacity to be progressive by UK governments that are not – especially in the 80s and 90s – but it has also suffered at the hands of governments that have taken it for granted.  Labour’s record from 1997-2010 is a shameful one – their lazy assumption that Scotland would just vote Labour led to Scotland’s interests being ignored.

 Scotland has progressive and radical heart, its strong sense of community makes it inclined towards social democracy, but it has a personality that is unmistakeably individualistic, dare I say Liberal.  Scotland’s nature is to be Liberal. The job of Liberal Democrats is to connect with Scotland’s Liberalism and to campaign in a way that chimes naturally with the Scottish natural identity. 

I’m an Englishman, but I consider myself a northerner and British before I consider myself English, as a Cumbrian MP, we share much of the same media and have incredibly strong economic and cultural ties.  I’ve more in common with folks in Galashiels than I do with folks in Guildford for example, and the same can be said of my constituents. 

It breaks my heart that Alex Salmond has an agenda to fracture Britain in a way that will make us all poorer.  A proud Scottish identity is vital, but a centralising, intolerant nationalism is an anathema to what it is to be Scottish.  Salmond is an effective politician, an admirable operator – but already he is showing that his instincts are illiberal, and proving the age old case which is that in opposition nationalists may be radicals and reformers, but in government they become centralist control freaks, with alarming traces of prejudice and reaction. 

 It’s questionable now whether we can really call the SNP a party of the left any more – nationalists rarely are.  For Liberal Democrats, well our identity is in the spotlight too.  We are in coalition in Westminster with the Tories and that has had a real impact on how the electorate sees us – almost irrespective of what policies we pursue!  

 But back in May 2010 we had no choice. The electoral maths meant that there simply were not enough Lib Dem and Labour MPs to form a government, but thanks to Nick’s incredible performances in the leaders debates the Tories absolutely did not get it their own way so instead of having a bunch of frightful Englishmen in the Scottish office, we have our own Mike Moore!

 And when it comes to the other opposition in Scotland – well, the Tories had the choice of radical change in their leadership election, and despite the public declaration by Murdo Fraser that they were finished if they didn’t redefine their identity, they picked a candidate with a ‘steady as she goes’ approach and for Scottish Tories that means continued irrelevance.  For Labour, their best talent opted to stay in Westminster, their second string got beaten in the May elections, and so on offer now is essentially the Labour 3^rd team – not terribly enticing. 

But despite some dreadful results for the Scottish Lib Dems in May, there has been a massive silver lining to that dark cloud – it was the election of my friend Willie Rennie, both as a Member of the Scottish Parliament and as the new Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.  Willie is comfortably the best, most tenacious and most effective opposition politician in Scotland.  He’s the right man in the right place at the right time and I am confident that he will help to reinvigorate and rebuild the Party as we face our next electoral tests, starting with the local elections in May.

St Andrew’s Day falls in the most turbulent times this year. Today is the day of a massive public sector strike – nominally over pensions but probably over far more.  The debate has become more empassioned, views more polarised and the real issues and possible solutions more fuzzy as the day of the strike dawns.

Today is also the day after a stark Autumn Statement where the Chancellor laid out bleak prospects for growth, a continuing huge national deficit and difficult prospects for the European and Global economies.  These are days of a realignment of conventional wisdom on macro-economics and what appears to be the beginnng of an era of stagnation.  Abroad, the European Union is under enormous strain and the Euro currency seems unlikely to survive in its present form.  In such times nationalism becomes increasingly popular and UKIP in the south and the SNP, with a very different form of nationalism, are riding higher still in Scotland.  Indeed, the very existance of the United Kingdom is under scrutiny with a majority SNP administration in Holyrood.

Now, more than at any other time in my life, everything is changing and all our ideologies are challenged.  Nothing remains the same.  It saddens me when I see some political bloggers retreating onto partisan soapboxes and coming up with predictable and lazy arguments.  Now is exactly the time for activists and political bloggers to stand back and honestly assess the situation, be open and discerning as to the causes of our pains and open and thoughtful as to the alternative solutions.

Now is a time to debate what issues the world around us faces, to explore our choices and think through what sort of societywe want and how we might get there – including the potential drawbacks of each solution.  For there are no easy answers, and if you are proposing some you are probably talking nonsense.

Now is a time for ideas freely expressed and tested in open good humoured debate because everything has changed and we need to think the unthinkable rather than retreat into old cliches.

So happy St Andrew’s Day and let the arguments begin.

I agree with Nadine Dorries. Never thought I would say that. Today Nadine Dorries at Prime Minister Questions asked this:

“Mr Speaker, the Liberal Democrats make up 8 or 7% of this parliament and yet they seem to be influencing our free school policy, health, many issues, immigration and abortion. Does the Prime Minister think it’s about time he told the Deputy Prime Minister who is the boss?”

I agree with this, though most of what Mad Nad says I completely shudder at. The Liberal Democrats in coalition and in Scotland are punching far above their weight and managing to land quite a few knock out blows. In the coalition we have put pay to Michael Gove’s idea of allowing free schools being allowed to make profits, halting the Conservatives kneejerk reactions to the riot and now we are currently battling to make sure George Osborne doesn’t give a tax cut to the rich. We are taking the edge off the Tory bite, limiting and shelving some of their more harmful ideas and it winds up the right wing Tories no end. Unlike Nadine Dorries I think this is a good thing, in fact a brilliant thing. We are not the Tories lap dog, we are the guard dog of Liberal Democracy and we better not stop.

It’s not just in the coalition we are making an impact, but also here in Scotland. Scottish Secretary recently made a speech, setting out 6 questions to the SNP, smashing through their gold plated dream of an independent Scotland and asking some pressing question on the cold hard reality of the split. Then there’s Willie Rennie and his hard working and brilliant team of MSPs.  I hope I don’t sound too biased when I say they’re all legends in their own rights. At the moment both Labour and Conservatives are fighting leadership elections, their wings clipped and their teeth blunt. The Lib Dem’s on the other hand are currently flying the flag for what a competent opposition should be. Our five MSPs are not only holding the Scottish executive to account but offering real alternatives. There is general consensus that Willie Rennie is giving Alex Salmond a thorough grilling and is gaining the reputation as the voice of reason against the SNP.

So yes take pride in the fact Nadine Dorries says we have too much influence (also do not feel sorry for gloating that her abortion amendment was shot down with a 250 majority against her proposal). Take pride in that we are fighting our corner and never apologise for influencing government policy.

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.