Remember, Remember the 5th of November...err not in Northern Ireland

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,

The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,

I know of no reason

Why the Gunpowder Treason

Should ever be forgot.

Today is exactly six months from the general election and six month until another little explosion under the Palaces of Westminster, I hope. On the 5th May next year 'there shall be' a referendum on changing the voting system from First Past the Post to a preferential system the Alternative Vote.

Now Willie Sullivan Head of Field Operations for the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign has sent me and all the other supporters a nice email asking us all to do something over Bonfire weekend. Well you see that little star over Belfast, well that is us, and more to the point me as the Northern Ireland Campaign Manager, well we don't do bonfires on this weekend, and that part of the community that does will be doing it too late to help win the vote.

However, that does not mean people in Northern Ireland will be doing nothing. Tomorrow I'm off to the SDLP conference, tonight I shall be attending the North Down Alliance Association table quiz (in conjunction with Stangford Alliance Assoc.), at both events I will be armed with sign up sheets.

You can also sign up at the Yes to Fairer Votes Website, like the Yes to Fairer Votes Belfast Facebook page* and follow us on Twitter. I'll be in touch with everyone who signs up soon about how you can get involve or if you are getting itchy feet and want something to do now, or at least in the next few hours or days email me directly.

* More will follow.

Why I'm Backing Tim Farron for President

I've already blogged, quite early on in the presidential campaign that I was backing Tim Farron and I got to see both he and Susan Kramer in action on Saturday. I was glad to say that he proved again that the reasons I had for backing him on the day.

Both candidates, as Caron has written already, had the chance to address conference. There is the West Wing episode Freedonia where the question is asked "What is the Presidential Voice?" or course you have to be President to use the presidential voice. So how did the two speeched by the candidates size up.

Susan took, IMHO, the easy option of speaking in the pre-manifesto debate. Saying that a lot of it didn't apply in England, where the Lib Dems are still working to implement a lot of what we have achieved in Scotland already. But she basically spelt out why she should be president in what she had to say. All excellent stuff but hardly a presidential voice. Tim on the other hand took on the issue that was the hot potato of the day, and has become the Elephant in the coalition* this week, student finance. He called the system in England already in place a 'basket case' while saying that we should stand by what we had achieved in Scotland in getting rid of tuition fees. Speaking up for the party, even when in coalition on a hot potato of policy difference is surely presidential.

I also happened to be standing next to Tim as he was gathering information on the issue from the best place in the hall to do so, the Liberal Youth Scotland stall. Listening to our undergraduates and what they thought of the issue.

There are the 5 Ws that all journalists need to include (Who, What, Where, When and hoW). What I heard linked to the two names most frequently is Who's Tim and Where's Susan. I witnessed Tim working the room talking to as many members as possible. Even I knowing that Susan was there had a hard time spotting her.

Michael did take his 'I'm for Tim' badge off long enough to ask Susan some questions in relation to Northern Ireland in particular, we'd already asked Tim quite early in the day. I know Caron has asked her questions directed towards Scotland. What I will say for now is that both candidates are aware of the Northern Irish local party (not a branch), more from Michael when Caron edits LibDemVoice on Thursday.

The dynamism, finger on the pulse and way in which he communicated with members both from the platform and in person is what I want from a president and is what I saw from Tim on Saturday. All things that make me happy with my choice of endorsing him as he attempts to become our next party president.

* Other than our blogger of the year.

Speech to Conference - Intercity Express Programme

On Saturday I made a speech to Scottish Liberal Democrat conference on the issue of the Intercity Express Programme. I was especially speaking on lines 11-13 of the motion.

1 Conference notes that that the UK Government is due to take a decision on whether to
2 proceed with the Intercity Express Programme, intended to provide 882 new carriages
3 for a series of intercity routes, following the completion of the comprehensive spending
4 review in October 2010.

5 Conference welcomes the environmental, social and economic benefits of an efficient
6 and accessible public transport service, and supports the long-term electrification of the
7 railways as part of a modern rail network.

8 Conference recognises the importance of cross-border transport links between England
9 and Scotland and that direct rail services connecting London to the north and the north
10 east of Scotland bring direct economic benefit to these regions.

11 Conference is therefore concerned at the report of the Review of the Intercity Express
12 Programme by Sir Andrew Foster which suggests that long distance routes to Inverness
13 and Aberdeen could be served by connecting trains rather than through-services.

14 Conference believes that the loss of the through-service from London to Aberdeen and
15 Inverness would be a significant deterrent to train travel for these regions and would
16 represent a serious reduction in the quality of cross-border services, with a resultant
17 negative impact on Scottish business competitiveness.

18 Conference therefore calls on the Secretary of State for Transport to protect the
19 economic value of the north and north east regions of Scotland by maintaining direct rail
20 services between London and Aberdeen and Inverness and to reject any other
21 diminution of cross-border public transport services between England and Scotland.

I started by saying that although through the years I had always addressed conference as a Northern Irish man this was the first time I have addressed them as a member of the Northern Irish party. It was as a result that travelling from Northern Ireland and many long cross country trips that I had learnt one important issue about connecting services, they do not always connect you to you final destination on the same day you started out.

