Home > Uncategorized > When Did The Scottish Liberal Democrats Become Authoritarian?

When Did The Scottish Liberal Democrats Become Authoritarian?

I have been shocked and surprised by the actions taken by the Scottish Liberal Democrat Leader, Willie Rennie in recent days.

It all started when the Herald published an article, accurately reporting that Scottish Conference Committee and Scottish Lib Dem HQ (SLDHQ) refused to let Yes Scotland have a stall on the same commercial terms as everybody else.

The Liberal Democrats are generally praised by the media for being comfortable and relaxed enough to allow members to genuinely debate and pass policy motions including when we go against the wishes of the party leadership. If you look at our recent Federal Conference, Jo Shaw helped defeat the leadership on the issue of secret courts. If we look back to before the election, the leadership was defeated not once but twice on the issue of dropping one of our key policies i.e. our policy on scrapping tuition fees. All Nick & Vince could convince conference to vote for was a phasing out of tuition fees over six years.

What makes our party so great is that we can speak out, it is not only allowed but also encouraged for members to have their own opinions and to express them. Unlike the Labour & Conservative parties, we are not drones, who believe what they are told to believe by their party HQ.

It is because of that liberal democratic tradition in our party that I believed it went against liberal values of allowing people to make their own decisions and encouraging debate to refuse Yes Scotland a stall at conference.

Now like Willie Rennie, I am prepared to be “awkward” (Willie’s word) when it comes to standing up for liberal principles. If the issue really was one of capacity at the Vine Venue, which I don’t believe because I was there at last years Autumn Conference and the addition of a single, solitary stall should not have posed a problem.

So when Andrew Page approached me with a letter to the Herald that spoke out for liberal democratic principles, I was happy to put my name alongside the others. Andrew, himself was approached by someone who had voted for Andrew and the LibDems previously. This LibDem voter was himself exasperated that the party could do such a thing & it was the LibDem voter who drafted the original letter, which Andrew significantly shortened before approaching myself, Graeme Cowie, Allan Heron, Norman Fraser, Gerry McGregor & Alex Dingwall.

What truly shocks me, is the way Willie Rennie has since handled the issue. Instead of shrugging it off, telling us he’s heard our concerns and that as liberals it is a healthy part of being in a liberal democracy for members to air their grievances in public as well as in private. Willie Rennie has sought to assert his authority and control over us mere members. Rennie acted in a way ill-befitting a liberal leader.

Willie Rennie, today wrote a letter (see bottom for the full letter) to all those who signed the letter to the Herald, in part explaining the decision of the leadership and conference committee to refuse the application but also and more importantly to admonish those who expressed a different view from that of the leadership.

Willie once criticised Alex Salmond for running a tight ship and not allowing MSPs & members of his party to speak out, yet here is Willie now trying to exert the same kind of control over his party as Alex Salmond does.

Since when does a member of a liberal party have to run things through central office.

Not one person who signed the letter did so to undermine or disrespect Willie Rennie or the party. We signed the letter to stick up for liberal principles in the open.  Not one person in our chat about it, when Andrew asked if we should run with the letter thought of going to through the bureaucracy that is conference committee.

While Willie and others within the party think we should have gone through Conference Committee or HQ before sending the letter and aired our grievance in private, I disagree. Going about it internally would have achieved nothing as there would still have been a negative story about the party in the press saying how undemocratic we are. If people like me, don’t ever speak out when our party is in the wrong, nobody will listen to us when the party is doing the right thing.

I understand why HQ refused the application on political grounds. After all we as a party in October want the media to report about the Home Rule Commission report which should be out within the next fortnight.

That being said, I don’t see why we couldn’t have accommodated them at Spring Conference, we could have perhaps have offered them a fringe event that included a wide range of views on Scotland & the UKs constitutional future on the panel.

The problem I have is that it is far easier to defend decisions when all it takes to defend the decision is citing our values.

I can’t defend a decision such as refusing Yes Scotland a very small platform to be part of our internal democratic process at conference by citing our values.

Our values state we are a pluralistic, tolerant party.

The Scottish party when it comes to Scottish independence and the SNP are anything but. When it comes to this issue, the Scottish party are intolerant, petty and behave like children. I expect that from Labour & the Tories but not the Liberal Democrats.

Not one of us who signed the letter are rebels. We did not do it to undermine Willie or the party. The letter will only undermine Willie if he lets it. We come from different sides of the independence debate. We didn’t sign it because we thought Willie inaccessible.

Every single one of us signed it to stick up for liberal, open, pluralistic, democratic principles.

