Mandy Rhodes interviews the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Nicol Stephen
It’s not every day that the Lib Dems trumpet the praises of the bumptious opinions expressed in the Telegraph but these are strange times politically and maybe you take comfort where you can. And while it is true that the true blue broadsheet may not be the normal bed fellow of the liberals, it is in its column inches that the Lib Dems have sought some succour during these stormy and uncertain times. It is here that the party leader in Scotland, Nicol Stephen, has been painted as the one politician willing to take on the might of the SNP’s Alex Salmond head-to-head. It’s a wonderful but unlikely image that has been painted; of a ‘bovver booted’ Stephen brandishing the sword of democracy and moral righteousness against the might of the nasty Nat. And while it is true that Stephen has been the one brave soldier to question the FM’s integrity over planning applications, hospital waiting lists and university funding, it is stretching it to say he has been bellicose enough to tear a strip off the beast; less of a bringing to book and more an irritating tap with a rolled-up newspaper. However, these things are all relative and in comparison with Wendy Alexander, Stephen has at least scored a few points for his team.
And scoring points is important for the Lib Dems because, as they are finding, opposition is a very different place to being in power and acting like the miffed school jock who has had his nose put out of joint by the fact that someone brighter and more popular has just joined the class might win laughs during FMQs but it won’t win elections.
But the Lib Dems did have the opportunity back in May to form a government with the SNP despite not winning an election themselves and many found Stephen’s pragmatic refusal to go into another coalition partnership, puzzling. Does he now regret not getting into bed with the SNP?
“No. We stayed true to our principles, we delivered on the commitment we made during the election campaign, which was on the issue of independence. We are a party that believes in more powers for the Scottish Parliament, we believe in decentralising power, giving more power to local communities but we don’t support independence and the challenge in terms of a coalition has always been to the SNP on that issue. I think we would have been criticised far more, certainly in the medium to long term, had we given way on that issue. Having said one thing in the campaign then changing tack would have been more damaging to the party. There would have been some people, despite that, who would have still liked us to have gone into coalition with the SNP but I do not believe in putting power before principles
I do not believe in putting power before principles 
.”
Fine words but do they ring true? Some have suggested that Stephen’s refusal to enter into coalition talks with the SNP had more to do with personal grievance and sulking than high-minded ideology. And he may have more reason than most to show an antipathy towards the SNP, not only did their May victory shove his party out of the coalition with Labour that had afforded them a minority stake in a power-sharing agreement that ran Scotland for eight years but his own 8,000 majority in the Aberdeen South constituency was slashed to just 3,000 as the SNP bandwagon rolled through town.
Did he not consider just doing a Jack McConnell and stepping down as leader?
“No, I didn’t. An election is always a watershed and there’s very often significant change. I suppose 2003 was an exception because the big shift you can see in elections didn’t happen and we carried on. We’d thought hard about what might happen in the 2007 election, we came out of that election with an increased share of the vote, but the big story of the night, as we all know, was the rise of the SNP. We knew what position we would take, we stated that clearly during the campaign, and we stuck with that during the period of discussions that followed over the weekend after the vote on the Thursday, and as a parliamentary party, we were unanimous in moving forward. I think when you have party divisions where you have a lack of agreement, that can be more difficult, but we had all of our MSPs, including our new MSPs, all in agreement about the direction we would go in.
“I think it is really important that a party has the option of opposition. People were suggesting at one point that it was somehow our constitutional duty to go into coalition with the largest party. I’ve always said it’s for the largest party to get an opportunity to form a government and there could be discussions but there is no duty for the Liberal Democrats, or any other party, to be part of that government and after eight years, I feel a period of opposition can be good for the party.”
It is such a Liberal Democrat thing to say; that the winning is not the most important thing, it’s the taking part. Like all Liberal Democrats, Nicol Stephen can be accused of a flexible approach to ideology, simply as a means of survival.
Stephen’s approach to politics is rooted in what he sees as fair and just and that can be a moveable feast. Young people are his passion and his political aims are less about life’s nuts and bolts and more about states of mind and place; ‘a better country for children to be brought up in’, ‘offering young people a future’ and ‘giving every child a chance’. Although he entered political life young, there was never any obvious point at which Stephen’s decided politics was the game for him, no road to Damascus or life-changing speech, just a gradual realisation that he was a liberal. And if that sounds a trifle dull, well, perhaps it is but it shouldn’t be confused with lack of ambition or passion. Stephen was born in Aberdeen, educated at Robert Gordon’s College and the University of Aberdeen, worked as a lawyer and then in finance before becoming Scotland’s youngest councillor in 1982. In 1991, he won a spectacular Westminster by-election in Kincardine and Deeside and lost it the following year, he went on to become MSP for Aberdeen South in 1999. In 2003 he became minister for transport, and in 2005 replaced the retiring Jim Wallace as leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. He is a big family man – who famously wouldn’t allow ministerial business to interfere with his weekends at home and even now is not keen to take calls from journalists on a Saturday and Sunday – and his stated aim in life is to make a better future for our young people.