A previous speaker had already pointed out the access issues and this is true for all passengers. This is true for all passengers but can affect those that are elderly and infirm the most. If you add in a rail replacement service at the same time as a non-though train this can slowly lead people to not want to let the train take the strain.

As I concluded I pointed out that in 2003 we stood to increase the rail service in Scotland including the Bathgate to Airdrie extension which means so much to the people of West Lothian. We should similarly be working to increase provision not reduce it, therefore I urged conference to accept the motion.

Fisking the Stonewall Response To Ben's 'Comments' #MoreBS #LDConf

Cross posted at Liberal Democrats in Northern Ireland

A friend of mine following up on my comments about Ben Summerskill's comments at the Diversity fringe meeting on Monday sent an email to Stonewall. He received a response which linked to this press statement. He forwarded it to me and I think it requires Fisking.

Press Statement from Stonewall Fisking by Stephen Glenn

The story published by PinkNews today is, sadly, a largely dishonest account of what took place at last night's fringe meeting in Liverpool. I took my lead from friends' comments and blogs who were actually there. Multiple sources. Also MPs and a former London mayoral candidate commented on it during the debate yesterday on equal marriage.

We deeply regret that PinkNews chose to publish the story late at night without double-checking a single fact and without having troubled to attend either the meeting itself or a party conference at which such an important issue was being discussed. Zoe O'Connell was at the meeting and blogged not once but twice the second time to pick on some inaccuracies in what others were saying but not in the context or essence of what I posted or what PinkNews said.

Ben made quite clear at the meeting that Stonewall is engaged in a process of listening and consulting with active Stonewall supporters, of whom there are almost 20,000, about the future of civil partnership. This is an issue affecting the broad church of the LGBT community not just the 20,000 members of Stonewall. Are they not also listening to that wider community? Many of that wider community are outraged that Stonewall, a so-called 'leader' on LGBT rights, had so far not said anything on this issue.

UPDATE: There is comment on the updated PinkNews report which says:

Oh and as a Stonewall "supporter" who has contributed financially over the past decade, I have never been consulted about anything from this organisation. The most I have ever received are a) requests for donations b) publicity on events and initiatives c) asked to purchase tickets for gala etc but never once asked for an opinion.

So just has been consulted.

While some lesbian, gay and bisexual people fully support changing civil partnership into marriage Stonewall above commented on PinkNews not checking facts!!! Oops. The motion (now policy) is not a single option for marriage, there is the choice of CPs or Marriage open to ALL., there are others – including particularly some women – who do not want something that is either the same as or synonymous with marriage. Again using a feminist argument to deny others something they want doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It they don't want anything synonymous with marriage they they don't have to same as with anyone else. This is a sensitive area of policy development and not one which is assisted by inflammatory media coverage.

The Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone, with whom we have discussed this issue privately, acknowledged in response to Ben's remarks last night that as Stonewall is a supporter-based organisation it could not be expected to issue a response to such an issue until it had built the sort of consensus Ben had outlined. This issue has been being discussed since the introduction of CPs in 2005. The Equal Marriage Campaign is something I have been a member of for over 2 years. The failure of Stonewall to have come to a consensus in that time scale, not the 4 days that PinkNews asked for a mere 400 words, is scandalous.

Ben did not say for one moment that Stonewall objected to the motion that would be debated today because it would cost £5bn. Ah that's all right then. But see what Zoe said in that second post.

Ben pointed out, factually, that there was a cost to including provision of civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples in the motion. He suggested that ministers should publish the Treasury Impact Assessment that will have been carried out. Well if cost is going to be a hindrance bringing equality, we should not have brought in Civil Partnerships for gays and lesbians. We shouldn't have brought in minimum wage or equal pay. At a time when companies are downsizing we shouldn't have brought in the law to prevent employees being fired because they are gay. We also shouldn't have extended the franchise to women, or Roman Catholics or Jews either. GET REAL!!! When has cost ever, or should it ever be an excuse against equality.

This is a policy on which Stonewall expressed and expresses no view (campaigning to end heterosexual disadvantage is not one of its charitable objectives it may not be one of the objectives per se of Stonewall but why are they seeking just to support gays not achieve equality. If LGBT groups aren't standing up for equality who can?, and Ben said that) however, with an estimated cost of £5bn over 10 years, people have understandably raised the question of whether it is likely in the current economic environment that such a policy would be implemented in the lifetime of this parliament. Hang on above you said this wasn't a reason Ben had for objecting yet you appear to say he was doing so here.

Stonewall is determined, as Ben made crystal clear at the meeting, to build – as it has always strived to do on any issue - a policy and campaigning position on the future of civil partnership that has the support of the widest possible number of lesbian, gay and bisexual people in Britain. Yet you seem to be arguing for the small number of women having the right to deter it for others, how bizarre.

For PinkNews to publish and fail to correct a story in this way sadly brings the whole of the pink media, which serves our minority communities uniquely well, into disrepute. I have seen and heard numerous comments from friends who were there, I would have been myself if I'd been able to get to conference. I have read this statement in full I do not think that PinkNews got it wrong. I see no reason for them to correct their story as Stonewall have not denied any of the comments were made and indeed seem to try and defend a number of them here.

