The traditional tale goes that there is only one lake in all of Scotland, that of Lake of Menteith. The body of water was supposedly denied the more Scottish title ‘loch’ as a result of John Menteith’s betrayal of William Wallace, handing over the Scottish leader to be hung, drawn and quartered by the English.
It is a fine story, often repeated in pubs up and down Scotland, but there is infact several lakes in Scotland and ‘Lake of Menteith’ was only named so in the 19th century, long after William Wallace breathed his last desperate gasp of air.
The lesson remains that one should betray Scots at their peril and through this historic prism it is perhaps wise to view the plight of the Lib Dems, who look set to be hung, drawn and quartered at the upcoming Scottish Parliament elections.
Recent polling has had the Lib Dem voteshare at 12%, 11%, 10% and even in one instance 4%, figures that will significantly decrease the Lib Dem MSPs who decide to remain as candidates up to May 5th.
Clearly it will be a very difficult night for Tavish Scott, but it is the leadership ratings that are so eye-poppingly interesting. Prime Minister David Cameron has a leadership rating of -39%; for Nick Clegg that score is -58% with 75% of Scots disapproving of his performance and only 17% approving.
There’s a good reason why Clegg’s approval rating is significantly less that of the Prime Minister’s. As much as Scotland may not like it, we are getting what we expect from the Conservatives but have been let down, betrayed even, by the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg has been the face of that betrayal.
The risk for Scotland is that we end up with two political parties north of the border that are so toxic that no other party will do business with them, a situation that would leave coalition politics only possible between Labour, SNP, Greens and Independents. That’s a rather shallow pool to pull ideas from, particularly when the largest two parties can barely agree on anything at all.
A further potential result of prolonged low poll ratings for Nick Clegg is that the Scottish Liberal Democrats, for so long champions of a federal structure, will break further away from their UK counterparts. The ramifications for Scotland of such a move could be considerable. There have been several calls from within the Scottish Lib Dems for a referendum on independence and renewed calls with a renewed vigour from the party could be the quickest way to show that they are not Tory poodles, north of the border at least. Being seen to disobey Nick Clegg who is on -75% approval rating might not be the worst idea in the world either.
The pressing problem for the Lib Dems remains what their next big idea will be. All political parties have a right to exist in a proper democracy but the very essence of the Scottish Liberal Democrats deserves particular scrutiny given the lack of a natural shared objective. Even the bonding philosophy of ‘Only we Can Win Here’ is in danger given how many 3rd and 4th place spots the Lib Dems hold. What will the bar charts say we can only wonder.
What policies are being offered by Tavish’s party that are not readily available elsewhere? Free tuition? SNP and Labour have it covered. Environment? That’s the Greens’ domain. Health and education? There’s nothing that marks them out as special. That leaves a genuinely Local Income Tax which is surely an insufficient offering for a general election campaign.
In any election contest there is typically a main hero and a primary villain. For so long Tony Blair was the key electoral asset and whichever Tory leader was challenging Labour at the time the villain; at Holyrood last time around it was Salmond the hero and a jaded Labour party the villain; in last year’s election it was Clegg the hero and Westminster politics in general the villain. This time, a dramatic change of fortunes sees Clegg as the villain front-runner and a hero yet to step forward.
Scotland appears to be getting ready to send Clegg home to think again and, while we may not name a lake after him, don’t be surprised if you see Bog Clegg the next time that you venture into the Scottish wilderness.
#1 by Douglas McLellan on March 28, 2011 - 11:50 am
This is an interesting piece with some home truths. I have been saying for some time that what we offer the people of Scotland is little different to anyone else. Certainly we lack a core message. All the time and effort spent being all things to all people was always going to result in real problems eventually. And we have failed to get across the nature of our party and how we can actually have different policies and ideas from the party in Westminster. Admittedly most of my ideas are to the right of the party in Scotland but hey ho.
And you are correct that the Tories and Lib Dems are not going to be touched by a barge pole in any coalition negotiations unless their elections results are better than predicted. I have also advocated having a referendum as it was illiberal not to ask the people of Scotland their view on independence.
That said, they way you have written this makes Nick Clegg sound like Judas Iscariot and the English students (who else has come close to being betrayed?) the embodiment of Jesus Christ.
