Willie Rennie and the art of timing

Let's see if I can get this straight -

1) Willie Rennie reminds us that the Liberal Democrats have been passionate Home Rulers for 100 years.

2) The Liberal Democrats are now in power at Westminster for the first time in 65 years, and in all probability for the last time for another few decades, given that electoral reform was defeated last year. Presumably, therefore, this is the golden moment for a passionate Home Rule party to actually do something about their passion.

3) It is universally accepted that an independence referendum is on the way, giving a passionate Home Rule party a unique opportunity to use the London establishment's fear of a Yes vote to secure some long-dreamt-of concessions.

4) Willie Rennie tells us that the Liberal Democrats will in fact wait until the bargaining chip of the referendum is gone, and until they no longer have any influence at Westminster, and only then "work with the SNP" to increase the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Great plan, guys. Someone who wasn't in the know would almost be forgiven for thinking that this whole "passionate Home Ruler" business was a bit of an affectation.

Time to call another Lib Dem bluff?

As any of you who occasionally read the Guardian's editorials will know, that paper loathes the idea of Scottish nationhood with as much of a passion as the right-wing London press. But because they have to keep up the facade of opposing independence from a 'progressive' and 'reasonable' standpoint, they do however use logic that is even more tortuous and sanctimonious than you'd find at the Times or the Telegraph. It looks suspiciously to me that for their latest weighty "contribution to the debate", they had a truly epic brainstorming session in which they tried to identify just one Good Guy in this whole sorry process, a Man With No Agenda, a Fearless And Objective Seeker After Truth And Probity in the conduct of the referendum. In short, an untainted unionist champion they could get behind without embarrassment, and without any danger of a titter from the assembled crowd.

And the man they came up with, ladies and gentlemen, is...Willie Rennie.

Moving swiftly on, they also seem to be taking their cue from the Lib Dems by having a synthetic bee in their bonnet about the supposedly insurmountable problem of 'working out who has won' if there is a dual Yes vote in a two-question referendum. Sigh. Let's try this for size - in 1997, there was a referendum with two separate questions. Just like the proposal being floated at the moment, the result of the second question would have been irrelevant had the first question gone one particular way - it wouldn't have mattered that 99.73% of the population wanted "the Scottish Parliament to have tax-varying powers" if 52.34% of the population had just voted that there shouldn't be a Scottish Parliament in the first place. It may seem amazing to senior Lib Dems and to the writers of Guardian editorials, but the electorate really didn't seem to struggle with that concept. That's probably because people make conditional/contingent decisions all the time in their daily lives - for instance, we'll go to Glencoe for our day out tomorrow, but we obviously won't be going anywhere if it's pouring with rain. What is so difficult about this? The public will know that in voting on Devo Max, they're voting on what should happen if Scotland stays in the United Kingdom. If they've just voted that Scotland should leave the United Kingdom, then plainly the question falls.

It's also worth making the point that, while the Lib Dems did raise some objections to the two-question referendum in 1997, they specifically did not do so on the basis of the confusion that might be caused by a "contradictory result". This is a bogus objection - they know it, we know it. However, as the "calling of bluffs" seems to be in vogue at the moment, we could always take them at their word - because, after all, this is a remarkably simple 'problem' to solve...

Option 1 : Put in bold capital letters on the ballot paper that "QUESTION 2 WILL BE VOID IF A MAJORITY VOTE YES TO QUESTION 1".

Option 2 : Separate the ballot into two distinct rounds, à la French run-off votes. If there is a No to independence in the first round, a Devo Max referendum automatically follows a week or a fortnight later. If there is a Yes to independence, the second round isn't required and therefore isn't held. No confusion, no "contradictory mandates". (The beauty of this of course is that the legislation for a Devo Max referendum would already be set in stone before the first round, meaning that London wouldn't be able to use a No to independence as an excuse to kick the constitutional issue into the long grass.)

So then what would be the next Lib Dem excuse? It seems we're already hearing the outlines of it - that Devo Max would have an effect on the whole UK, and therefore the whole UK must have a say. Oh-kaaaay - I trust you're going to have a convincing explanation for why that WASN'T the case for devolution in 1997? It seems that whenever the Lib Dems aren't busy shooting themselves in the foot, past history is doing it for them.

As I suggested in a previous post, if the SNP keep pressing the case for a Devo Max question, this is close to being a win/win position for them - either they'll get it, or the narrative will have been firmly established in the public mind that "Devo Max has been blocked by London". In the latter circumstance, the logic in favour of Devo Max supporters plumping for independence as the next-best option becomes irresistible.

PS. A small additional hint for the Guardian - Joan McAlpine categorically did NOT say that all "objections and doubts" about the SNP's plans were "anti-Scottish". Her characterisation applied only to those who abuse their positions of power at Westminster to thwart the sovereign authority of the Scottish people. If there are objections and doubts from opposition parties, let them be raised, debated and voted upon in the appropriate place - the Scottish Parliament.

