Political Commentary

Leading from behind

John Grigg

The Conservatives have a miserable record on devolution. Ever since the last war it Should have been obvious that this was a cause which they should make their own, on grounds both of justice and of enlightened self-interest. They should have realised that Celtic national feeling was a force that could be mobilised against socialist overcentralisation and standardisation, and that the timely establishment of elected bodies in Scotland and Wales, roughly on the Stormont model, would make for better government in those parts of the United Kingdom, while at the same time justifying a substantial reduction in the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster.

Perhaps I shall be forgiven for mentioning—just to prove that what I am saying is not hindsight—that more than twenty-five Years ago I raised this matter at a Conservative Party conference (the only time I have ever spoken at one). But my remarks were treated as the mouthings of a harmless romantic trying to resist, even to reverse, the whole trend of the modern world towards greater concentrations of power and larger unities of peoples. At that time Scottish Unionists were adamantly opposed to any measure of devolution in Scotland, and the leadership of the party was then as ready to be guided by them as it is now responsive to the anti-devolutionist clamour of most English Tory MPs.

The tidal wave which has recently struck the Scottish Unionists and reduced them to a beleaguered remnant would never have Occurred if they had shown more intelligence and vision. But at least a majority of them now know what has hit them and understand that it represents a genuine, overwhelming popular demand for Scottish home rule which, if not met, will destroy the union itself. Unfortunately there are still Many leading Tory politicians and Tory organs of opinion—including, alas, the Spectator—which have not got the message.

One of those who have got it, belatedly, is Mr Heath, but one has to lament the fact that his government not only failed to grasp the devolutionary thistle but reformed local government north and south of the border in a way that makes sensible devolution far More difficult. Mrs Thatcher, as a member of his cabinet, shares responsibility for that failure, as she also shares responsibility for the party's commitment, in 1974, to a measure of devolution.

This summer, at the Scottish Unionist Conference, she reaffirmed the commitment, though in terms which were both too specific and, from the Scottish point of view, pitifully inadequate. It was an occasion when She ought to have made a vague, je vous ai compris sort of speech, which would have left her free to go to any length in meeting the

Scottish demand for home rule, subject only to maintaining the union. She would thus have moved into a position not explicitly, but potentially, more favourable than that of the Labour government to Scottish national aspirations, and surely that must be the right, as well as the expedient, position for any Tory leader now to occupy.

Quite apart from the objective merits of the case, it is possible, to say the least, that after the next election neither of the big parties will be able to form a government without the support of the SNP, and it would be folly on the grand scale to allow Labour to remain in office with SNP support. Even if the Conservatives return with a clear overall majority, it will still be necessary to do business with the SNP if, as many expect, it wins a majority of seats in Scotland.

The Tory Party has virtually nothing to lose, and much to gain, from a 'generous' policy towards Scotland and Wales, but it has everything to lose if it allows Labour to pre-empt the home rule position. To have come so near to achieving this is a miracle of ineptitude, and the decision to impose a three-line whip on second reading of the Devolution Bill has brought it a good deal nearer.

The worst consequence of that decision is that Edward Taylor has replaced Alick Buchanan-Smith as shadow Scottish secretary. Mr Taylor is outstandingly qualified to be a back-bench MP. He is lively, clever, courageous and—on the most important national issues—nearly always wrong. A case in point is his fanatical anti-devolutionism, which places him much further than Mr Buchanan-Smith from the supposed official policy of the party, though in the opposite direction. With him as Scottish 'shadow' it will be very hard to convince Scottish opinion that the Tory commitment to devolution still holds good in any form at all, and Mrs Thatcher did not, in fact, repeat it in her second reading speech.

Nevertheless some parts of the speech were interestingly ambivalent, and it may not be too late for her to escape from the straitjacket in which her previous errors have confined her. One passage in particular deserves careful study: ... The prime minister has chosen a form of legislation under which the Scottish assem

bly always be subject to supervision. He has chosen a Scottish executive which is subordinate to the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has chosen representation without taxation. The devolved power is

given with one hand and largely taken away with the other.

Those words could be read as an attack on the Bill for not going far enough, and the reference to 'representation without taxation' might suggest that her mind is not entirely closed to giving a Scottish assembly some power to raise taxes.

It is, indeed, vital that such power should be given, because without it a Scottish assembly will be permanently free to exploit grievances without incurring any unpopularity. When Scottish voters complain about their schools or hospitals, the local politi cians will be able to say: 'We are dying to improve them, but the UK government gives us too little money and we have no power to raise any ourselves.' If they had the power they would either have to use it and so incur odium as tax-gatherers, or be held responsible for the inadequacy of local services.

Mrs Thatcher also referred in passing to the gross injustice of Northern Ireland's under-representation at Westminster. Since the Government is proposing, for obvious reasons, to retain the existing number of United Kingdom MPs from Scotland and Wales, even when those countries have their own assemblies, it is simply outrageous that nothing is being done to give Ulster representation at Westminster on the normal UK basis, though its local parliament has been prorogued.

Labour's Devolution Bill isevery bit as bad as Mrs Thatcher says it is, and it should be given the roughest possible treatment in committee. But the Conservative Party must correct the disastrous impression that it is hostile to the principle of Scottish home rule. In Wales, of course, political nationalism is far less strong, and the matter should be handled rather differently there. All the same, Tories should unequivocally assert the home rule principle for both countries.

Much of the prejudice against it derives from a mistaken belief that the republic of Ireland would still be part of the United Kingdom if Gladstone had not done a dirty deal with Parnell. But the flaw in the Gladstonian policy was not that it assumed Irish home rule to be compatible with, indeed a necessary condition of, preserving the union, but that it assumed Ireland to be one nation, whereas in fact it is two. Moreover, in spite of all the turmoil over Ireland before 1914, Sinn Fein might never have come to power in what is now the republic if the 1916 rebels had not been executed.

It is quite wrong to imagine that Scottish home rule will lead inevitably to separation. Denial of it is far more likely to produce that result. In any case the separation or no separation issue can be disposed of in a referendum, as Lord Home suggests. It is a near-certainty that the Scots would record a heavy vote for remaining in the union, just as the Ulstermen did in the so-called 'border poll.' But if Scotland should happen to vote for independence, why should England stand in its way?