#2 by DougtheDug on March 28, 2011 - 12:28 pm
A further potential result of prolonged low poll ratings for Nick Clegg is that the Scottish Liberal Democrats, for so long champions of a federal structure, will break further away from their UK counterparts.
The Liberal-Democrat internal party structure is federal but it’s not based on a coalition of parties as the Lib-Dems are a single unitary party just like Labour and none of the internal divisions are recognised as parties in their own right by the Electoral Commission, again just like Labour.
All federal means is that the powers granted to the various regions in the Liberal-Democrats are written into their constitution.
If the Scottish section of the Lib-Dems wanted to distance themselves from the rest of the party then they would have to do it within the limits of the current Lib-Dem constitution or get the constitution changed which might not be that easy. The only other option would be to resign en masse from the Liberal Democrat party and form a new Scottish based one.
In other words the Scottish section of the Lib-Dems is tied to Nick Clegg whether they like it or not.
#3 by Nick on March 28, 2011 - 12:35 pm
The interesting (and decisive question) is what colour their votes will turn – Will they stay yellow (albeit Nationalist yellow) or turn red?
#4 by nconway on March 28, 2011 - 2:56 pm
It makes my vote so much more important as the lib dems and torries are margenalised ,vote for any party apart from the SNP and Scotland will run the risk of getting a pro nuclear power Labour government controlled by Labour in London.
#5 by Una on March 28, 2011 - 3:30 pm
Why not a labour/SNP coalition? Wouldn’t that be good for Scotland? They agree on loads of policies, although SNP has the broader vision and more able personnel. If Labour could stop behaving like grumpy weans perhaps an agreement could be reached?
#6 by Jeff on March 28, 2011 - 3:44 pm
“If Labour could stop behaving like grumpy weans perhaps an agreement could be reached?”
I can’t pin down what’s holding them back from being a harmonious pairing with no name-calling, can’t pin it down at all….
No, you’re right Una, there’s not that much between them but if Iain Gray can’t vote for an SNP budget that gives him everything (and more) of what he wants, then I’ll remain sceptical that a grand coalition can be formed.
The referendum question would surely be a dealbreaker too.
#7 by Doug Daniel on March 28, 2011 - 3:39 pm
Nick Clegg does seem to have ruined things for the party somewhat, although part of the problem is a lot of people have been voting for the Lib Dems under the misconception that they’re a centre-left party, whereas it has been clear ever since Nick Clegg took over (if not longer) that this was no longer the case. In some ways, these disaffected Lib Dem voters have only themselves to blame for ignoring the signs as the Orange Book clan (Clegg, Huhne, Cable, Laws, Davey etc) have been at the head of the party ever since they orchestrated the ousting of Ming Campbell as leader. Nick Clegg’s first conference speech was blatantly refocussing the party towards economic liberalism rather than social democracy, but people still thought a Lib Dem vote was a vote for leftish policies. Of course, the same applies to people who thought a vote for Labour was a vote for a party on the left, even though Tony Blair made them a centre-right party.
This is perhaps a problem with a three-party system. We talk about the mainstream being in the centre, but the truth is no one is truly in the centre – everyone leans to the left or the right to varying degrees. Labour are supposedly the party of the left, and the Tories the party of the right. With a four-party system, you would then have secondary parties for people to vote for – if you’re fed up of Labour but still want to vote for a centre-left party, you would vote for the (other?) centre-left party; whereas if you’re fed up of the Tories but still want to vote for a centre-right party, you would vote for the other centre-right party. As Douglas McLelland rightly says, the Lib Dems have been trying to be all things to all people. Fed up of Labour but favour social democracy? Vote for us! Fed up of the Tories but favour economic liberalism? Vote for us! That works when you’re constantly a party of opposition, but by forming the coalition with the Tories, they’ve effectively taken a side, and it’s one many Lib Dem voters disagree with. Obviously in Scotland the problems are compounded by the fact they went into coalition with Labour, thus suggesting even stronger that they are meant to be a centre-left party, and leading to even more confusion when they formed the Westminster coalition.
