Scottish rebels
From Mr Piers Wauchope Sir: As one who fought a Scottish seat (and came third) on the Unionist ticket in the 1997 general election, I very much hope that Allan Massie (`Scottish Tories get real', 12 August) is justified in his optimism for the future of the Union. But it really is not good enough for him to accept the gov- ernment's line that devolution was designed to 'preserve and even strengthen the Unit- ed Kingdom'.
The Labour party was attracted to the idea of devolution because it presented an opportunity to establish itself permanently in government north of the border (and, indeed, in Wales), whatever the outcome of the Westminster elections.
Things are quiet at the moment because the Labour party is so dominant in both the Scottish and the Westminster parliaments. The only real test of the effect of devolution on the Union will be when a Conservative government is left with a Labour/Lib Dem Scottish executive, thwarted in ever-increas- ing (and perhaps mischievous) demands for expenditure north of the border.
It will be a return to the old days: every- thing will be the fault of a Tory government established by English MPs sitting in West- minster. But, unlike the old days, there will be a Scottish parliament and executive not only bound by electoral commitments to stand up to the government, but also able to claim a democratic mandate in Scotland to strain the Union in ways not seen since the 18th century. This is the situation so eagerly awaited by the Scottish National party.
Piers Wauchope
London NW3
Previous page