As far as stereotypes go, Stephen fits the Lib Dem bill; handsome, in a clean sort of way, polite, in a well brought up sort of way, well meaning, in a middle-class sort of way and bright, in a non-threatening sort of way. But is it just a factitious veneer? Isn’t there just a whiff of jealousy and a hint of mean spiritedness about being pushed out of office? Certainly, he can criticise every other party with the best of them. Labour for not coming to terms with opposition, the Greens for not knowing their limitations and the Tories for thinking they might still have a chance in Scotland. In what ways does he think the Lib Dems are doing better than the other parties?
“I think you see it each week at FMQs, we’re being strong and consistently getting to Alex Salmond as First Minister, raising issues which he finds difficult to respond to. I think his reactions to questions which we put forward show that the old Alex Salmond – and I would argue the true Alex Salmond – where he often gets rattled and gets aggressive. The smooth smiling persona which we saw in the election campaign is not always there on a Thursday at 12 noon.
“That’s one aspect of it. We’re also doing well in local government by-elections, our campaigning strength is growing and across all of the by-elections, our share of the vote has risen by more than any of the other parties so it’s working on the ground.
“I think in terms of the performance of our shadow cabinet team, we’ve got a really strong team; Ross Finnie, Tavish Scott, Jeremy Purvis, Margaret Smith, all of whom in their different areas of responsibility; health, the economy, justice and education, are putting in a really strong performance. So in all those areas, I think it’s combining together to be an effective team. Certainly, the mood here on the third floor amongst the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party is very upbeat, is very positive and we’re up for the challenge.
the mood here on the third floor amongst the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party is very upbeat, is very positive and we’re up for the challenge.
“I think many of the Liberal Democrats who are in the parliamentary party have been in politics for a significant period of time. From my first involvement in politics, when I was a young councillor, 22 years old, Scotland’s youngest, until the time we went into power, it was 17 years – 17 years in opposition. We were in government for eight years and we want to be in power again but the Liberal Democrats are used to the role of opposition and we want to build credibility, build significance over the four-year term of this Parliament so we’re in a position to deliver our manifesto commitments from a position of government again in future.”
How does he feel the new minority government is working?
“In terms of the legislative programme and in terms of the weekly agenda in Parliament, there is not a great deal being delivered. There is not an ambitious legislative programme. This talk of a transformational agenda is more spin than reality. In terms of the budget, I think there are major challenges for the SNP Government. I feel there will be a story of broken promises, we’ve seen that in terms of higher education and the real terms cut in funding for our universities and colleges, we’ve seen this in terms of class sizes, where there’s not a single extra penny being spent to contribute to smaller class sizes. I think there’s going to be real problems in terms of Scotland’s public services, both in education and social care. The Liberal Democrats have consistently challenged the SNP Government on that issue. So this is part of how you challenge the Government and how you behave as opposition.”
What did he think of the Greens initial attempts to act as honest broker in the coalition discussions and their behaviour since?
“The Green Party position was extraordinary and has continued to be a very unusual position for a party with two MSPs. I think they try to exercise influence, they try to steer the direction of government to suggest they are able to steer the direction of government but in fact, when it comes to the crunch, you see that the minority SNP Government has shifted expenditure quite significantly away from public transport and into major road and bridge projects and the influence of the Green Party, round about that time of the election despite the headlines they got for some of the challenges or the letters that were issued, was never going to be great. Maybe the Green Party got a bit excited and a bit ahead of themselves in the period after the 5th of May but their significance in the day-to-day running of the new Parliament is not great.”
The Tories, on the other hand, are winning plaudits for their performance. Doesn’t he feel that the Tories have used their position in minority government better than other opposition parties?
“No. I think they seem very pleased with themselves in the Parliament but the reactions I’ve seen in Tory activists and members around Scotland is one of horror. I think that several senior members of the Conservative parliamentary party question the strategy as they are now effectively in a tactical coalition with the SNP. They clearly have been speaking on a regular basis with the SNP. The SNP achieves a parliamentary majority very often with the support of the Conservatives. The most obvious example of this was on the budget, not just on the final vote on the budget but the fact that a budget deal was stitched up months ago between the Conservatives and the SNP. The Conservatives voted for very limited scrutiny of the budget, for example. Annabel Goldie, during the campaign, said that the only protectors of the Union, the only party that would stand up to the SNP was the Conservative Party; we now see that that was not true. We now see that the Conservatives are in this amazing and unexpected alliance with the SNP. Who would have thought that Alex Salmond would rely on the Conservatives, week in, week out, for a parliamentary majority, given the comments he has made on them over the decades?”
Of course, Annabel Goldie was talking about minority government long before anyone else and isn’t she now just working this one to her party’s benefit rather than getting into bed with it?
“I think many Conservatives are uncomfortable with the view of propping up a minority Labour Government and now a minority SNP Government as a route back to new political success. I don’t think it’s going to work that way, I can’t see the strength of that political strategy.”