Personally, as harsh as it might sound, I just don’t see the point of the Lib Dems’ existence in Scotland. Once you would have said the one thing the Lib Dems would never back down on was PR, but they backed down on it to get into power, along with complete reversals on tuition fees and nuclear weapons. On the other hand, their unwillingness to let Scotland have its say on independence/more powers stopped them even entering into talks with the SNP. The result? The only principle they now seem to be unmovable on is support for the union. The thing is, Scotland already has two parties that refuse to even allow the independence question to be asked, so a steadfast unionist is already spoilt for choice. The Lib Dems’ best chance of being a party of relevance in Scotland would be as the right-wing independence-favouring party that currently doesn’t exist. Everything else is already covered, really.
#8 by Allan on March 28, 2011 - 11:20 pm
I would have said that the seeds were sown when Kennedy was “removed” from the post of leader. Having said that, i did vote for them last year on the basis that they had 3 good policies, which was three more than New labou and the Tories had at the time…
On a historical note, you mention Blair and New Labour. It is worth noting that a lot of Blairs advisors and the key New Labour people were ex-SDP people. For example, Blair’s mentor was Roy Jenkins.
#9 by Tormod on March 28, 2011 - 3:48 pm
I think the Scottish election is going to be very dynamic, I think the libdems are in for a very hard / bad night.
Hell mend them!
#10 by Mike on March 28, 2011 - 4:21 pm
I wonder if the Lib-Dems going into coalition has allowed a wee bit of their mask to slip. Living in a secure Lib area ( N.E. Fife ) I never minded Ming as MP although never voted for him, however his performance as leader especially over the 2007 Scottish elections really opened my eyes.
Add to this their childish patronising statements ( Tavish Scott take a bow! ) when in opposition, mean that they can no longer sit on the fence and blame Labour for their own actions.
On the whole I feel that for the past 4-5 years they’ve been scattering the seeds of their own failures far and wide. It seems unbelievable that they may be shocked at what they reap.
#11 by Tormod on March 28, 2011 - 5:16 pm
I would agree with that, the classic being LIT. The ability for councils to set the rate could have been implemented down the line.
So the LIT proposal was about 90% of what they wanted, compare and contrast the AV situation.
#12 by CassiusClaymore on March 28, 2011 - 5:11 pm
I wonder when/if the voters in the traditional Liberal areas – Northern Isles, West Highlands, NE Fife, Borders – are going to figure out that the Liberals now are not the Liberals as they were?
As and when this happens, who gets the votes?
Very interesting, and very difficult to predict. I’ll have a go anyway – for me, geography will be a factor and I reckon the rural former Lib vote will go SNP or Tory depending on constituency. I reckon the urban Lib vote will mainly go Labour. I also reckon there will be more urban ‘shifters’ than rural which is probably good news for Labour. Then again, who knows? I’m very much an amateur so any insider views would be most welcome.
This is the real wild card issue in the Scottish election, in my opinion. And I’m not sure if anyone really knows what the voters are going to do.
OFF TOPIC – Jeff and others, how about a post on the implications for Scotland of AV, perhaps based on the last Westminster poll? I’m wondering if it would really make that much difference in Scotland.
CC
#13 by Mike on March 28, 2011 - 6:16 pm
You may be correct about rural Lib-Dems leaning more to Tory by instinct however the recent headlines concerning them, Aitken onwards, are all absolutely negative. Not the hype to reign new or returning voters!
As for their support for devolution of powers to as local a level a practicable, I’m very doubtful. Speaking to quite a few people around the area, the Libs have been completely underwhelming as partners leading Fife Council. They campaigned for years on Labour favouring the west of Fife and leaving the scraps for the East. This has a fair bit of resonance in NE Fife. Once in power they’ve achieved sod all of what they’ve promised.
TBF this will affect the SNP also but I could never see Labour making headway up this way which begs the question who can capitalise?
#14 by CassiusClaymore on March 28, 2011 - 6:18 pm
STV News poll reporting LibDems 7% constituency and 8% list. Overall loss of 8 seats.
SNP closing the gap on Labour, but Labour projected to get 54 MSPs against SNP’s 48.
Tory vote holding up – not a surprise, as they are at least doing what they said they would (unlike the Libs).
