In Which I Agree with Patrick Harvie

With a headline like that I can imagine James MacKenzie writing a press release before he goes to bed this evening. Go ahead James I don't mind.

Earlier today at the Green Party conference, they passed a motion supporting the AV referendum. This Tweet from Patrick Harvey is one I and many other Lib Dems will agree with.



That is just the point we have needed to get a party that believes in proportional representation into Government at Westminster to make even this baby step toward fairer voting. It should not be the end goal as we should represent the people's views and like Patrick and the Greens I believe that needs to be in a proportional system.

The Yes to Fairer Votes campaign is now up and running at their Website. We now have less than eight months until the vote on 5 May next year. Less time that is takes for a baby to go full term, yet this campaign makes sense and the arguments coming out in support of the status quo First Past the Post show how they take for granted that the current system works for their own ends not those of the voters.

So yes we need to get this referendum and then to get a yes vote to continue to make progress in fairer votes.

Labour's 11 Week U-Turn

In the Labour party manifesto for May they had as point one under The next stage of national renewal:

Referenda, held on the same day, for moving to the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons and to a democratic and accountable Second Chamber.

It is there in black and white.

So how do they respond to just such a bill that will be introduced to move to the Alternative Vote for Westminster elections? The shadow cabinet, who bear in mind are largely the cabinet that framed said manifesto, say they will be voting against it.

Jack Straw says that the bill being introduced with a reduction in the number of members, which both Coalition partners stood on, which will require boundary changes is gerrymandering. How on earth Labour can thing equalling out the size of constituencies can be construed as gerrymandering is something I'd already dealt with. Though to summarise to resist equalising the representation for each MP is actually more like gerrymandering to any sane individual.

Mark Harper, the constitutional affairs minister sums up the reaction to Labour's ludicrous assertion by saying:

"All this bluster simply highlights the fact that Labour MPs do not believe in seats of equal size and votes counting equally across the whole of the United Kingdom."

It does look like the inclusion in the manifesto was to try and wean some Lib Dem supporters back to vote Labour and to try and prepare the way for possibly a Lib-Lab pact after the election. Labour failed on both counts when it became obvious that they cannot be trusted in either circumstance. This new turning away from their own manifesto pledge is further proof of that.

Reason Why the Fifth of May is Wrong Date for Referendum

It is just over 24 hours from when the announcement for a date of a referendum on AV for Westminster was decided to be up against next May's Scottish Election but already we can see how the SNP are going to use it. The SNP are talking about the lack of respect to the Scottish people, Fiona Hyslop going further cutting to the chase when she said:

"It's important that we see action and not just warm words on respect.

"And in terms of what this is saying in terms of how the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government and the Scottish people are being treated, I think this is an example of the British Government just not working for Scotland.

"I think this announcement shows a bit of coalition chaos, where the parties in London seem quite prepared to have a referendum on a voting system that they don't really support but not have a referendum on independence to decide the powers that the Scottish people could have."

That last part is the bit that is going to be concentrated on not respect as that will be shoved out the window by the SNP at the earliest convenient opportunity. No there will be the name calling over why one referendum is good and proper and another is not. There will be no respect for the fact that the Lib Dem MSPs were elected to Holyrood Parliament in 2007 on the promise that they wouldn't hold a referendum on independence in the next four years.

That was a stance I disagreed with on the stand alone principle of it from my stance as a democrat. It has been exasperated now by our own leader the Deputy Prime Minister making two announcements of Westminster to piggy back the next two Scottish elections. In 2015 we already have the concurrent elections of a 5-year fixed term Westminster and the 4-year fixed term Scottish Parliaments, now there are plans to ride over next years Scottish elections too.

For a party that believes in devolution we are being perceived of going a strange way about it, strangling the distinct Scottish message of all parties our own included for the elections for the next eight years of Scottish life with two UK-wide debates simultaneously.

Stealth Unmasked from Within and Without

If you go down to the 'Rood# today, you'd better go not in disguise

If you go down to the 'Rood today, you'll not get a big surprise

For every Nat* that ever there was

Is gathered there this morning because

Today's the day the SNP launch their stealth bomb.

I say stealth bomb as this is basically what Independent Nationalist MSP Margo MacDonald called the SNP's tactics with the Referendum Bill, launched today on St. Andrew's Day. Indeed from someone who has supported independence for Scotland all her political career, she was quite scathing in Saturday's Times about the whole scenario, calling it 'half-baked' and saying she would only vote for it through gritted teeth.

She went further by saying:

"I will hate the Referendum Bill because the strategy and tactics which have gone along with it have been so wrong.