Update: The original PinkNews article was update and now contains the following disclaimer:

"Comments made during the 21st September have been suspended at the request of Stonewall. It is possible to post comments though on this amended version of the article.

PinkNews.co.uk is happy to publish the clarifications above and apologises for any confusion caused by the original report."

So Stonewall are trying to censor freedom of expression.

Next Just Get me to the Church on Time #LDConf

I'm really delighted that my fellow Liberal Democrats earlier today passed the Equal Marriage in the UK motion at conference.

However, sitting here watching it both me and Mícheál were struck by the anti speeches. Now we know our constitution says we shouldn't be enslaved by ignorance but there is a certain amount of reading what the motion actually says that seems to have been ignored. Point 2 of what conference calls for says (emphasis mine)

To allow approved religious and humanist who wish to do so to legally solemnise and celebrate same-sex marriage and civil partnerships in places of religious worship.

The reason I emphasised it that key phrase is that is the key phrase that make this a liberal motion. We are not forcing churches, synagogues, mosques etc to carry out same-sex marriages what we are doing in this motion is enabling them to do so if they wish. If they wish! Yes Kieran who wrote the initial motion for Scottish Conference on which this was based is an atheist, but he consulted with me about getting the religious element carefully dealt with. That little phrase was what between us we came up with to make in a liberal enabling motion rather than a draconian forcing religious groups under their various governances to have to change to accommodate.

I've said before that we are a liberal party but we also must allow religious freedom. As liberal we may not aways agree with the utterances or stances that they take but we have to respect their right to hold them, as long as they do not infringe on others. This motion fully meets my expectation of what a Liberal Democrat motion will entail.

For the record this Northern Irish friend of Sara Bedford was cheering every line of her speech. She'd done her research and asked gay friends of faith and none how they felt about it. It made up for the fact that my speech never got to be heard outside of my room despite two opportunities I could have done so.

But this in only the first step, we now have it as policy now we have to make it government legislation, so we can all start to plan those marriages.

The Speech That Never Was Take 2: Equal Marriage #LDConf

Just about now if things are going to schedule item number F35 Equal Marriage in the United Kingdom is being debated at Liberal Democrat conference. Here, slightly modified, is the speech that I am not able to present for a second time (the first at Scottish because I moved the transgender amendment, now because I am absent).

Conference, it is with great delight that I am able to dust of this speech that I didn't make at Scottish Conference this Spring, on this very matter. Especially because lines 4-5 and 29-31 look very happily familiar to the Transgender amendment I moved there. But I stand before you today to commend the motion as a whole. a

Whilst the coalition government is making moves to allow ceremonies for LGBT couples to be performed in religious buildings. The Prime Minister has said that these will be civil partnerships.

That means that these will not have the appearance of a Church marriage ceremony that you or I would attend for our heterosexual friends, because a civil partnership is not allowed to contain any religious elements. It is just that a civil ceremony. Yet at present if our heterosexual friends want a civil marriage they can do so at the local registry office alongside those self same civil partnerships.

This assumes that I and other gay Christians or members of other faiths are happy just to have a civil partnership in a location that we feel is like home. That is why like our own leader has said we shouldn't me so hung up with the word marriage.

There are some who say that allowing people of the same-sex to have the right to marry will debase the sanctity of marriage. That would be the same sanctity as Britney Spears 24 hour marriage in Vegas.

Love is a many splendoured thing and when I find the man I wish to spend the rest of my life with I want to have the option of marrying him in a church and having our friends sings the hymns we have chosen and the readings we want. That is of course if he says yes and also wants a religious ceremony.

To misquote the bard of Stratford

I am gay! Hath not a Gay man eyes?
Hath not a gay man hands, organs, dimensions,
senses, affections, passions?
Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons,
subject to the same diseases, healed by the same
means, warmed and cooled by the same winter
and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we
not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you
poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall
we not speak out? If we are like you in the rest, we
will resemble you in that.

You know something conference, as a gay christian I'd love to settle down with the man of my dreams. I'd love to enter the house of my God and join that man in union. But I want the words in the presence of God to be part of that ceremony. Not as a civil partnership in a religious building seems to me, sneaking in when the lights are out and God isn't home.

I want the choice.

I have the choice to be with the man I love.
I have to choice to be partnered with them.
I'd love to have to choice to invite God to the wedding.

And conference you know something else. As a Northern Irish man if the biggest dilemma is whether to have a ceremony that is protestant or catholic or some combination of the two I wouldn't mind. I'd be very happy just as long as I had that choice.

Conference, support this motion and I'll let you know when you can start shopping for hats.

UPDATE: There are some other blogs about speechs. This one from Sarah that similarly was never made about the issue of Gender recognition. Then there is the speech that Sara Bedford actually made yeah if you've read the above you can tell I was that Northern Irish friend.

When a Defeat's Not a Defeat #LDConf

I'm sure I was watching the Liberal Democrat conference earlier on BBC Parliament, I'm just not sure where the BBC were watching it. Their headline says

Lib Dems suffer conference defeat over free schools

Hello!