The interesting thing is that 48 SNP plus 17 Tory (65) represents a parliamentary majority……and, of course, that means Labour (54) plus LibDems (8) does not…..
Interesting times ahead.
CC
#15 by Jeff on March 28, 2011 - 7:23 pm
Thanks for that, might otherwise have missed this poll (TNS-BMRB, 1028 respondents).
Greens on 5% and Lib Dems 8%. With momentum going in different directions, should James be already buying himself a shiny green tie for May 6th? Who will be Scotland’s 4th largest party…..?
#16 by Daniel J on March 28, 2011 - 8:46 pm
Scotland Votes still gives Greens 2 MSPs on 5%, now if we could switch the 5% and 8% round…
#17 by Despairing on March 28, 2011 - 6:21 pm
I don’t think it’ll so much be the constituency votes which shock the LibDems, but the list votes. They’ve always relied on the Scots to punt them a wee vote on the List outside of their core voters. I really can’t see many people doing that this time around, whether as a “punishment” or whether the voters prefer other parties.
I think it’s the Daily Mirror which today has a story on them trying to rebrand – the yellow bird symbol being dropped for a set of scales, and the word “Social” being inserted back into the name to try and calm the left wing of the party. I can’t see the voters falling for that, either.
#18 by Chris on March 28, 2011 - 8:27 pm
Any LibDem MSP losing their seat to Labour, SNP or Green will be highly progressive. I really don’t think that any LibDem should be allowed to wriggle off the hook as it simply sends the message to Ming Campbell and others that they can distance themselves from the unpopular bits of the coalition but ultimately support it when called upon.
#19 by James on March 28, 2011 - 8:35 pm
That’s what I think too.
#20 by CassiusClaymore on March 29, 2011 - 5:11 am
Tavish looking rattled on the telly. He couldn’t even bring himself to say “Hugh O’Donnell”….his jaiket is going to be on a shoogly peg if they end up with their representation halved.
CC
#21 by holyroodpatter on March 29, 2011 - 10:46 am
While I fully agree that there is something of a Lib Dem betrayal, (I pointed out on twitter how odd I found it that the mainstream proponents of federalism hadnt the sense to simply cut themselves adrift, in theory at least, and stop defending the coalition so vigorously – perhaps like a number of former Labour backbenchers they have their eyes on a greater prize than Minister for rural wheely bins in the wee Scottish Government) I still think that political toxicity is more of an abstract concept than people often think, there were various rumours about Labour and the Tories forming an anti Nat alliance in the febrile, governmental vacuum days followiung the election in 2007.
However you often find in post election coalition talks a lot of chat about “reflecting will/opinion of the people” and if that is to be believed it will be hard to really do a deal with a party whose number of MSPs has been halved.
If the settled will of the people is that the Lib Dems deserve a kicking for going into coalition with the Tories, then certainly theyre reward for such a crushing defeat as is anticipated frankly shouldnt be a ministerial car
#22 by Indy on March 29, 2011 - 12:29 pm
The Lib Dems are down to their core vote and I for one am not surprised that their core vote is smaller than the Conservatives. They are not the kind of party which attracts loyalty.
It would be good to see the Greens overtake the Lib Dems on the list vote but I am not sure that will happen outwith the cities and central belt. I think it will be difficult for the Greens to get into the debate – not only because they have been excluded from the televised debates but because the election is so polarised between the SNP and Labour.
I note that the Daily Record hasn’t been able to bring itself to publish the latest poll – lol – but other papers are carrying it and from the media’s point of view the tighter the election looks the more exciting it is, so they will play up the SNP/Labour stand-off which will further polarise things. So it’s a tough gig for the Greens but with some clever campaigning on the ground I think they can make up the ground that the Lib Dems are losing.
#23 by CassiusClaymore on March 29, 2011 - 1:25 pm
There’s a brand of LibDem – the ‘high moral tone’ tendency, the stereotypical lentil-munching sandal-wearers – who are not really comfortable with the party being in power, much less in power with the hated Tories. (My auntie is one such).
Those voters should be naturals for the Greens. I don’t see my auntie or her like voting for either of the main parties. A lot of people like her will see Salmond as being too aggressive and divisive and Labour as being uninspired/leaderless/hypocritical/corrupt/moronic/discredited etc.
