 | 'Devolution is the name of the game, but confusion and chaos is the way it is being played by surely the most inept bunch of politicians to have pulled the jerseys over their heads at St Andrew's House.' Alan Cochrane, in The Scotsman, 9 th July 1997. |  |
Anyone who imagined that the election of a Labour Government would put home rule for Scotland safely beyond doubt was deluding themselves. An English reaction was inevitable. An English reaction to a scheme whose promoters had failed to think through the consequences of their proposals was, indeed, entirely understandable. If there is trouble ahead, that is because Labour, adhering blindly to a flawed scheme, has brought it on itself.That said, it should be made perfectly clear to English ministers - and to the Prime Minister himself - that Scotland will not be short-changed. Politicians worried that they will lose a little of their power have yet to grasp the concept of home rule. Worse, they have failed to understand that Scottish control of Scottish affairs is not Westminster's gift but Scotland's right. Only those prepared to risk an upsurge in the demand for independence should think about diluting the powers of an Edinburgh parliament, modest as those are likely to be.
It is ironic, nevertheless, that the English ministers who have been accused of hostility towards central elements of the home rule scheme are pursuing distinctly Tory arguments. Claims that public spending in Scotland should be cut or that the number of our Westminster MPs should be reduced (an answer - the wrong one - to the West Lothian question) were once the province of Conservatives.
Jack Straw, Frank Dobson, and Jack Cunningham mentioned none of this during the general election campaign. If they were to succeed now Scots would conclude, rightly, that they were deceived.
Yet abortion, the ostensible reason for the Cabinet split, is an irrelevance. Attempts by supporters of Donald Dewar, the Scottish Secretary, to pretend that he has "lost the battle" to give the Edinburgh parliament control of this aspect of health policy are, equally, a poor sort of gambit. If Mr Dewar has real fears that some of his senior colleagues are seeking to undermine the home rule scheme he should say so. Promoting the fantasy that Scottish women might one day flood southwards in search of terminations is no way to win this argument.
It is a real argument, nevertheless. From Tony Blair downwards there are influential Cabinet figures who dislike the smell and the sound of devolution, whatever they say in public. In part, this is because they have recognised the obvious: the scheme is indeed flawed. Equally, however, some ministers dislike the very idea of home rule for Scotland. Quite simply, they see it as preferential treatment for the Scots and potentially disruptive of the United Kingdom's constitution.
Hence, it seems, their attempts to "tone down" a draft white paper alleged to be a touch nationalist in tone.
If that is their attitude, so be it. Let us be clear, nevertheless, about the possible consequences of their antics. Scotland has been here before. In 1979, home rule was obstructed by Labour politicians who rewrote the political rules in order to achieve the result they desired. During that campaign we were lied to, threatened and, at the last, cheated. Yet does anyone in the Government really think they can repeat that shameful exercise?
Times have changed, thankfully. The Nationalist threat remains to keep Labour honest but the voters, too, are different now. The self-doubt of 1979 is less in evidence; the understanding of the issues is greater. More importantly, the case for home rule has largely been accepted. The very point of the exercise is to take power from English ministers and return it to Scotland. The pity is that a flawed scheme has given some of those ministers the chance to make mischief.
Return to home page