This was a Lib Dem conference. How can a democratically debated and voted upon motion be a defeat?

Not only that the debate as I watched it enhanced Lib Dem education policy as I have heard it debated over the last 22 years of my association. So why is it a defeat?

Also they call it a rebel motion. No it was like all manner of Lib Dem motions coming from the membership not from the leadership. That is the nature of the party, and its conference, not like the Tories and Labour who will simply rubber stamp the will of the leadership.

So the Policy Motion on Free Schools and Academies may be opposed to some of the government

Basically because the membership of the Lib Dems have passed a motion that contradicts that of the coalition Government. So a more accurate headline would have been 'Government suffer Lib Dem conference defeat over free schools'.

But this was a victory for the Lib Dems and their independence as a party, holding the government to account even if some of our representatives serve in that Government. It is just what our Scottish conference did through the eight years we were in government and our Welsh cousins similarly.

So if anyone doubts that the Lib Dems have lost their way, you are now seeing that this is not the case. The party will continue to act in a progressive and fair way.

It's My Birthday...I Must Be at Conference...Oh NO!!!

Normally at this time of year my lunches consist of hotel buffets at whatever fringe event I have chosen to attend. Occassionally on my birthday I have been travelling so it is a package of Boots sandwiches or the equivalent that I have eaten while in transit. There have even been the odd occasion it has been by election fayre grabbed when I could be fore getting shipped back out again.

Not today I was at the Cafe Manor, Donaghadee with my mum. Thinking of missing some friends I'd have loved to have seen at conference already I noticed on the specials board Roast Beef, Yorkshire pudding, champ and vegetables (pictures above). So thinking of Jennie Rigg I tucked in.

I was too full at the time for dessert though I think some of my birthday cake is due to be eaten later at afternoon tea. However, anyone who knows me knows of my love of tea so I was delighted that on offer was a wide stock of Teapigs teas so I ended up having the Chilli Chai variety. It is Assam tea, with cinnamon, ginger, cardamom and chilli, and it was lovely (see below).

Am I Missing/Missed at #LDConf

Looking at these stats from Tweetminister's following of Conference it appears not so much.

Wish I Were There #LDConf

I have a strange feeling in my bones that something is wrong.

It is my birthday weekend coming up and I am surrounded by family!

Don't get me wrong I really love my family but in recent years familial celebrations of my birthday are either premature or delayed. There have been a couple of occasions in recent years that of course I've been fighting a by election, in 2005 for example dinner on my birthday included the Deputy First Minister of Scotland Nicol Stephen at my table at Zaika, Livingston.

But what I really want to be going on a day like today is either packing, travelling or leaving work about now to start the travelling. I'm not doing that, as sadly I have a bad case of candidate induced Post-Election Financial Disorder. It is the primary reason that I am back in Northern Ireland and the disorder wasn't made any easier (£459 worth not easier) by the unforeseen events of #operationevacuate.

That is a hefty chunk of money on top of the expected costs of getting home and therefore eats right away at the contingency fund with with I'd hoped to make it to the first Liberal autumn gathering with government ministers since the 1920s. A little piece of history I am missing out on.

My birthday is also a big day for Liverpool they are heading for the Field of Nightmares (aka Old Trafford) to take on the old enemy. So I shall be missing the BOTYs and many friends old and new. I shall be missing revelling in the new government and in holding them to account. I'll be missing real ale at Liberal Drinks, Delga's AGM, the launch of the Fairer Votes Campaign and oh so many things (some of which I have the invites for).

Watching on TV and following on Twitter just won't be the same. I don't even have the morning dilemma of which tie, shirt and suit combination to go with for the day. I can even get away without shaving as no photo ops will be sprung on this approved candidate in the morning bulletin.

A Solid Stonewall of Silence Over Equal Marriage #Stonewallfail

Next month's Lib Dem conference and Delga's motion on Equal Marriage* has got most LGBT organisations talking about this issue. Indeed we know they are because PinkNews asked the leading ones to respond in 400 words.



They got responses from LGBT Labour, LGBTory, Delga, OutRage!, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, the Lesbian and Gay Foundation and from Scotland the Equality Network and the LGBT Network. There is one noticeable exception that is living up to its name once again in the wrong way STONEWALL.



A Stonewall may to must people's mind be an immovable object, a barrier or a definition of boundaries. However, the context in which Stonewall came by its name is the exact opposite. The Stonewall riots were a time for the LGBT community to stand up against the call for them to conform to what 'society' at the time deemed they should be. Denying themselves, denying that gay people had equal rights, even denying that they were normal.



The silence from Stonewall is stifling.



To be fair the other two political groups seem to be somewhat confused about equal marriage. LGBTory supports the call for Civil Partnership to be carried out in a Religious setting, however a Civil Partnership like a Civil Wedding is not allowed to contain any religious content. Of course a subsequent meeting may be arrange accommodate David Cameron's fear of letting some religious groups desire to carry out same-sex marriage appear equal with what is currently available.



