Independence - how would you vote?

[10 CC ICT]

I wasn't at Conference. Tavish is a moron.

I doubt the motion was unanimous. I've never seen a "unanimous" motion at a Lib Dem Conference in my life.

Not relevent though. The motion was passed at conference and the LibDems are made to look foolish again. How can you associate youself with them? To what purpose?

[Jacksgranda]

I wasn't at Conference. Tavish is a moron. I doubt the motion was unanimous. I've never seen a "unanimous" motion at a Lib Dem Conference in my life.

Not even when you have a poo?

[xbl]

I wasn't at Conference. Tavish is a moron. I doubt the motion was unanimous. I've never seen a "unanimous" motion at a Lib Dem Conference in my life.

Still passed though, didn't it? You would have thought that people would have opposed it if they didn't agree with it. Maybe thats why they banned the Yes Scotland campaign, but allowed Better Together? How can you still be a member of the Orkney and Shetland National Party?

[Ad Lib]

My politics isn't defined by statements of constitutional identity.

[xbl]

My politics isn't defined by statements of constitutional identity.

But isn't that the only thing the Lib Dems stand for in Scotland? Defend the Union and Stop Alex Salmond at all costs? Oh, and Freedom for Shetland.

[Ad Lib]

Not only am I not just interested in what they stand for "in Scotland" but also, no, that's not "all they stand for" in Scotland, no. Read their 2010 and 2011 manifestos and get back to me.

[Mr Rational]

I've just read a lib blog, Andrew somebody and while he raises an interesting point about centralisation of services, he basically blasts Tavish's argument out of the water.

I'm sure Ad-lib had read it and agrees with it.

As for Tavish, well every party had an idiot, it's unfortunate for Ad-lib it's him. Rennie when being sensible and actually asking probing questions is 100 times better, but he's a leader without a party just now. This will continue as long as 'Shetland for Indy' and other equally batshit crazy stuff gets pumped out.

And ad-lib is correct, there will never be a motion passed at their conference with an absolute majority. I reckon herding cats would be easier.

[xbl]

Not only am I not just interested in what they stand for "in Scotland" but also, no, that's not "all they stand for" in Scotland, no. Read their 2010 and 2011 manifestos and get back to me.

You're right, I suppose the pro-immigration, anti-nuclear, anti-tuition fees, federalist Lib Dems stand for other things too.

[xbl]

I've just read a lib blog, Andrew somebody and while he raises an interesting point about centralisation of services, he basically blasts Tavish's argument out of the water.

I'm sure Ad-lib had read it and agrees with it.

As for Tavish, well every party had an idiot, it's unfortunate for Ad-lib it's him. Rennie when being sensible and actually asking probing questions is 100 times better, but he's a leader without a party just now. This will continue as long as 'Shetland for Indy' and other equally batshit crazy stuff gets pumped out.

And ad-lib is correct, there will never be a motion passed at their conference with an absolute majority. I reckon herding cats would be easier.

So why did it get reported as unanimous, and why did it pass at all?

[vikingTON]

Not only am I not just interested in what they stand for "in Scotland" but also, no, that's not "all they stand for" in Scotland, no. Read their 2010 and 2011 manifestos and get back to me.

Why should we read a manifesto you ditched when you had the slightest sniff of political power, and rendered obsolete by your scrambling for relevance in the period until now?

[Swampy]

And, as usual, not a single, solitary word of disagreement from the CDUists on the forum

[Ad Lib]

xbl: we are against a like for like replacement of Trident. The Coalition, which doesn't just consist of us, isn't. We are in favour of high levels of immigration. The Coalition, which doesn't just consist of us, isn't. Technically the party is anti-fees because Conference has never reversed that policy position. The Coalition, which doesn't just consist of us, isn't.

Here's just some of the things we believe in that we're in our manifesto that we have implemented in government with 1/13 of Parliament's MPs: tax cuts for the low and middle earners, increased corporation tax for high rat income tax payers, weakened the impact of control-orders on liberty, ended 28 days without charge, blocked Tory efforts to scrap the Human Rights Act, introduced the pupil premium, meaning more of the schools budget goes to schools with disadvantaged pupils, widened and extended eligibility for nursery support, increased taxes linked to property acquisition, set up a Green Investment bank, removed the power of the PM to call an election whenever it's politically convenient for him, scrapped Labour's more expansive DNA database, scrapped the ID cards programme, restored the pensions and earnings link, legislated to extend the availability of flexible working, replaced the bankers bonus tax with the bank levy that actually raised some money like they said they would, protected the IDA budget in the face of Tory splendid isolationists.

Anyone who says we haven't pursued our policies in government is a liar.

[vikingTON]

Are the Lib Dems now in favour of Home Rule for Shetland? A simple 'Yes' or 'No' answer will suffice: based on yesterday's conference rather than your busted flush manifesto.

[Swampy]

xbl: we are against a like for like replacement of Trident. The Coalition, which doesn't just consist of us, isn't. We are in favour of high levels of immigration. The Coalition, which doesn't just consist of us, isn't. Technically the party is anti-fees because Conference has never reversed that policy position. The Coalition, which doesn't just consist of us, isn't. Here's just some of the things we believe in that we're in our manifesto that we have implemented in government with 1/13 of Parliament's MPs: tax cuts for the low and middle earners, increased corporation tax for high rat income tax payers, weakened the impact of control-orders on liberty, ended 28 days without charge, blocked Tory efforts to scrap the Human Rights Act, introduced the pupil premium, meaning more of the schools budget goes to schools with disadvantaged pupils, widened and extended eligibility for nursery support, increased taxes linked to property acquisition, set up a Green Investment bank, removed the power of the PM to call an election whenever it's politically convenient for him, scrapped Labour's more expansive DNA database, scrapped the ID cards programme, restored the pensions and earnings link, legislated to extend the availability of flexible working, replaced the bankers bonus tax with the bank levy that actually raised some money like they said they would, protected the IDA budget in the face of Tory splendid isolationists. Anyone who says we haven't pursued our policies in government is a liar.