So – good news for the Greens, potentially….they might want to tone down the hard leftism, though, if those voters are to be captured.
CC
#24 by Douglas McLellan on March 29, 2011 - 3:39 pm
I know a number of those types of LibDem voters who are in a quandary for the reasons you have cited. I wonder if the Greens are looking to separate them into younger and older voters. The younger, perhaps more idealistic, are attracted to the leftward, tax-rising, anti-big business stunts that the Greens are performing these days so thats who they are looking to get votes from.
Certainly the older, financially secure and property owning might not agree with the call for high taxes on their incomes and properties.
Pingback: Sometimes parties go away. « Better Nation
#25 by Caron on March 30, 2011 - 8:28 am
You use all this language of betrayal and then give absolutely no evidence to back that up.
Now, I’d be lying if I said I agree with everything the Westminster Government is doing, but even despite all that, it’s the best Government I’ve known in my life.
When would you ever have found a government with Tories in it doing things like:
raising the tax threshold, taking over a million out of tax by this time next year
putting money into poorest kids education so they have a better chance of success
restoring the pensions/earnings link
ending child detention.
You have to remember that the Tories were planning on doing things like repealing the Human Rights Act and we’ve put our foot down about that. They weren’t going to sign up to the EU Trafficking Directive, and because of Lib Dem pressure within Government they are.
Then there’s fixed term parliaments and a referendum on changing the voting system and an elected House of Lords.
I could write for ages about the good things the Government’s doing.
And you can see exactly where the Liberal Democrat heart beats when you see our plan to abolish Council Tax for the poorest pensioners which is being announced today.
It’s down to the Lib Dems that the debate on tuition fees up here is in a different place to down south – we would not allow Labour’s fees to be implemented in 1999 and even Alex Salmond acknowledged last night that we helped get rid of the graduate endowment. The situation in England was different. We were 57 out of well over 550 Labour and Tory MPs in the Commons who favoured fees, and would have put the Browne Report, which advocated unlimited fees, through unamended given half a chance. It’s not ideal, but even so,someone on £21,000 will pay £84 a month less than under the system introduced by Labour.
It’s been interesting – reports I’m hearing back from the canvassing in places where we maybe have a councillor now for the first time under STV but otherwise no other representation are quite positive. People get why we went into coalition and what we’re doing.
We’ve been written off in every election I can remember and I am sure we will do much better than expected.
#26 by Jeff on March 30, 2011 - 8:42 am
Good on you fighting hard Caron, particularly as the genuine good points of the Lib Dem side of the coalition often get drowned out.
But how can you square “People get why we went into coalition and what we’re doing.” and ” it’s the best Government I’ve known in my life.” with 75% of Scots disapproving of Nick Clegg, more than disapprove of David Cameron?
The “betrayal” which you seem to think I haven’t provided evidence of is what sits behind that figure:
– reneging on the Lib Dem position on nuclear power
– reneging on trying to drive down train fares which would ensure a Greener Britain
– reneging on tuition fees which has a direct impact on whether Scotland can afford free tuition
– reneging on VAT increases (which is much more expensive than the changing of tax bands you seem so pleased with. Remember the increase in basic band of tax is a tax cut for everyone earning up to £115k/year. I’m not convinced it is targetted correctly)
– reneging on the speed we need to cut the deficit, making more people unemployed sooner and in many instances unnecessarily.
You have your list and I have mine. When Tavish Scott has an approval rating of 2% and the Lib Dems slip to fifth behind the Greens, it’s pretty clear which list they take more seriously and pretty clear how strong a betrayal they consider all of this to be.
#27 by Douglas McLellan on March 30, 2011 - 3:34 pm
The 2% can be attributed to your exact term “genuine good points of the Lib Dem side of the coalition often get drowned out”. I think thats why the party is not in open rebellion. If it were the betrayal that you have articulated do you not think that the party would be a lot more in disagreement than it is now. When you have Simon Hughes still supporting the coalition then you know we are achieving some things and stopping the Tories doing others. We believe that the country is better for us being in Government (btw if the Tories formed a minority government which was brought down by the opposition or there was a strange rainbow coalition that would have fractured in the same timescale I honesty believe that the Tories would have won a October election easily).