LGBT Labour only talk about civil marriage to be carried out for same-sex couple and totally avoids the issue of religion. Apart from that their stance is similar to the Lib Dems in that civil partnership should be available to mixed-sex couples and marriage available to all (just they don't seem to include all marriage in that only the civil version).



Now I know you shouldn't mix politics and religion, I am from Northern Ireland after all, but in this case politics has to undo a wrong by allowing an enabling. The religious communities who wish to carry out same-sex marriage are barred from doing so by existent legislation. It is time to undo the shackles for those that want to, but not to force those that don't to also comply.



* I'm looking forward to the Federal Party discussing and I trust passing something that I was an interested observer and adviser in helping Liberal Youth Scotland to get the Scottish party to pass their motion.

Standing Up For Students

Looking at the fine detail of the coalition agreement one thing that did strike me was the omission of any agreement to increase tuition fees. Indeed what there was is a rather woolly statement.

Higher education

We await Lord Browne’s final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals against the need to:

• increase social mobility;
  
  
• take into account the impact on student debt;
  
  
• ensure a properly funded university sector;
  
  
• improve the quality of teaching;
  
  
• advance scholarship; and,
  
  
• attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.

Therefore it was with relieve that I saw the following amendment to our special conference debating the coalition deal from Liberal Youth.

Conference expresses its concern that Liberal Democrat MPs who signed the 'vote for students' pledge may be unable to uphold this pledge under the abstention agreement on the Lord Browne report in the 'Higher Education' section of the agreement for a coalition government and expresses its hope that Liberal Democrat MPs can vote against any rise in the cap on tuition fees which isn't index linked.

Conference calls upon Liberal Democrat MPs to ensure that on any decision made on the Lord Browne report, they above all else take into account the impact on student debt.

Conference affirms our aspiration to scrap tuition fees.

Conference also affirms that any vote on tuition fees should not be held as a vote of confidence in the government.

Liberal Youth are incredibly worried that a whole generation of young people from lower-income backgrounds will be shut out of university education all-together if we see even higher tuition fees. Therefore, Liberal Youth are asking you to support this amendment, to reaffirm our stance on tuition fees, and force our ministers to fight for lower fees in the cabinet and allow our MPs to oppose such measures in the commons.

I fully support it, not only does it respect the idea of the new politics and the coalition that we have entered into, but it also allows our parliamentary party who along with myself and many more of our candidates all signed the 'vote for students' pledge.

I have signed their petition in support of this motion and would encourage you to do likewise and if you are attending on Sunday to speak in support and vote for it.

Quizzical Recompense

You know it is nice to know that Drumlanrig peruses this blog on a regular basis to fill his diary column in the Scotland on Sunday. I see that he took the "and finally" piece from my blog post after Nick Clegg's speech to get a few laughs this weekend. The question was asked very much tongue in cheek and taken in that way. I did in fact have a different tongue in cheek question if I had have had the opportunity to interview Nick as originally planned. I'm so glad our leaders are able to laugh at themselves and show their human side.

Tavish Scott had in fact seemed genuinely shocked that he hadn't paid a donation to LYS's quiz last year. It is a fundraiser for the youth wing but being a party leader he was merely doing the rounds of events, but he has supported the organisation at other times through the year.

This year I'm pleased to report that Tavish not only turned up again and paid, but got involved in reading out the questions and scores for one of the rounds. Even better although Nick Clegg was unable to attend he did sign the prizes pictured (acquired at no great expense from a pound shop) that were given out on the night.

Scottish Lib Dem Conference Review #sldconf

First up I apologise that blogging has been light this weekend. It has been a full couple of days between events in the conference halls, general election sessions on the fringe plus honing my speech for moving amendment one on the equal marriage debate this morning.

It was a very good weekend, the highlight of which was Nick Clegg's visit on Friday. Some of us had already met Nick before he got up to make his speech. He took to the stage just after Gordon Brown had finished giving his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry. The colliding of the two events saw more media that normal around a Scottish conference it was more in line with a Federal conference and even slightly more than a leaders speech there.

Readers will know that I been pencilled in to interview Nick afterwards, but the pressure of the press coverage and the need for him to get away that evening, meant I ended up getting Scottish leader Tavish Scott's reaction instead.

One shock on Friday was seeing local MP Michael Connarty whizzing into the hall knowing that Nick Clegg was also in the building. Local Labour and indeed Lib Dems members need not panic. The former because they may think they have to seek a new PPC, the later as they are in the final stages of candidate selection may have thought they had picked up an incumbent. In a conversation I had with him later he was merely attending a recording of Brain Taylor's Big Debate for Radio Scotland. Michael did assure me he is not going to join the number of Labour MPs who are leaving the commons though, at least not voluntarily leaving us Lib Dems to unseat him.

There were as always a number of policy motions past. Some such as 'A new fair society' and 'A fair start for all our children' were the Scotification of some of our Federal pledges that will be going forward into th General Election. Others such as 'Preventing the creation of a lost generation' and 'Farer fares' were Scottish answers to Scottish issues.