The Admonishment Letter in Full

Dear Nicola,

I am not sure what is gained from members communications with me through the Herald newspaper on our conference fringe line-up. You know that I have made myself accessible to all members in my time as leader to discuss any issue.

If you had shown me the courtesy of contacting me I would have explained our decision to you. It wasn’t easy and was finely balanced.

On the one hand, it could have shown that our party is relaxed with our policy position, open to it being tested at the heart of our conference and confident in the stated position of the vast majority of our members who support Scotland staying as part of the UK. We could also have banked the fee we could charge for the space.

On the other, it could have detracted from our messages for the conference. Even without some kind of stunt on the day their presence would have been a focus for the media. As we don’t get too many opportunities to promote our own message the last point is important.

It is the clear wish of members that we promote our vision of a federal UK. That is what I want our focus to be on as we unveil the Home Rule Commission Report.

In the end we decided not to offer Yes Scotland a space as we believed promoting our party’s views must come before commercial opportunity.

Whatever our response to their approach, it would have been made into a story by Yes Scotland. A rejection has been portrayed as not democratic. An acceptance would be used to indicate growing support for independence in the party. I’d rather not have anything to do with people who treat us like that.

It is a matter of deep regret for me that you have chosen to show me such disrespect in sharing your views with the media without speaking to me first.

Yours Sincerely

Willie Rennie MSP

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. October 4, 2012 at 20:18

    I don’t get the same sense of admonishment that you do. And I certainly don’t get the authoritarian bit. How is he trying to control you? How is he exerting his authority over you? What is he stopping you from doing? All he’s sayng is that he wishes you’d spoken to him first and got his side of the story before going to the press and that, as far as I am concerned, not unreasonable. He’s not even saying don’t write to the press – it’s just a get both sides of the story before you do.

    And from what I’ve seen on Facebook, most people tend to agree with me. Just as a matter of interest, I understand he’s had one single email about this from another member of the party and that person had a response from him within hours.

    Can you imagine any other leader bothering to interact with members as much as Willie does? Do you think Ruth Davidson or Johann Lamont or Alex Salmond answer emails from members of their parties, often late at night? The reason Willie does is that he’s genuinely interested in what people have to say to him.

    What’s done is done now. Willie’s said what he feels and that’ll be the end of it. He’s not the sort to hold grudges.

    In the future, though, please at least try to get both sides of the story before writing to the press. Nothing will happen to you if you don’t. But it’s only fair that you should.

    • October 4, 2012 at 20:27

      Quite frankly, we all knew his side of the story and we all guessed right.

      I know Norman emailed him at 16:55 and he didn’t get a response to the next morning. Graeme emailed him and got a reply within an hour. I emailed him yesterday afternoon, haven’t got a reply back but I’m guessing he’d already sent the letter.

      Gerry emailed him today and cc’d in John Thurso, Gerry’s MP, still no reply from either.

      Yes, it was an admonishment, it was sent as a “slap on the hand”, Gerry’s words not mine, to make sure we don’t step out of line again

  2. October 4, 2012 at 21:17

    Caron, we got both sides of the story. There was a clear public statement from the Lib Dems in the article which was not challenged through any of our media channels. It’s not for us to find out off Willie further stuff (which by the way, just confirmed what we thought all along) before making a public call for him to reverse the decision. He clearly wasn’t going to do it following a private chat, and the actual reasons he gave simply make the decision look even worse.

  3. October 4, 2012 at 22:14

    I really don’t know what the point was in sending the letter. There had been exchanges of e-mails with some of those involved with the letter (and which had been shared amongst all involved) and the explanation covered precisely the points made in the letter. For much of it the wording was exactly the same.

    So the only additional items that were covered in the letter was the whole nonsense about being disrespectful to him. I’d challenge anyone to find out anything disrespectful in the tone of the letter. It’s our point of view publicly stated – it differs from the decision made by the party. But why send a letter which repeats the points made in an e-mail bookended by language which seemed to just stop short of making us an offer we couldn’t refuse.

    That Willie felt the need to waste his time to get the letters typed and signed, and spent the money on stamps to send them really starts to raise serious questions about his judgement. If he didn’t have a long list of things that would have been better use of his time then he’s missing the point of the job. It’s now the act of sending the letter that has kept this issue alive – indeed, it’s inflamed it. Can’t imagine that was Willie’s intention at all but it’s where he finds himself now. This was a time to shrug his shoulders and move on to other things. It’s more than worrying that this wasn’t what happened.

    I’m now off to the bedroom to ensure that there isn’t a horse’s head there.

  1. October 6, 2012 at 22:01
  2. October 8, 2012 at 08:05

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: