My Response to Brian Adam (and Jeff)

Hat tip to PJ who pointed out that Jeff had passed comment about the Lib Dem amendment to put aside a referendum bill for this Parliament. Jeff as the first part of his blog's name* would suggest takes the Nat approach that it is win-win for the SNP. However, he seems to have waylaid the middle 'tactical' part of his original remit.

I can assume that my public pronouncements on the subject of a referendum mean that I am clearly counted when the Nat Whip Brain Adam says:

"Mike Rumbles said he wanted the party to decide their policy - a party in which we know many members favour a referendum, as do the vast majority of Lib Dem voters."

Now while I am counted in the many, of the party, from the number of our voters I have met the vast majority have not given any preferred stance on this issue. Indeed it has never been a issue that any who have expressed a preference for the Lib Dems have proffered as one of their top three concerns.


However, the tactical side of me would suggest that looking at the First Minister's handling (or lack of) of the impending recession now is just the time to call a referendum if you wanted to maintain the Union. My reasoning being that in times of crisis people tend to stay to the status quo rather than take a risk on change. Therefore to volunteer to shelve it is actually a brave step that the battle will still be won when things have stabilised.



I also notice that rather ironically Jeff is abiding by the UK Government's predictions of when the recession will be over. Of course that is one of the most optimistic predictions, mid-2009 didn't I just read yesterday that deflation would be at it's worse in September. Also this belief in Labour propaganda is surprising for someone who has attacked them for having myopia on a number of issues (including the economy).



However, give Jeff his due he does agree that there is no appetite for a referendum right now. Something I said on Saturday while backing John Farquhar Munro's call to not shy away from a referendum is that unlike last summer when Mike Rumbles stood on the party deciding the policy there are more pressing policy considerations to be taken right now. Something the Nats seem to have forgotten in their pursuit of the one goal that identifies them.

I'm glad that Tavish has clarified that he isn't against a referendum just sees that the time is not before 2011. The Nats can moan all they like about be obstructed at every turn but they'll need to do something about something that really matters.

*SNP Tactical Voting (in case you're not a MacBlogosphere follower)

The Referendum Elephant in the Room

Lib Dem Highland MSP John Farquhar Munro has been the first MSP to question Tavish Scott's approach on a referendum on Independence for Scotland. Munro sees the whole question as a way to get rid of the elephant in the room:

"For many years we've been hearing about the possibility of independence
for Scotland through a referendum, through the result of a referendum.

"I think the sooner it happens, the better, so we establish a position,
clear the air as it were, and we find out whether we are going to go ahead with
an independent Scotland or whether the status quo will remain."

This radio interview yesterday came only a day after the leader Tavish Scott said “"We will not support a referendum which could let independence in through the back door."



Personally I agree with Munro rather than Tavish on this, it may well have something to do with the way I play chess (currently my Gameknot stats show 45% win with white 58% win with black). The SNP have made the opening moves they would appear to the have the white pieces. Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems would appear to have the black pieces and are playing a way too defensive game. Tavish said he would not support a referendum that would allow Independence in through the back door. That was in relation to a multi-option referendum that included fiscal autonomy.



Maybe Tavish should check what Scottish Conference has passed as policy, a few years back we did pass a policy on pursuing fiscal autonomy for Scotland. I remember it well as I spoke against the motion raised by Mike Rumbles and in favour of the amendment from the policy committee which changed all but the first two words. It passed and as I looked more into it I saw that actually I was wrong during that debate. I was to be fair only arguing against Scotland going alone (a la Poll Tax) and heading for full UK Federalism so I wasn't actually that far off to be honest.



It can be done and doesn't necessarily lead to backdoor independence by the back door. Germany holds firm and I don't see the worlds 5th largest economy California seeking independence from the USA. Where I do agree with Tavish is that there are far more important things on our plate right now regarding the economy than the independence question. But we should not be ruling out a referendum on independence, regular and long term readers of this blog will know that has been my position as stated first here in 2006.



In chess black can win with the right gambits. In cricket you can put an arrogant batsman unto his back foot. You'd actually think that there is something to fear from asking the people to Scotland to answer the question. I feel that in the full light of day many who lean towards the SNP will fall away when the true costs and details of just what independence would mean are exposed. That is the economist in me speaking, I'm neither a unionist nor nationalist but a pragmatist.