Preventing the creation of a lost generation called on a number of things that will help the young people in West Lothian and Falkirk at a time when unemployment in the young has never been higher. Part of was to increase significantly the number of college places available. Boosting skills development in sectors such as green industires, engineering and social care which will help provide sustainable growth in years to come. There is also a "90-day promise" to anyone under 24 claiming job seekers allowance to get they will have access to training, apprenticeships, work experience or speicialist suport. This is better than the 10 month guarantee that is currently available and shows the real need to get these people skilled up and ready to make that transition into work.

It is good news for both Oatridge and West Lothian Colleges as well as the many more across Scotland. It also shows the interconnectiveness of events and how the Liberal Democrats are looking toe solve many issues at the same time. Pulling our economy out of the recession, doing it in a sustainable, providing hope and a fair future for our young people by giving them skills that will be needed going forward for some time to come.

The 'Equal Marriage in Scotland' debate saw the Scottish Liberal Democrats agree to all the strands of the Equal Marriage Campaign and go beyond that. What the LYS motion, plus the amendments moved by myself and Derek Young now calls on the Scottish Government to do is:

• i Open both marriage and civil partnerships to both same-sex and mixed-sex couples.
• ii To allow approved religious and humanist celebrants to legally solemnise ans celebrate same-sex marriages and civil partnerships where they wish to do so.
• iii To allow those individual who wish to seek gender recognition or change their legally recognised gender to remain in their current marriage or civil partnership where both partners wish to do so.
• iv To establish a simple and straightforward process by which a existing civil partnership may be converted into a marriage, if the partners wish and if all other legal requirements of marriage are satisfied, without the need to dissolve the civil partnership.

I do have more detailed feedback on other aspects of conference. But as you may well imagine after a full weekend and not getting my own speaking commitment out of the way until 10am Sunday morning (AGAIN!) I am somewhat tired. Happy with the impact, prospects going forward and outcomes but absolutely knackered.

***Exclusive*** Tavish Scott Reaction to Nick Clegg's Speech #sldconf

I had been hoping to bring you an interview with Nick Clegg in a short while after he had dealt with some press commitment. But conferences being conferences not to mention the press taking more of Nick's time, something about a Fifer appearing before Chilcott, that was not to be.

Instead at very short notice I had to direct my questions to the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats Tavish Scott.

Stephen: What were your highlights of the speech Nick has just given?

Tavish: I think his utter commitment to the Scottish and UK values of fairness. The need to change our country to reflect that in the four ways he highlighted, fairer taxes, a fair start in life for our children, a fairer, green sustainable economy and a fairer politics.

Under the Lib Dems it has to be better and fairer future than what Brown and Blair before him have done. All that David Cameron offers is a different slick manager, but no real change.

Also on this day when Brown is facing Chilcott, it is good that Nick is here. To emphasise once again how our party offered a clear and absolute opposition to the illegal war on Iraq.

We now are going to have the Prime Ministerial debate's including Nick what could Alex Salmond possibly have to tell the rest of the UK? (Nick had mentioned in his speech that Salmond had "elevated independence to a one man fetish")

Well it is not just a one man man fetish, it is a one idea fetish. It is all that the SNP truly have left on the table. They have failed to deliver on so much of what they promised just 3 years ago.

They are out of ideas and out out of time, a lot like what has also happened with the Labour party. The only thing they have over Labour is that Alex is a better salesman.

Salesman? Wasn't that Cameron's phrase?

Quite. But Alex is only out to try and manage the decline in the economy. Nick in his speech has outlined ways to bring about the recovery. Admitting it is going to be tough, but bringing fresh ideas to table to turn us around.

One of those was the idea of utilising the ship yards of the Leith and the Clyde to produce off shore wind turbines. How can we take this further ever more?

It is a very positive message. It shows we're taking our commitment to a greener economy beyond the theoretical, into economic reality for job creation for people. In real ways, that make a real change and have a real impact.

Something that even the Greens fail often to do?

Indeed. But not only is it a commitment to our long term goals of sustainability, but showing ways that by achieving our aims we can also help the country out of the mess that Brown has got us into.

One of the areas that Nick commented on was a fairer education. Obviously that is a devolved issue and we have just had our own debate on "A fair start for all our children?". What does this mean for the future of Scotland?

Well again it is a positive message and one I will be touching on more in my own speech tomorrow. But again it highlights the unfairness of the mess we have got ourselves into. The other parties are not promising to protect key services making things worse. There is a danger they will even take away some of the little choice that they have now.

The Lib Dems will give them a real boost. There are hard choices in public expenditure, but the Lib Dems are committed to give a real choice for these people.

As time is running out I have one final question on a lighter note. It is rumoured in Liberal Youth Scotland circles that you didn't pay the entrance fee for you attendance at their quiz and debate night last year. Are going to be attending tonight and will you be paying double?

(laughs) I'm not aware that I didn't but I shall certainly be attending again tonight. But whether I did or I didn't I shall certainly be making a donation to this very worthwhile organisation.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you Stephen and good luck.

When Was Alan Johnston Last at a Hippy Commune

So the Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson has said that, "Liberal Democrat Conference is a Hippy Commune". So when was he last at a hippy commune?