If the country had actually wanted no fees then it would have voted for more Lib Dems. Hell, if more students were wholly against fees there would have been more Lib Dem MPs. But it was a manifesto commitment that was broken and that is for the party to deal with.
Although the train fares thing hasn’t happened, Transport Minister Norman Baker has brought in a Local Sustainable Transport Fund with cardon emission reductions and cleaner local environments as part of the fund.
But the 2% thing is basically a reflection of where the Lib Dems are. In partnership with the hated Tories. Until Scotland can let go of its visceral hatred of the Tories then the Lib Dems will suffer low approval ratings. It is interesting in all areas of Scottish politics the cry is be positive, look forward. Yet we cannot be a Better Nation if we always want to chew on the regurgitated bile of the past.
Instead all parties should be challenged on where they are now and where they want to go in the future.
#28 by Caron on March 30, 2011 - 9:25 am
– reneging on the Lib Dem position on nuclear power
I’m no fan of this, believe me, and Tavish was very clear last night that as far as Scotland’s concerned we’re not in favour of the nuclear route. And have you seen Chris Huhne’s latest comments on nuclear power?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/19/huhne-says-uk-might-have-to-drop-nuclear-option
– reneging on trying to drive down train fares which would ensure a Greener Britain
– reneging on tuition fees which has a direct impact on whether Scotland can afford free tuition
You have to remember that politics is the art of the possible and a non nuclear UK Govt approach would be very difficult with over 500 Labour and Tory MPs supporting it.
– reneging on VAT increases (which is much more expensive than the changing of tax bands you seem so pleased with. Remember the increase in basic band of tax is a tax cut for everyone earning up to £115k/year. I’m not convinced it is targetted correctly)
This year’s tax threshold rise does not apply to higher rate taxpayers. VAT, well, I’m not best pleased about that, but, again, the circumstances in which we found ourselves, with economies all over Europe under threat made it necessary – and Labour were considering raising it too, even though they deny that now. BTW, the tax threshold policy was not the idea of some wonk in the bubble, it came from a woman called Lizzie Jewkes who’s been active in Women Lib Dems for many a year and who has a lot of experience working with people on low incomes. I trust her to know what she’s talking about.
– reneging on the speed we need to cut the deficit, making more people unemployed sooner and in many instances unnecessarily.
Or doing nothing might have made more people unemployed as we couldn’t ignore it. Maybe it comes from being married to the most fiscally cautious man on the planet, but the idea of spending more than you bring in year on year is quite scary. And Labour were doing this to the tune of paying off the equivalent of the entire Scottish budget for a year in debt interest every 10 weeks. Labour had some pretty benign economic circumstances for most of their term in office and they should have been putting money away for a rainy day, not going on a spending spree. That was just day to day expenditure – not the emergency bank bail out which we all agree was necessary.
I still think this coalition will go for the full term and by the end of it people will realise that it has made a difference for the better.
#29 by Jeff on March 30, 2011 - 9:56 am
Good news on nuclear. I’ve said all along that the Government has the right Minister with the wrong policy. It look like Huhne might be making his mark on nuclear after all so that’s great. I’ll scratch it from my list 😉
You say – “This year’s tax threshold rise does not apply to higher rate taxpayers” but I am sure it does as all taxpayers use the same bands. However, I’ve just used this time spent on a train to read up on the budget detail and this raising of the basic rate banding seems to be paid for by capturing more people in the 40% upper rate of tax (by reducing the upper limit for higher rate tax from £37,400 to £34,370). For me, that’s absolutely the right thing to do and in line with your art of the possible Caron. The Telegraph’s wailing sits comfortably against my pleasure of me
and my banking chums being taxed more. Another complaint scratched from the list!
I still think Lib Dems need to help sort out train prices more 😉
#30 by cynicalHighlander on March 30, 2011 - 6:52 pm
Lets get some honesty here on the nuclear issue.
Clegg has already broken his promise on nuclear subsidies
Ministers are breaking their promise on subsidies for nuclear power
Nuclear power will be subsidised by the taxpayer no matter how its dressed up in smooth talk because its the most expensive way of boiling a kettle.