To infinity and beyond
Nick Clegg's been upsetting people this week. Now, you might reasonably retort that there was nothing unusual about that, especially in a week when newspaper headlines suggested that the Lib Dems were down to a single voter. But the unusual thing on this occasion is that he's upset people by telling the truth.
Much of the Scottish political village was up in arms about comments the Deputy Prime Minister made in an interview with the Scotsman, which the paper chose to present as Clegg calling supporters of Scottish independence "extremists". The story set various camps off into various types of huff. Liberal Democrats, for example, were angry both at the comments and at the Scotsman – which they accused of "misreporting" Clegg on the grounds that he hadn't actually used the word "extremists" – while some nationalists were predictably outraged at the perceived slur.
But these complaints are wrong on every level. Firstly and most obviously, Clegg DID use the word "extremists" – you can see it in paragraph 8 of the Scotsman piece, where the paper quotes him thusly:
"All the evidence suggests that [greater devolution] is the mainstream of opinion and the extremists are those who either think that we need to yank Scotland out of the United Kingdom tomorrow, or those who say there should be no further change at all."
This statement is, in itself, entirely accurate. When it comes to the constitution, independence and the status quo are the extremes of opinion (discounting the real lunatic fringe who want Holyrood closed down altogether). But even where more sober commentators recognised this fact, they misleadingly left out the last part of Clegg's quote, giving the false impression – just as the Scotsman had done – that he'd only applied it the nationalist camp, when in fact he'd explicitly labelled the supporters of the status quo in the same way.
And, indeed, himself. Because while the Deputy PM was clearly attempting to isolate Labour and the Tories and carve out the popular middle ground for his own party as it embarks on yet another consultation on "Home Rule" (despite the Calman Commission, whose findings the Lib Dems backed, having barely closed its doors), the fact of the matter is that whenever the referendum arrives, the Lib Dems will by default be campaigning for the status quo too, making them just as extremist as everyone else. And despite all the faux-shock, that's something that everyone already knew long before Clegg opened his mouth.
There is absolutely no chance that the latest Lib Dem talking shop will produce a devo-plus proposal to be included in the referendum. Even if they wanted to they'd never get such a thing approved by their UK coalition partners (and unlike independence, any altered devolution settlement requires the consent of the Westminster parliament), and they don't want to anyway – the Scottish Lib Dems have been absolutely unequivocal, along with the other opposition parties, in demanding a one-question Yes or No referendum. And the likelihood of the Lib Dems being in power on either side of the border by then, and therefore in a position to negotiate or grant any further devolution at a later date anyway, is pretty much zero.
So when it comes down to it in 2015 or 2016, by Nick Clegg's definition everyone will be an extremist. Only the two extreme positions will be on offer, and the voters will have to pick one or the other. This blog, for one, commends Nick Clegg on stating that simple and obvious fact, and isn't quite sure why anyone else would be offended by it.
Fit’s yer problem wi…
so by your reconing the right to self determination is an extremist position??? i wonder how the rest of the civilised independant nations feel about that
It’s at one extreme of the debate, yes. If you hadn’t noticed, this blog enthusiastically supports independence. But that doesn’t mean taking offence at what are perfectly accurate descriptions of both the pro-independence and pro-status quo positions. Clegg was certainly trying to create a misleading impression, but what he actually said was unarguably technically correct.
The problem with the use of the words, "extreme", and, "extremist", by Nick Clegg is that although in the context of the constitutional debate they can both simply mean a postion at one end of the spectrum or somebody who supports that position their meaning changes in common usage where, "extreme", usually means a position far from what is necessary or normal and an, "extremist", is someone whose views are fanatical and even tinged with violence.
Again just as with Ken MacIntosh, Michael Moore and now Nick Clegg the unionists don't like being called unionists. They're devolutionists. Which is like claiming that you are not in any way a bird as you are a duck. In any case I thought the Lib-Dems were federalists which though still a very unionist viewpoint protects the powers of regional parliaments within a constitution.
Again Nick Clegg is assuming that devolution which is just a variant local government scheme in unionism is somehow in a position which is between the union and independence which it is patently not.
Has Nick as the leader of a party which is committed to the integrity of the UK but with federal regional parliaments ever worked out that there is no midpoint between Scotland being part of the UK and Scotland being independent.
The claim that the Lib-Dems are planning more powers for Scotland is just a jam-tomorrow strategy. In the light of the fact that all three unionist parties support and wrote the Scotland Bill which simply fiddles with the current Scotland Act and in the light of the fact that no party has come up with even a draft question for the empty Devo-Max option in the independence referendum ballot paper it is probably fairly safe to say that Devo-max, the maximum amount of power Lodon is willing to devolve to Scotland is already here.
For those who support Devo-max, enjoy it because it is already here.
"Which is like claiming that you are not in any way a bird as you are a duck"
That Python logic sums up the con/dem/lab ever changing positions in regards to Scotland.