PPS. A light has gone out in the political world - Tom Harris is seemingly no longer the Shadow Minister for Conducting a Review Into the Uses of Modern Technology. I fear for this review now, I really do - unless of course Richard Baker steps into the breach. As for Tom himself, I might almost feel sorry for him if this was an isolated incident - as he points out, the Downfall meme is so well-established that it shouldn't necessarily be assumed that the person in the video's sights is being called a Nazi. (What I took from the video was more Tom's extraordinary continued level of bitterness at the idea of lottery winners doing what they like with their own money.) However, Tom's pushed his luck many times in the past, not least with his bare-faced lie that a "Nationalist banner" had called for the end of "English rule". So in a sense the law of averages has finally caught up with him, and over the piece it's hard to pretend that he hasn't got what he deserved.

And I must admit there is something deliciously ironic about a Downfall spoof proving to be Tom's...downfall. Doubtless the next (and most apt ever) spoof in the long series is being prepared even as we speak - and I just hope that whoever has taken on the responsibility does Admin justice.

For "eminently sensible" read "weird"

Willie Rennie had a Red Riding Hood moment on Newsnight Scotland tonight as he embarked on the impossible task of defending Michael Moore's plan for a constitutional "neverendum". Sporting the most innocent, wide-eyed facial expression he could muster, he informed us that Moore's wheeze was "eminently sensible" and that quite frankly he couldn't "understand what the fuss is about". Willie, mate, if you seriously can't see what the fuss is about, I can introduce you to approximately five million people who can. Let me put it this way - if an opinion pollster asked the public whether the issue of independence should be decided by one referendum or two, what do you think the answer would be? I think I'm on reasonably safe ground when I suggest that most people would regard the idea of having two referendums not so much as "eminently sensible" as...well, bizarre. And peculiar. And weird. And if it was pointed out to them that there would only be a second referendum if the unionist side lost the first one, the word would then be "anti-democratic".

But if Rennie is still confused about what the problem is, a couple of examples may be of some assistance...

Exhibit A : In the mid-1990s, the Labour party performed an astonishing u-turn by declaring that devolution could only happen if approved by a referendum. Menzies Campbell later spoke publicly about Labour's "betrayal" of his party - so not only did the Lib Dems categorically reject the notion that two referendums were necessary for that major constitutional upheaval, they didn't even think it was appropriate to hold one. But it gets better. One of the major complaints about Labour's referendum plan was that it separated out the taxation powers of the parliament in an additional question - there was a feeling in some quarters that this was a Blairite plot to sabotage the tax powers and thus neuter the parliament. But George Robertson had a cunning plan (billed, hilariously, as a "compromise") to reassure those who made this complaint. He proposed that even if Scots voted Yes to a parliament and Yes to tax powers, there would have to be yet another referendum before the tax powers could actually be used - the theory being that this would make a Yes-Yes vote much more likely first time round. This crackpot idea went down, unsurprisingly, like a lead balloon, and I'll give you three guesses as to which party was at the forefront of those ridiculing it. I vividly recall being in stitches as Andy Myles (then chief executive of the Scottish Lib Dems) turned to the TV cameras to "plead" directly with George Robertson to return to the path of sanity : "Think again, George. Drop this strange plan to hold a referendum with two questions - and then another referendum."

Well said that man. Think again, Michael.

Exhibit B : On Newsnight Scotland tonight, Gordon Brewer helpfully paraphrased the Lib Dems' position in a question to Stewart Maxwell. The SNP should be really happy about this proposal, he said, because after all they wanted a proper mandate for independence, and therefore the more votes that were held on the subject the better. Maxwell struggled to maintain a straight face. Oh absolutely, Gordon, the more the merrier. Perhaps seventeen referendums producing a Yes vote to independence won't quite settle the matter - how about holding another twenty-three? That sounds "eminently sensible" to me.

*

In their posts yesterday on the unionist "neverendum" plan, both Gerry Hassan and Lallands Peat Worrier made unflattering reference to Vernon Bogdanor, who in spite of being openly hostile to Scottish independence would have us believe that his personal view that two referendums are required (for which there is no international precedent whatsoever) is somehow an objective, indisputable fact drawn solely from his constitutional "expertise" (or perhaps from a tablet of stone passed down to him from the Almighty). What I find most curious about this is that you'd have thought the very first thing someone like Bogdanor would be pointing out is that referendums themselves are totally alien to the British constitutional tradition - there were none at all until the 1970s. There certainly wasn't one when Ireland was granted its de facto independence in 1922, for instance - the principle that applied there was that the sovereign parliament made the decision, and any suggestion that parliament had no business acting without a particular kind of 'permission' ought to leave a Westminster constitutional traditionalist like Bogdanor feeling distinctly nauseous. So this whole idea that a legally-binding, Westminster-conducted referendum is a "requirement" can be safely dismissed as the obstructionist red herring that it is. In the British system, a referendum is only ever held if parliament decides that it should be, and a referendum outcome is only binding if parliament passes a law specifically saying it will be - in other words, every referendum is an optional extra, regardless of whether it is "consultative" or "binding". By definition, therefore, if a second vote is held in this case it will be for nakedly political - rather than constitutional - reasons.