I have to say it must be one of the most expensive hippy communes going, hotel prices are steep, maybe we should set up a yurt village in the Bullring in a few weeks. Hotel bar tabs are nowhere were as hippyesque as homemade alcoholic Dandelion and Burdock, or oak leave wines. Looking around at conference there are some mightily impressively dressed hippies around these days in the opinion of the Home Secretary. Of course there are some Lib Dem members who could still slip out of the conference centre straight into a squat and nobody would notice, but they are the minority.

Maybe the only thing that a Lib Dem conference really has in common with a commune is the collective decision making process. Unlike the staged party pieces that Labour and the Conservatives offer the Lib Dems will actually decide policy and the direction of the party at conference. So if that is what links us to a hippy commune rather than our dress sense, lack of drugs, exorbitant bar bills, or lack of yurts to sleep in.

Well if Labour can't get democracy today, the day after they failed to spot the irony over them not getting fairness, I just think that speaks volumes.

When No Doesn't Quite Mean No

Hardly surprising I see that SNP Tactical Voting is getting all Steamie about what has been reported about yesterday's end of day consultation session at the Lib Dem conference. I see the BBC, along with other media is giving only part of the story on the debate that went on earlier today.

I guess it is easy journalistic shorthand to simply write that the Lib Dems are opposed to a referendum on the subject of independence. Actually what came out of yesterday was that that the party was opposed to this particular referendum. Let's look at the specifics.

The SNP plans was to introduce the Referendum Bill to the Scottish Parliament on 25th January 2010, to provide for a on 30th November that year. For anyone not familiar with the Scottish calender this is Burn's Night and St. Andrew's Day respectively, so there was talk about using emotive dates to try and swing this a certain way, or indeed to hijack even more of Scotland for their means.

There was also the fact of the referendum themselves. Up until 2007 a referendum on independence didn't even feature as a means for the SNP to determine the will of the Scottish people. They aim to get to the goal of indepedence was to have the majority of Scottish MPs or MSPs. They have clearly failed in what has been the aim for 73 years of their existence.

Then there is the question itself:

"I agree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the UK so that Scotland become an independent state."

Now the last time I took place in a referendum there was a document setting out what we were voting on, it was called The Agreement it had been signed on Good Friday. It wasn't a call to enter negotiations into something, it had come after a lot of wrangling, disputes and negotiation to come up with something. So Salmond's Bill isn't a referendum on Independence but a referendum to whether or not to enter negotiations with Westminster. Alex Salmond isn't prepared to enter those negotiations himself, because he knows he isn't ready, isn't in a position of enough power to do so. He wants to take a gradualist approach towards independence from his position of 33% of the vote and 25% in favour of Independence.

Which leads to one thing that was discussed and did come out yesterday. The Lib Dems would back a referendum. A referendum that was clear in its intent Alex Salmond keeps changing what Independence means, do we keep the Queen or not, the army or not, the Bank of England or not, and if we do keep the Old Lady of Threadneddle Street do they set our interest rate. It also shouldn't wrapped in the Saltire, wearing a kilt and printed on a shortbread tin. Well it may as well with the programme for introduction and implementation suggested. Multiple options is a no-go area it should be a yes know.

The press had also foretold it was going to be a spilt. Whilst in a party that is used to discussing hot topics in a grown up fashion, and indeed had seen some very strong debates, very many points of order and points of information to get it through the numerous votes yesterday. What came out was a listening to each others points of views, I'm know that many of the 30+ people who got called to speak were redrafting up to the point that they got called, as many referred back to previous contributions, some even the one who had just taken their seat.

Jeff also seems to suggest in his Steamie article that the Greens have given their backing to the SNPs Bill on Independence. Poor them for being misled, actually if you look at some of the example above it looks more like the SNP is actually a party of Gradualism or maybe even leaning towards Federalism than Nationalism. So maybe the Lib Dems should be encouraging the SNP to join us nationally across the UK to achieve a Federalist Scotland in a Federalist UK. It appears that Alex is prepared to go for strong Scottish Home Rule within some of the confines of the UK. You know something us Lib Dems and the Liberals before us have wanted that for over 100 years.

One thing that the SNP have to learn about Federalism though is that powers are devolved down to the appropriate level. Therefore they have to stop grabbing powers from council level and taking them hostage, like some poor unsuspecting ship anywhere near Somalian water, and hole those powers up in Holyrood. Yes I'm talking about the powers to set their own local taxation at a rate that is appropriate, even if that is a fairer system of local taxation like LIT. Yes that means giving them some leniency in how they should spend what they are given. The SNP are actually exercising more central control than Labour ever dared to take, even in the bad old days of the late 70s.

Heading Over the River for Failed Rebellion....Apparently

According to the Times some senior members of my own party view me as being in a minority of 'referendum rebels'. They are saying in the press that to change the party stance on a Referendum for Independence is a 'betrayal of those who voted for the party in the 2007 Scottish election'. Interesting choice of words ahead of events in Dunfermline later.

Strange that on the day that we are discussing the party's constitution and making line by line changes to parts of it one phrase from the preamble sticks out that the 2007 election pledge is actually a betrayal to our constitution.

"We [the Scottish Liberal Democrats] believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from them. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs."