Can you explain what these Tory efforts to scrap the Human Rights Act were, and how they were stopped by the Liberal Democrats?

Loved the "technically anti-fees" part, too. What's it like having to hold two contradictory views simultaneously? Doesn't it hurt?

[Ad Lib]

They are in favour of the right to self determination for Shetland either with respect to Scotland or to the UK if it asks for it. That proposition isn't particularly controversial. It's the wider context in which that exists and their position on how Scotland should exercise its right to self-determine that's their problem. The problem with the motion at Lib Dem conference isn't that the substance is illegitimate, but that it's a nakedly political statement to try to shift the chat about Scotland's future and to undermine the SNP's participation in that.

[vikingTON]

Which, to be clear, is the policy of your party on this issue. Indeed, it comes from the same batch of embittered dysfunctional nonsense as the 'Rennie's Riddles' mini-game. This is mainstream Lib Dem policy, as chosen by your leadership and backed by your 15 grassroots activists.

[Ad Lib]

Swampy: the Tories had a pledge to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights in their manifesto. Theresa May has tried to use the civil liberties reform to weaken the effect of the HRA such that the position would essentially have been that pre 2000 (with reference to s3 in particular). The Lib Dems vetoed it at cabinet level, insisting that the provisions of the Bill of Rights must only be supplementary to, and not impliedly repealing, any part of the HRA.

As for tuition fees, this isn't complicated. Lib Dem conference determines Lib Dem policy. Lib Dem policy is a statement of broad intent, not a binding set of promises that our representatives are bound to stick rigidly to the letter of under all circumstances. That policy is ALWAYS subject to the specific provisions of our constitution which make clear that in Coalitions concessions can be made to reflect the fact we lack the political power to overrule it.

On a personal level, I think it's better to break a promise to do something that's more in-keeping with the basic values of your party. The new funding system in England provides significantly better up-front support to disadvantaged students and lowers the repayment burden in relative and absolute terms for the lowest earning graduates. Free tuition is a fraud in a system where people are assuming student loan debt under the same system for maintenance anyway. Clearly some disagree with that, but on the policy the stats vindicate the Browne Review and the Lib Dems that backed, with improvements, it's central recommendations. Net funding of Universities is up, the proportion of applicants and entrants to Universities from the lowest two family income deciles is up, application rates relative to the school-leaving population is up and so forth. If people are still angry about that, fine, but they're putting politics ahead of good policy in doing so.

[Mr Rational]

Are the Lib Dems now in favour of Home Rule for Shetland? A simple 'Yes' or 'No' answer will suffice: based on yesterday's conference rather than your busted flush manifesto.

They are in favour of the right to self determination for Shetland either with respect to Scotland or to the UK if it asks for it. That proposition isn't particularly controversial. It's the wider context in which that exists and their position on how Scotland should exercise its right to self-determine that's their problem. The problem with the motion at Lib Dem conference isn't that the substance is illegitimate, but that it's a nakedly political statement to try to shift the chat about Scotland's future and to undermine the SNP's participation in that.

That's a hoor of a yes/no.

[Ad Lib]

They are neither in favour of nor against Shetland becoming largely autonomous within a larger state but assert their right to do that. It's not exactly a complicated position. The only respect in which that position is different from their position regarding Scottish self-determination is that they have a specific respect in which they want Scotland to self-determine (i.e. the Home Rule report). That they failed to help the SNP put that to a referendum is something I've openly criticised them for before, but in absolute policy terms, this motion is not controversial.

The northern isles do contain a historically distinct people, who already enjoy certain autonomy with some distinctive laws (e.g. Udal law for property) and local governance, who have somewhat stronger Scandinavian roots than other parts of Scotland, and who enjoy a quite distinctive culture and way of life. It's no less valid to say they are a people. With the right to self-determine than the Scottish people, the Welsh, the Irish, the Mancs, the English, the Western Islanders, the people of Cornwall and the Channel Islanders and Falkland Islanders. There's no obvious advantage to most of these island communities becoming, essentially, European micro states, but internal self-governance is something that should be taken seriously if and when these people ask for it. It's not illegitimate to use this constitutional juncture to ask the question "how are we governed" alongside "who should govern us".

The problem with the Lib Dem strategy is that this motion is, outwardly, a political act looking for isolated attacks on the economic arguments for Scottish independence rather than stimulating more thoughtful discussion about the first of those 2 questions. It's about the oil arguments. This should and could have been about so much more: about autonomy for the different island groups of Scotland in terms of resource control, economic development and so forth. It could have been about changing the debate to ask what powers we could transfer from BOTH Westminster and Holyrood back to local authorities. It was a wasted opportunity for a marginally more interesting, but ultimately more inconsequential set of headlines.

[wirez]

This discussion seem to sit perfectly for a football forum. It seems a lot of people pick their political allegiances much like their fitba teams and then stick by them through thick and thin no matter.

Fair play to that fella (ad lib?) who is sticking by his Lib Dem party. This despite them being absolute shite and showing no signs of improvement, but hey thats blind loyalty for you

When it comes to politics I am more of a 'glory hunter' type. So I will look at the policies, I look at the facts, I look at what is best for me, my family and their future.

After careful consideration of all these, and when it comes to the referendum I will be voting YES