To be fair, people don’t vote for a party to have no influence and surely, this is about the Tories making gains. Isn’t that what minority government is about and couldn’t the Lib Dems use it in the same way?
“The Tories said they had seven red lines in relation to the budget and if they have made one and a half of those red lines, I’d be surprised. The one issue that had the highest profile was on police numbers but there was a cross-party consensus for additional funding for the police. I would argue that the reason for the SNP movement on that was not the influence of the Conservative Party, but it was the severe scrutiny they were put under by all of the other parties. It was the embarrassment of standing up and saying they were not able to deliver on their promise of 1,000 extra police and instead, they have come up with these weasel words about having ‘1000 extra police on the streets and in our communities’, which meant that we were not getting the 1000 extra police we were promised. So I think it was that constant focus on the issue that eventually made dividends.”
Ok, so what’s the Lib Dems’ USP in terms of opposition?
“As we move forward over the next few years, and what I’m going to be speaking about in the conference speech in Aviemore, is the importance of liberalism in Scotland. There needs to be an agenda and the areas we’re going to be highlighting are going to be on the environment, renewables, on civil liberties, on the whole issue of poverty and social mobility. Nick Clegg, our new leader, has made a big issue of social mobility and it is a really important issue. For me, personally, the whole issue is about young people and families, with particular emphasis on policies, which not only deliver facilities and services for young people but get young people more involved in politics and more involved in Scotland’s democracy. So those will be four areas where I think we can sharply contrast with the other parties.”
Isn’t the problem for the Lib Dems that where once they occupied the middle ground, now that space is filled by almost all the other parties, who also all have a clear social justice agenda?
“I think the Liberal Democrats want a fresh approach to the issue. I see the SNP shifting. It was certainly the case when I first met Alex Salmond 20 years ago and if I was talking about socialists and was referring to Labour, he would pull me up and say, ‘always remember there are two socialist parties in Scotland, the Labour Party and the SNP’, maybe both of those have resigned as socialist parties over the last 20 years. Under John Swinney, it was very much the voice of social democracy and then I see the SNP moving further right. I see the SNP getting supported by the Conservative Party and a whole series of policies, not just on the issues of social mobility and poverty and social justice, but in relation to, for example, the shift of investment into the motor car and roads, that’s, historically, been the Conservative approach. People like Fergus Ewing, the values that he espouses; it’s increasingly a right-wing agenda. I don’t feel it’s an instinctively liberal agenda, it’s a populist and an increasingly right-wing agenda and not one the Liberal Democrats are comfortable with.”
Why does he feel these changes have happened? Is it to do with self-preservation and maintaining a position of power?
“Power does change people and you can see the transformation that Alex Salmond has gone through in order to become the First Minister and deliver the success that happened last May. It’s going to be a fascinating four years as the SNP Government is a minority and this is the big difference from any government we’ve had in the UK, far less Scotland, in the past. So it’s going to make for fascinating and potentially, fast-moving shifts in the political environment. Within all of that, I think there will be constant opportunity and constant relevance for the Liberal Democrats. We are going to be influential in the future of the Scottish Parliament and also the future direction of Scotland. Parties develop from the opportunities they have and those they create. That is the challenge for me as the leader of the Liberal Democrats, to make the very best of our opportunities and to adjust to opposition, which I feel we have done more effectively than the Labour Party. There have been serious challenges for the Labour Party over the past few months and we’re not over those at the moment. I feel we are on solid foundations, we want to be constructive but we also have a really important role, in terms of scrutiny of this government, to be the real and effective opposition in the Scottish Parliament. From my seat on the opposition bench, being so close to Alex Salmond and the SNP Government benches, this is a really new exciting role, a challenging and important role and one which we have responded to well. This is perhaps because we have been in opposition before for a long time, it’s not exactly where we want to be but many Liberal Democrats have grown used to the role and it has become a role we are very effective in.”
Does Salmond frighten him as an opponent?
“I’ve known him for 20 years; I don’t get phased by him. I think it’s very important that somebody, and some party, takes on the role of strong opposition and I’m very pleased that the Liberal Democrats have been able to do that. He is not an instinctive liberal and his party doesn’t project or deliver on liberal values and with the broken promises we have seen from the SNP over the first nine months of their short-lived political government, there has been a real opportunity to challenge them and it’s my responsibility to do that.”
What would be his greatest fear for Scotland by 2011 if things carry on as they are?
“I don’t believe in independence. I want Scotland to have a stronger Parliament, and a more liberal society. My big ambition for the next four years is that we at the Liberal Democrats can be central to delivering both. My fear is that partly through a populist nationalist agenda here, through picking fights with the government at Westminster, we will end up in a situation where the one issue that binds the various disparate aspects of the SNP together, and that is the separation, and that may gain momentum. My hope for Scotland’s future is that it becomes a liberal society, not a separate society.”
No one has commented on this article. |
Holyrood magazine 
d.com is the premier destination for the political, public sector and business elite who come to the site for breaking stories and news coverage. Click onto political media watch for a summary and links of the best of the day’s political stories from other news providers or a review of the past weekends papers. 