The fundamental reality

I may have had a small grumble the other day about Professor James Mitchell's lack of linguistic precision over the future of the "United Kingdom", but I certainly don't have any quibbles about his latest superb article for the Scotsman, in which he explains how pretty much all of the constitutional 'fundamentalists' are now to be found on the unionist side of the fence -

"Adding to this inhibition has been the tendency to try to re-build barriers that the electorate have smashed down again and again. The idea of unionism vs nationalism implies an alliance between Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats against the SNP. It is not unusual for an emerging political party to be treated as some kind of upstart and marginalised by more established parties but at some points the SNP's opponents will look around the Holyrood chamber and realize who the electorate deems marginal.

The most striking case is to be found in the Liberal Democrats, a party that was once more sophisticated than most in its understanding of the complexities of constitutional politics. Over forty years ago the Scottish Liberal Party passed a resolution demanding that "Scotland now have direct representation at all levels of the (European] Community". Few parties have managed to squander such a rich constitutional inheritance as the Liberal Democrats."

That, in a nutshell, is what was so wrong with Willie Rennie declaring within hours of becoming Lib Dem leader that there is a consensus "between the parties" for the Calman proposals as they stand. It was clinging to the comfort of the old days when the SNP could be safely ignored as the 'odd ones out' and you could still have your "consensus" without them. But how does that work now that the 'odd ones out' have an absolute majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament? And, in any case, where do the Greens and Margo fit in to all this? It seems to me that the only real question is whether what we are seeing from Rennie and others is just a temporary phase as they struggle to adjust to the new political environment, or whether they really do intend to remain in this state of obstructionist denial for the full five-year term.

Scottish Liberal Democrats take (another) step backwards

Willie Rennie, from the little I've seen of him over the years, seems like a decent bloke, and I have a feeling he'll have more of a personal appeal than his predecessor Tavish Scott. Paradoxically, that's partly because he's less polished than Tavish, who often looked as if he was reading from a script even when he wasn't - Rennie comes across as unspun, and therefore more genuine. That's the good news for his party. But where to start with the bad news? The new leader basically had to make two big strategic calls to set the course for electoral recovery. Firstly, he needed to argue the case for the kind of substantial constitutional progress that would break the Scottish Lib Dems out of the straightjacket of being just another shade of grey, humdrum unionism. Secondly, he needed to make a psychological (if not literal) break with the federal party and its catastrophic alliance with the Conservatives. Rennie has flunked both tasks on day one - and he's seemingly done it with his eyes wide open. All he's offering on the constitution is more of the same (after all nothing's really changed, has it?), and he's incredibly offering an even closer relationship with Clegg and the gang than before. As noted here a number of times, Tavish's stance on the latter point during the election campaign was intellectually incoherent - if you wanted to know about something good the UK party had done, he was your man, but if it was something more toxic for heaven's sake go and ask them about it. But at least that showed a flickering of understanding of the kind of distancing that was required to limit the damage. Rennie, by contrast, is giving every indication of being a party leader who quite comprehensively does not "get it" at all.

Specifically on the constitution, it seemed to me that there were three gaping holes in Rennie's line of argument on Newsnight Scotland tonight -

1) He repeatedly claimed that the Calman proposals had to be adhered to because a consensus between "the parties" had been reached. That was a dubious point even before the election given that only three of the five parties in the Scottish parliament were on board for Calman, but now? Can minority opinion at Holyrood really be described as a "consensus"?

2) He stressed that Alex Salmond couldn't claim a mandate for greater powers for the Scottish Parliament, because that issue hadn't been to the forefront of the campaign that won the SNP the election. But he then curiously made the claim that the unionist parties themselves had an "overwhelming mandate" to proceed with Calman on the basis of the 2010 general election result. The difficulty there is that I'm struggling to recall Calman being mentioned any more frequently during that campaign than the SNP's plans for greater powers were during the Holyrood contest. Rennie's own logic therefore surely suggests that the unionist parties can't possibly claim a mandate for their preferred constitutional blueprint - even if we were to accept the dubious premise that the 2010 result hasn't been superceded by more recent events.

3) A key part of the rationale for claiming a "consensus" in favour of Calman was always that of a dual mandate encompassing both Westminster and Holyrood - the unionist majority at Holyrood (which was complacently assumed to be virtually permanent) was endlessly cited as being just as critical a factor as the unionist majority at Westminster, and this interpretation was made concrete by the involvement of the devolved parliament in the scrutiny of the Scotland Bill. Having made such a song and dance of the arithmetic at Holyrood when it suited the unionist case, it simply won't wash for Rennie to now claim that a Westminster mandate alone is sufficient to proceed as if nothing had changed. The logic of the previous stance surely demands that a compromise between the two parliaments must now be reached.

Incidentally, does anyone remember the glee with which the London coalition partners pointed out a year ago that their combined vote in Scotland at the 2010 election exceeded the 32.9% support that the SNP secured in winning office? They must feel so nostalgic for the days when they could fall back on that line...