"The SNP have failed to make the case for independence; they thought we would get there by stealth. What we are asking the Scottish people to do is not a stealthy thing, it is a big bold brave thing."

Of course getting on the bus this morning, there is news breaking that another Nat blogger has been exposed, this time Universality of Cheese.It is not often that the Blogosphere dominates the front page of any newspaper and then has a two page spread inside. But as the blogger in question, was apparently working for Mike Russell, the veil of anonymity to launch potentially libellous slurs is similar to the Draper-Gate scenario that hit Labour earlier this year. However, I don't think there is going to be anyway to totally control all cyber contributors to the political debate.

As Jeff was quoted as saying across the MSM:

"My personal belief is, as mentioned in my previous post, blogs and new media are overall a good thing, potentially a great thing, and if you believe what you’re writing is true, fair and can be backed up then go for it but if you’re indulging in rants and venting untapped rage behind a pseudonym, then maybe you should think about another hobby."

There is a certain grain of truth and commonsense about that. Looking across the main Lib Dem blogs not only in Scotland but also the whole UK, there are less
pseudonym's in use. There is less hiding and the words are easily traceable to an individual. There are still rants on such blogs but they do tend to be more carefully structured. The anger that is expressed from being a known entity is still there on occasion but is grounded in fact, stating your case through argument of the case rather than creating fictitious attacks. The end result of course is that people who comment also realise they have to win the argument in such a way rather than creating a rant.

The question is are the SNP attempted to rule by stealth? A strange position for a ruling party to take. Surely stealth is more a position for the losing side, Guerrilla warfare etc. Labour were losing the argument so thought that Draper and McBride's stealth in the cyber-war would work. The SNP may have kept up their cyber stealth campaign since taking office, but also seem to be doing it in Government. Margo MacDonald doesn't like the tactics employed, indeed she is echoing the sentiments of Tavish Scott about this Bill being a backdoor stealthy approach to Independence.

Is Alex Salmond really running scared? Surely Bute House isn't some cave in Tora Bora?

# Truncation of Holyrood.
*Not Cyber.

SNP Want's Scots to Waive Their Rights to Determine Their Future

The SNP released a press release last night. It quotes MSP Dr Alasdair Allan who said:

"All parties must endorse the right of the people of Scotland to have their say on Scotland’s constitutional future."

So here's a question why don't the SNP want the people of Scotland to have their say? They want to ask a question of the people which says:

"I agree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state."

Look at that carefully. They are going to let the UK Parliament have a say in what future Scotland has. They want to negotiate a settlement with the UK Parliament. They are not actually backing the people of Scotland having a say on the constitutional future of Scotland.

There is no blueprint for what that future holds, that decision is to be discussed between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. The people of Scotland are actually be asked do they agree to waive their rights over the constitutional future of their country into the hands of the politicians.

So why aren't the SNP even a party that is prepared to let the people of Scotland have their say on the constitutional future of Scotland?

I've already stated I'd welcome a referendum of substance, that is something the Lib Dems have not ruled out, but it is something the SNP are scared to give the people.

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.

The Referendum Elephant in the Room

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

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

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

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



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



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



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



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

Paving the Way for LIT-esque Climb Down?

Minster for 'Independence' has come very close to the language used over Local Income Tax when referring to the new responsibility in his brief. Compare Mike Russell's comments:

"The bill would require a majority; where that majority came from it is far too early to say."

with those of John Swinney conceding defeat on LIT earlier this month.

"We cannot put together a stable majority to enable us successfully to steer detailed local income tax legislation through this parliament."

So the Nats are unable to work from a position of minority Government. They concede defeat on their ability to do the one thing they need to make it work, getting an issue by issue majority.

But is the language being used by Russell paving the way for another failure to even contemplate achieving one of their key election pledges. But this time the one in question is more significant as it is the raison d'etre of the whole SNP's existence. But the language is close to concession and that less than a month into being given the responsibility.

Indeed Tavish Scott has this advise for the Minister based on the SNP's record:

"If the minister has no idea where he'll get parliamentary support, then using the SNP's previous rules, they should dump plans for a referendum."

Is Ming Attempting to Rough Shod Democracy?

We are the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Following May last year we took a lambasting from the Nats because the party with the largest mandate at Holyrood backed a referendum and we refused to enter talks with them about issues we may have agreed on simply, seemingly because they did.

Now it appears that Menzies Campbell is saying that no matter what the Scottish Conference of members may decide on the question of having a referendum, the 16 MSPs should no matter what not vote for a democratic referendum.

