TORIES

A word

from Sir Alec

LUDOVIC KENNEDY

To accuse others of faults from which one suffers oneself is one of the oldest of human ploys, and politicians are as prone to it as anyone. There was a striking instance of it last week in the course of Sir Alec Douglas-Home's admirable address to the Scottish Conservative party conference at Perth on the resolution about the proposed Scottish Assembly. It was a throwaway remark, and yet in it may be found the reasons for the present decline in Conserva- tive fortunes and why, unless they act speedily, they may yet lose the coming election.

It had been an interesting morning. The City Hall at Perth is an airy. commodious place, well suited for housing a debate on such an important theme. The platform was graced with the presence of the leader, breaking with tradition, we were told: he was there, no doubt, to pick up a thing or two about Scotland and not repeat the mis- takes of yesteryear when he referred to what Scots call 'fitba' as 'soccer' and dis- missed, in tones too painfully reminiscent of Sir Anthony Eden, the then successes of the Scottish National party as 'flah pah'.

Behind him was a blown-up pen and ink drawing of himself, the very picture of dejection; and behind that, suitably, an organ.

The debate was of a very high order. True, it opened inauspiciously enough with not a working-class delegate in sight, the chairman asking for the owner of Rolls- Royce IstFc something or other to remove it, and the first speaker against the motion, a Miss Carse, declaiming in a most unhappy blend of Listen with Mother, the Queen's Christmas Day broadcast and Kelvinside.

On the whole (and Miss Harvey Anderson excepted) those against the motion were rather less articulate and cogent than those for. The Earl of Lauderdale preached a sermon on the text 'Beware!', Sir Fitzroy Maclean was surprisingly dull, Mr Michael Noble started off, 'I just want to let you know where I stand on this important matter', which was damned decent of him, while the Galbraiths pere et fils gave us liberal helpings of that entrenched con- servatism which has always been the party's greatest weakness and asset. Pere (better known as Lord Strathclyde), a man to whom long pauses between sentences mean nothing, doubted if any Scottish business- man or housewives could spare the time to attend the Assembly, a novel idea if ever I heard one: while fi/s (better known as Tam) said things I didn't know politicians actually said any more. 'Let us not embark on this slippery slope', he implored, 'for once you start tampering with the constitution, where are you going to end?'

But these were the exceptions. The young Tories were particularly lucid, the fruits perhaps of their party's Education Act of 1944. Mr Myles Hogg got a big cheer when he castigated the opposers of the motion as 'timid Tories', Mr Norman Wylie made the excellent point that while Scotland was governed by Scottish law there would in- evitably be a great deal of purely Scottish legislation, Mr Esmond Wright with a skil- ful blend of wit and fact showed the neces- sity of easing the parliamentary burden of

Scottish MPS. But it was left to Lady

Tweedsmuir, in a short, forceful and im- mensely stylish address, to sum up what the motion was about. 'There is a need for those who care how their country is run', she said, `to have a share in their country's government', and no one had to ask which country she meant. 'All change involves risks', she concluded, 'we must have the courage to lead . . . to be ahead of our time.'

And then came Sir Alec. He spoke for half an hour and most of it was solid in- formational stuff, telling us how all the wit- nesses his commission had interviewed wanted more devolution for Scotland but no interference with the Inc framework, asking critics of the motion to answer the un- answerable question, 'If you don't like this suggestion, how else are you going to devolve?', pointing out that opposition to the motion was divided between those who thought it unnecessary and those who thought it dangerous (which cancelled each other out), and asking for a massive vote of approval.

All this was fine; yet he touched only for a moment on the one aspect of the proposed Assembly that had been troub- ling many delegates—the possibility of its political majority being different to the majority at Westminster. 'What if the SNP were to dominate the Assembly?' said Sir Alec. 'My answer to that is this. SNP poli- cies remain nebulous. Bring them to the platform and they will collapse.'

Now this, with respect, seemed to me a foolish thing to say, and on more than one count. Firstly, the political colour of the Assembly may well be Labour rather than SNP. Next, if its colour differs radically from that at Westminster for any prolonged period, there will be a political crisis of the first order and let no one burke it. Thirdly, if the SNP do dominate the Assembly, i.e. have a majority of votes in it. in what way will their policies collapse? And lastly, why suggest that the SNP have no policies when it is obvious to anyone who has studied their policy statements that they have? This is the same sort of gibe that the Tories used to make about the Liberals. One may not like SNP policies, one may think them irrelevant, but that is another matter.

But one knows what Sir Alec meant. Although the SNP do have a policy, ii does not seem to many people in the street that they do, any more than it used to seem that the Liberals did. They give the im- pression of not having much of a policy. And yet is not this just the charge—of having a policy but not appearing to have it—that can be levelled against the Tories at the present time? What is their policy. for God's sake? They can't say they'll put the economy right. for Labour (at long last) is doing that already. One doesn't know. They make vague noises about curb- ing the unions and restoring law and order —both suggesting a good deal of throwing of weight about—but without being in the least convincing as to how these things are to be achieved. SET is to go and personal taxes will be reduced, but again they have been quite unconvincing over how such a loss of income is to be made up.

One trouble with the Conservative posi- tion now is that the middle ground of poli- tics which was traditionally theirs has been pre-empted by Mr Wilson, the Baldwin of our times. Another is that unless they are going to adopt Powellite policies (and everyone knows they're not) they must con- serve not only their own traditional values but much Labour legislation as well. They have been left, suddenly, with almost no room to manoeuvre.

So in Scotland these last few weeks the opinion polls have shown the paradox of people turning, not to the party that has promised them self-government in greater or lesser degree, but to the one that has held out no promises of any self-govern- ment at all. It says much for Tory prin- ciple and nerve that with this knowledge fully in mind the delegates to Perth should have given Sir Alec's resolution such a favourable reception. But to Mr Heath, sitting pensively beneath the shadow of himself and the organ, this was perhaps small comfort. What his party need des- perately at this moment is not a new image, but an image of any kind. Their policies, to plagiarise Sir Alec, 'remain nebulous. Bring them to the platform and they are still not clear'.

Perhaps they can still be made clear. But there isn't, now, much time.