SIR,-1 have followed with interest, but growing bewilderment, the many
contributions to the current discussion, upon the subject of Scottish Nationalism which have appeared of late in the Spectator. My bewilderment springs from the indifference shown towards one aspect of the problem, which aspect I regard as being of the greatest importance.
Why, if Scottish Nationalism is so powerful and popular a force, as we are told repeatedly is the case, is there not, at this moment, a solid phalanx of 71 Scottish Nationalist MPs at Westminster ? Such a group, united by their common faith and hacked by Scottish public opinion, could surely find opportunity to bring Scottish grievances before both the Government and the Opposition. Moreover, In the present state of the parties such a group could emulate the Irish Nationalist group before 1914, and bring chaos and confusion to the conduct of parliamentary affairs.
Mr. Muirhead, in your issue, of August 20, does indeed point out that many 'Scottish MPs have voted consistently for Home Rule Hills, but gives no further data as to their pro-Scottish Home Rule activities. If such
vote is the sum total and product of 71 MPs' ardour on a supposedly popular issue, t prompts, following Sir Compton Macken- zie's example, thoughts of mountains and mice.
Is the answer to the riddle that the tradi- tional parties are too strong in Scotland for the return by the'electorate of such a group'? Or is the truth of the matter that the canny • Scot, while being an ardent Nationalist in all else, prefers to keep his vote, and the power It gives, for the Conservative or Labour Party MP, whom experience should by now have shown as being, in their Parties, willing to do anything for Scotland—except grant Home Rule ?
Sir, I seek enlightenment; until then I must remain a perplexed Englishman.—Yours faithfully,
DAVID BOND I Francis Street, Stoneygate, Leicester
Previous page