There are two issues that our conference needs to debate against the changing political landscape. The first is whether we should allow the people of Scotland to have a democratic say in the future of Scotland, the second is should we back independence. The second issue I'm pretty sure that my fellow Scottish Liberal Democrats will say a resounding, though not unanimous, no to. The first however, should really be a fundamental of our principles and despite some of the leadership being scared of facing the possibility when have we ever shirked from other tough calls in the past.

Now I'm a little worried with the way the party leadership appears to be trying to take the party over the last wee. First Nick Clegg mentioned scaling down the committee structure of the party and now his predecessor is advocating that the MSPs should ignore the democratic vote of the membership should it not go the way of the leadership.

Policy Committee doesn't always get it's own way at Scottish conference, not because it hasn't come up with policies, but because sometimes their policies have ignored some issue out there in the wider Scotland that the root and branch membership feel that the solution that has been come up with is wrong. In those situation often an amendment comes it to make the necessary correction or occasion replace the whole motion or the motion is rejected. This is not a bad thing indeed it is one of the things that drew me in and keeps me within our party. If the leadership don't agree with a certain proposal they have to muck and give firm reasons why and win the debate and hearts of the membership. If they then go and ride rough shod over democracy there is likely to me mutiny in the ranks.

Ross Finnie in the leadership elections has not ruled out the possibility of the party backing a referendum following a full debate, Mike Rumbles has promised that this debate would take place at next Spring's conference. Two very democratic and open minded views. We haven't had such a debate since the 1990s and the landscape has changed. No longer is it abstract but now somewhat more focused, it is high time the party reassessed its view on allowing a referendum on the question, even if we don't back the ultimate outcome desired by those who want to ask the question.

But in liberal democracy 16 should never be allowed to ignore the majority view of the 4,000 members who help put them and keep them in place in the seats they represent.

Hattip to Stephen Tall @ Lib Dem Voice

No Means No: Nats V Democracy

As regular readers will know I have no qualms about giving the people of Scotland a say over their future. But possibly John Mason, the SNP's candidate for Glasgow East, has let the real cat out of the bag. Could Scotland be the next Quebec?

If in 2010 Alex and his cohorts manage to hold their referendum and the computer churns out the result and says no, according to Mason that will not be the end. So no hint of abiding by the democratic will of the people, put pushing on, and on, and on in a neverendum to get the result they want; nay need. Therein lies another tale, we'd guessed this may well be the scenario but just how often, and how regularly, after that will they repose the question.

If we end up in a cycle of neverendae this is another cost that a Nationalist administration will continue to foist upon the people of Scotland. Maybe their intent is to bankrupt Scotland into submission.

However, if they cannot convince Scotland in 2010, when in all possibility there will be a Tory administration in Westminster, what hope do they have? Oh yes, we know just why Alex is waiting that long to 'bring it on'; the ghost of government's past. Although on Labour's current form that may be a bad move, as the ghost of government's recently deceased by 2010 may well be far worse than the Poll Tax memories, Tommy Sheridan excluded.

However, Mason may have scored a big own goal by saying this in such a high profile time. The fact that the national press have picked up on it can't be good. Following so slowly after the withdrawal of Alex's promise of a quake in Glasgow East are the Nats starting to unravel themselves with overconfidence.

Mason goes on to try and compare the referendum to a proposal of marriage. Sorry John but the question is one of divorce. If overtures of divorce are turned down normally both parties then try and work on the marriage as it is not ask again for a divorce. Of course he may be advocating bringing sharia law to bear on the SNP great marriage counselling session, sorry conversation.

Scottish Labour Back to Square One

It looks like the Snakes and Ladders set may well be being put away in the Wendy house of cards, or should that be house of horrors.

I'm sure Wendy Alexander thought she may well have found the ladder to lift her well up the board when she made her announcement that she would call for an earlier referendum than the Nats were prepared to. However, since then after she encountered a series of snakes Scottish Labour appear to be back at square one.

The Labour MSPs are now saying they could not guarantee supporting the SNPs bill calling for a referendum on independence in 2010. Nor are they saying they ever offered a blank cheque of support to the SNP at any point during their leader's ramble around every compass point on this issue. Therefor we are back where we were
on that Sunday morning of the 4th May before Wendy said bring it on.

There is the right to roam here in Scotland I think the MSPs may soon me asking their leader to exercise that right.

Wendy All a Dither

As an economics graduate I know the question in a room full of economists how may theories on any economic issues are in the room? The answer for those less au fait with a gathering of economist is n+1 where n is the number of economists present.