Of course the next line goes on to say that:

"We commit ourselves to the promotion of these aims and beliefs in the Scottish and UK Parliaments."

As Alistair Carmichael says:

"These discussions are not abstract or academic. They are a hard political choice for the party. Do we support Alex Salmond’s rigged referendum or do we keep faith with those voters to whom we gave a very clear commitment at the 2007 Scottish elections?"

Of course and this is the point I argued back in 2006. If we had taken courage in our convictions that Scotland is better with a stronger parliament but within the UK we should have made sure that was asked of the people, either before 2007 or by getting involved with the SNP working on what we agree with and forming the words of their referendum White Paper so that it was not rigged. Giving the people the right to determine their own future is what we stand for.

In my opinion, and sadly many who may vote for us, what 2007 was a betrayal of was our party's constitution and the name Democrat that exists in our title. Calling those of this view a minority of rebels may prove dangerous, it often is a sign that the leadership is actually quite scared that they are losing the argument.

In Response to Calum Cashley

Much as I love the image of Nats texting Calum Cashley with breaking news from my blog, I wonder if the last time I saw Tavish reach in his pocket to read a message it was because somebody, or my RSS fed had alerted his Blackberry, I feel his latest post needs a more thorough response than I could provide in his comments.

The crux of the matter is that the conversation that is being started under the watchful eye and listening ear of Ross Finnie is to kick off in a members only session at conference. He's highlighted the fact that I blogged during conference about how open discussion of policy takes place on the floor of our conferences and not behind closed doors and says it is hypocritical to do otherwise on this issue.

For starters this discussion is not debating a substantive policy motion it is a review of the stance that the party holds. Such a review could well have been carried out by policy committee, or any of the local parties in closed session and then brought to conference, but instead of taking a small sounding of opinion it is looking at the broad church of opinion. By doing so forthright views will no doubt be expressed, something that even if it was a policy debate wouldn't be that toned down, but within the confines of fellow party members. Yes it may prove less embarrassing to senior members of the party than certain interventions during the Bournemouth debate but that is not the reason for it being a closed session. It is a party business session at this stage, along with party governance and finances these sessions are members only sessions. Hardly any dark sorcery, although such comments from SNP sources does not really help those of us who want to back a referendum on the issue of independence get that message across to our party colleagues.

Indeed the fact that Ross is leading this reappraisal is good it is actually the fulfilment of one of his leadership election pledges to look into what the party thinking was on this issue. I genuinely do not know how this conversation within the Scottish Lib Dems will turn out. There are points that I have made in public on this blog in the past that I will re-emphasise, there are others that I have only raised in private with fellow party members, I think such a session and process is the ideal environment for others to do likewise. After all not every party member is going to be so bold as to say in a blog post or from the conference platform that the leader may be wrong, if outsiders then pick it up as a split rather than a disagreement of ideas.

We shall have to see just what comes out of the process which Tavish himself called for.

Now I wonder how long before SNP or Lib Dem's have their small boxes in their pockets vibrate and light up with a strange ringing noise after I press publish?

PS In response to Calum Cashley's comment that I will soon be voting SNP, I'd love to be able to do so in Westminster and Holyrood election under a fair STV system. I'm glad to see he is wanting the same, I'll admit it's unlikely that they will get my first preference they are far too illiberal on a number of issues and far to centrist for my liking. But it is hardly breaking news or worth holding his breathe for, indeed I have already done the deed in 2007, just didn't vote for them with my first preference. I do believe that part of my vote will have counted for a SNP councillor mind.

There Must Have Been Wastage in Tory PPC's Glass

On The Daily Politics today Andrew Neill asked Lord Tam Strathclyde the leader in the Lords if Eric Pickles had restricted Tory PPCs to one unit of alcohol a night. You can watch the exchange here on BBC iPlayer.

Now of course one unit isn't very much. Indeed it isn't even a full drink. So what could they have drunk.

A half pint 284ml of beer under 3.5% abv would have been fine. But in Manchester the Cream of the City ie Boddingtons t osatisfy most would have to be drunk from a can of 3.8% abv, but don't drink all the 330ml can. The draft is 4.1% so just over a unit, but the pub ale is 4.8%.

Those looking to take on the Lib Dems in the South West would have been denied their cider. Regular cider at 5% is about 1.4 units a half pint.

A weak wine of 8% served in a 125ml glass would be one unit but most wines are more like 12% bars and hotels sell in 175 or 250 ml glasses. so 12% in the 250 ml comes in at 2.4 units a shot oops.

As for an alcopop at 1.4 to 1.5 units per bottle again best to avoid.

As for that glass of champagne that David Cameron drank, hope he left a third of it, at 1.5 units a glass he's have been over his limit and Eric will have had to have words.

So a single of spirits it is then. A 25ml measure of spirits would be fine one unit exactly, just check you weren't being served the increasingly popular large single measure of 35 ml.

So after carefully drinking their unit and leaving their unemptied glass to one side there really must have been a lot of spare alcohol sitting around in glasses in Manchester.

Maybe after all the orange juice Tory PPC's must have been quaffing they really were as clean cut as the High School Musical kids and for a grand finale really did fill the basketball court to sing "We're All in This Together".