Londonisation and Scotland
When the representatives of the Scottish Covenant Associa- tion gave evidence before the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs, they were asked by the chairman to submit further written evidence giving instances of administrative and legis- lative delay in the management of Scottish business. This they have done, to the extent of thirty-five tightly-packed foolscap pages—for which expansiveness, "or even verbosity," they politely crave indulgence from the members of the Commission. In their preface they are on the defensive, and " feel bound to emphasise once more that our evidence will have little relevance for those who assume that the status quo must be accepted." But in fact it has a great deal of relevance. Irritation about " Londonisation " is far from being peculiar to the Association, or to Scotland. It is endemic in England, where its object is called " centralisation," and much of the evidence now given could readily be extended to Yorkshire or Lancashire. For that matter it could come with equal propriety and force from Scotsmen who are opposed to the Association's solution of a Scottish Parliament dealing with domestic affairs. Adminis- trative absurdities are plentiful, especially in the case of the nationalised industries. One of the most striking examples brought up by the Covenant. Association is that of the late master of the Princess Victoria who operated from Stranraer but was directly responsible to an official in Pinner, Middlesex, and who accordingly found himself obliged to take risks which would not have been incurred had control been closer at hand. Legislative delay and confusion are long-standing grievances. Naturally enough there is little time at Westminster for purely Scottish business. Scottish circumstances tend to be over- looked in framing legislation for the United Kingdom as a whole : the tourist industry in Scotland, for example, was badly damaged by a Catering Wages Act framed on the basis of English conditions. There is, in fact, much that is reasonable in the Association's case; but its authors are short-sighted in their failure to see to what extent they stand upon common ground with their fellow citizens in the English provinces.
Previous page