However, over the last week I've come to the conclusion that like those children's day a week underpants sets Wendy Alexander must have been given a week long policy a day set over independence.

From bring it on a personal statement, it gained the backing of the MSPs, but the PM turned his back on it saying it was a matter for the Scottish Leader, who then said she'd bring her own policy paper for a quicker referendum, to losing the backing of the party's Scottish National Exec at the weekend. We now have her not going to stand in the way of the SNPs own policy proposal on the issue.

Or dear, one Sunday Wendy Alexander finds a rocky promontory to stand on, but after a week and a day of gales, realising it was a slippery rock and that she did not really have a hold and support of those standing behind her, she's run unto the beach, only to get stuck in the sand.

Maybe she'll considering burying her sand in it for a while as the Nats will just attack her, her own party just stalk her, the Tories and Lib Dems at Holyrood mock her, and those pro-referendum pro-union supporters are still scratching their heads trying to ascertain whether she's done any good or damage to the whole issue with her whole random policy making this week, based on which set of undies she's been wearing.

Wendy About to Make Double U-Turn

On Friday I decided that's I'd had enough personally of blogging about the Wendy house of cards over the referendum for independence statement Labour's Scottish leader made last week. However, when you wake up this morning and the Scottish Edition of the Times headline is 'Mad' Wendy on Brink over new U-Turn some promises, even those made to yourself have to be broken.

They do say a week is a long time in politics and it appears that having made that U-turn statement last Sundaoy to hurry up the Nats over a referendum on independence, Wendy Alexander is being forced into doing another three point turn this weekend. Is a U-Turn of a U-Turn a Double U or W-Turn. Anyway the result is that Wendy appears to have been going around in circles this week, looking like a headless chicken rather than a leader of the second largest party in Holyrood. It may have been when the Prime Minister failed to back her up properly in the commons that Wendy's spinning, not spin doctoring, started in earnest.

Whatever is going on it is making her position as a leader almost untenible. Her predecessor Jack McConnell has brended her 'mad', and she has also garnerd criticism from former First Minister Henry McLeish who said she had been ineffective in opposition and former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. Yesterday Scottish Labour's national executive met and as a result Ms Alexander tried to pull herself out of the inreasing mire she had created for herself, then dragged her party into, by saying that her party could no longer guarantee a referendum.

Oh dear the party had sheepishly followed the leader, first assuraning they backed her on her call for a referendum, but then turned on her. It looks like Wendy's house of cards is on the brink of collapse.

It's Now or Never: The Convenience of Entymology

Yesterday PMQs was more a matter of entymology than what was happening in the Wendy house up at Holyrood. However, Dave leader of the opposition and second most powerful Tory in London asked away:

Labour’s leader in Scotland, Wendy Alexander, says that there should be a referendum now on Scottish independence. Does he agree with her?

Up stood the Tim'rous Beastie, to correctly say that she had not said now. However, now is one of those words in politics that does not have the same entomology as elsewhere in the known universe. You see now in politics takes some time to actually come to reality cogs need to be set in motion, to enable now to come to be at the appropriate time.

It was when Dave tried to follow up with:

She said: "I don’t fear the verdict of the Scottish people," she told BBC Scotland on Sunday, "Bring it on."

What else could that possibly mean? Can I ask the Prime Minister again? Does he agree with Wendy Alexander or not? It is not much of a leadership if no one is really following him.

However, then the Tim'rous Beastie ignored the facts that Ms Alxeander's aides had clarified her statement on Sunday, by telling the world that she was in favour of a referendum. On Monday that she had said she wanted it within 12 month, a relative now in the world of political planning. That on Tuesday the Labour group at Holyrood had met and agreed this new tact, with Gordon Brown's own spokesmouse saying the issue is "a matter for the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland". Having had that clearance Ms Alexander clarified her position by saying that ideally such a referendum should take place in 2009.

To what is happening to the Wendy house of cards or the Tim'rous Beastie who's facing agitated reactions from his mischief of mice. From the outside clearly they are playing this on the hoof and nobody quite knows what is going to happen next. One leader has found a potential way to get out of the trough they are in the other is still looking and he is possibly jealous that there is a get out clause for his Scottish counterpart.

Corrected: Thanks to Bernard Salmon for correcting my English usage. Apologies for any insect lovers who thought I was referring to their speciality instead of the derivation and usage of the word now.

News of Wendy's Neverendum Spreads to Englandshire

It's good to see that Wendy Alexander's comments regarding a referendum on Independence has raised some post from the non-Scottish Lib Dem blogosphere.

