Political Commentary

The uncaring English

Ferdinand Mount

The significance of the government's unexpected defeat on Clause One of the Scotland Bill must not be underestimated. The long-term repercussions of what prima facie might appear to be no more than a parliamentary setback may be expected to exercise a substantial and permanent influence on.. .

What does it mean?

I'm coming to that. Don't be so impatient. The Clause of course is purely preliminary and declaratory and has no legal effect. Moreover, restitution may be made at the Report stage of the Bill or, if government business managers so decide, the Bill may simply proceed into law in its truncated form.

Yes, but what does it mean?

Urn, well, it's sort of complicated, really. You see, what the Clause says is that this Act does 'not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or part of it.' So it's a kind of dummy for the English to suck while the Scots caper about passing laws to nationalise the sporran industry and make Gaelic compulsory for the under-fives. The Tories are against the whole Bill and they are against this bit of the Bill, because they believe that the assertion that unity remains unaffected is a false assertion. Far from reassuring the English that nothing substantial has really happened to the constitution of the United Kingdom, the Clause merely makes explicit the underlying conflict of sovereignties which the Bill implies. As Enoch Powell puts it (yes, I know he isn't, strictly speaking, a Conservative, but it's quite all right to quote him on devolution; they all do), to say on the one hand that a whole series of the affairs of Scotland may not be raised or debated in the House and are not within the responsibility of the Government that is answerable to the House, and then to make a further assertion that the House can make laws for Scotland, is to court the most disastrous collision possible. All clear so far then? Clause One, Bad Thing for unionists. Tories are unionists. Therefore, Tories vote against Clause One. Plain sailing, really.

What do the Tories want to happen in Scotland?

Now you're trying to annoy me. The Tory plans for Scotland arc much too complicated and grown-up for me to explain to you. Suffice it to say that they are a Good Thing for Scotland, England and the United Kingdom as a whole and would lead to an all-round improvement in the quality of government.

Oh well, that's all right then.

I'm glad you're being sensible. Mr Fran cis Pym, the Tory spokesman on devolution, always gets upset when people question him too closely about his policy for Scotland and, as he is such a nice man, one doesn't want to upset him. You wouldn't know Mr Pym these days, that is, if you knew him before. When he was a junior whip, he was the quietest, most assiduous, most cautious whip you ever saw, hardly spoke above a whisper, never opened his hunched and frozen shoulders. But now he bellows at his opposite number, Mr Michael Foot, he wags his finger, he roars with laughter, swivels his shoulders for dramatic effect. He must be the only Englishman in history who has actually been woken up by the subject of devolution. Anyway, he was certainly delighted by the wizard jape played on the government on Tuesday.

The Scotnats were delighted too because, according to Mr Gordon Wilson, their deputy leader, they can now claim that the Tories have voted against the unity of the United Kingdom, Mr Wilson (if I've got the right one, they all huddle so close together on their bench, as though preparing for a rude assault by the sassenach hordes — the only one you can be sure of is Mrs Margo Bain who is much the prettiest) is the SNP member who looks like the school cricket XI scorer — gangling, pastyfaced, probably off games because of verrucas.

This unassuming exterior belies a rhetorical unscrupulousness and a disregard for the niceties of argument remarkable even among nationalist politicians. However, he does have the merit like many of his party of speaking plainly. They do not conceal their intention to use the Assembly as a launching-pad for independence. Hence they wish to clear away in advance any rubbish about the unity of the UK not being affected. They want the Assembly. So they want the Bill. They don't want the Union. So they don't want the Clause. Quite simple really, if you follow me closely. You know that political analysis is pretty straightforward once you get going.

What about the Liberals?

Ah, the Liberals. I'm glad you asked me about the Liberals, The Liberals are in favour of the Bill and believe that it will not affect the unity of the United Kingdom and so they vote against the Clause. Hey, hang on, there's something wrong there. Let's try it again. The Liberals are in favour of the Bill and believe it won't affect the unity and so. .no, I still can't make it out. They ought to be voting for the Clause. Better see what they say. Oh, so that's it. The Liberals say that the Clause is 'unnecessary verbiage' and 'was inserted into the Bill against our advice'. You can't go disregarding the advice of the Liberals and sticking unnecessary verbiage into Bills, not these days you can't. Liberals are not the sort of girls you can take for granted, you know.

You can really see the Lib-Lab Pact in action here, because the government thinks it's all just words too. Mr Foot says can't understand what Mr Pym is getting so excited about'. What's a little thing like the unity of the United Kingdom between friends? When you're dealing with unnecessary verbiage, it doesn't matter a jot which way you vote. Why, Mr Arthur Lathanl (Labour, Paddington) and Mr Tom Litterick (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak) voted both ways at once. Didn't know you could do that, did you? It's a way of registering a protest apparently, although they were not, it seems, actually protesting about the Scotland Bill but about being told which way to vote on the European AssernblY Elections Bill two days later. They needed a dummy run to get their hand in. Voting in both lobbies on the same motion is not the kind of thing you can be sure of managing first go.

Where will it all end then?

That is a very interesting question. At least, I find it quite interesting; most MPs don't seem to. On the other hand, the Bill may chug on safely to harbour. On the other hand, it may not. The passing of the timetable motion seemed to assure it an easY passage, but with the Liberals in your crew crossing the Serpentine becomes a major undertaking. They seem to regard rocking the boat as the normal means of propulsion. On the one hand, then, if the Scottish Assembly does come into being, it maY check the advance of the nationalists; on the other, it may accelerate the advance. The only safe prediction is that whatever is done at Westminster will be done for reasons of party advantage and not in order to improve the government of Scotland. The prolonged Commons debate about Scotland has in itself turned out to be a powerful argument for the separatists in that it has vividlY demonstrated the mixture of indifference and cynicism with which the English con' tinue to regard the Scottish question. Even the vaunted English backlash is only 3 limp-wristed, back-flip. Deep down — or op the surface come to that — the English don t really care much what happens. Thank you very much. Next week couM we try some other subject, do you think' something with a bit more zing in it, like proportional representation or the rate equalisation grant. It's not that I'm not grate" Jill for your explanation, it's just that sortiehow , . . zzzzzzz.