Nick Barlow writes with barely contained excitement about the possibility of a Super Thursday in 2010 if the referendum falls on the same day as the by election. Many of us in Scotland, especially those who advocate a referendum, fear that possibility.

It would mean a number of things. All parties would be facing the General Election on the single issue, independence. There would be no room to be distinctive on other issues, everything would be tied into whether it would be improved or worse in an Independent Scotland. It would also could lead to a similar occurance to last may, or the London Mayoral elections, where all otherparties would be slung aside as the big two fought it out.

I'd personally want us to face a question on independence separately away from the other issues and the chore that is hard enough of trying to retain and gain seats in Westminster. Also this would allow us to explore all the nuances of what independence needs without having to worry about all the issues on a local level in those keys seats.

However, he has only sketched some initial thoughts and says he expects to post more later.

Alex Wilcox is looking at the psychology behind this announcement so soon after the disastorous elections down south. He takes a differing view from myself saying not like I did on Monday that is was taking the fight to the SNP but it was actually taken the fight to the Tories on the national stage. Also in a way trying to prevent the Scottish voters falling out of love with Labour in a similar way to what happened to the Tories in recent decades.

Both make interesting reading from an outsiders point of view.

Meanwhile in Scotland fellow Lib Dem Bernard Salmon adds his thoughts on it. While he thinks that me and Iain Dale are in error to renew (like I've ever not un-newed it) our claims that the Scottish Lib Dems should do the same. I was reminded last night that I'm not alone especially within my local party on thinking that the lack or even considering or discussing of this following last May's result made us look illiberal and undemocratic. The fact that he also disagrees with the official party line shows that the party is somewhere between a rock and a hard place on this issue right now.

Ladies Take to Your Corners Please

And Prepare to Come out Fighting

Well after Wendy Alexander threw the first punch in the latest round of the Independence referendum fight at the weekend. Which she, backed by her cabinet member brother Douglas, hastily followed up with a call that the SNP were running scared by holding it in 2010. You may be forgiven for thinking that the Nats may have been reeling.

Well they sent out Alex, nope my mistake, the First Minister is not the big hitter on this one, it's Nicola Sturgeon that's been sent out to take this on. She said echoing the chant of Big Daddy in the wrestling ring that the Nats shall not be moved, not even it would appear to bring forward their primary aim to take Scotland forward to independence that bit quicker. They still want to have it in 2010, which looks most likely to be an election year. So the issue may still be buried behind other issues and not given the clear light of day that it needs and deserves to be debated fully.

Nicola accuses Wendy of being desperate. Wendy accuses Nicola of running scared. Looks like the WWE big event may bale beside the build up to this fight at Holyrood.

Wendy Comes Out Fighting

For weeks, neigh month, the leader of Labour in Scotland has looked like a punch drunk boxer, up against the ropes waiting for the next punch or hoping that her corner would through in the towel, while facing Alex Salmond in the chamber at Holyrood. However, just like in all the Rocky films you think its all over then, using all effort one final telling blow swings the whole thing around. Well Wendy may be setting up a few jabs ahead of that telling blow.

Yesterday she announced her intention to back Alex Salmond's call to give the people of Scotland a say on independence by referendum. As regular readers of this blog are aware I've long held the view that by calling a referendum and giving people a clear view of all that independence would entail, it would knock the wind out of the Nats sails, when it fails.

I personally don't think that the people of Scotland do want independence and that view appears to be backed up by opinion polls. If senior SNP backers like Tom Farmer are urging caution about haste over the matter, I think Wendy Alexander is right to bring it on. Lets give the people of Scotland what they actually want a devolved Parliament, inside the UK with greater powers to govern the people of Scotland better.

Independence Referendum - Do We Have an Approved Policy?

I have for a long time felt there was nothing wrong in holding a referendum that including looking at independence. Indeed I am very much of the persuasion that by calling just such a referendum and defeating the idea of a independent Scotland the whole thrust of the Scottish Nationalists could be blunted considerably.

Well it was pleasant reading this morning to see that my firend Iain Dale is also of that persuasion. Indeed to be totally democratic as Liberal Democrats ought to be he suggests we give four options.

1 Return to Westminster only governance.
2 The status quo
3 Increased powers for the devolved Scottish Parliament
4 Independence

He quite rightly also points out that the stance taken by our leadership in recent months has not be approved by a Scottish Liberal Democrat, party conference. He humbly says not to the best of his knowledge. I'm pretty sure if such a motion was before conference he would definitely have remembered it and indeed probably participated in it.