NO says the Leader of the Opposition
ON THE DEVOLUTION DEBATE
An unhappy and divided British Parliament could not agree on whether Scotland needed the Assembly now proposed for her.
That is why, by means of the Referendum on Thursday, Parliament has passed the question on for the people of Scotland to have their say.
The Conservative Party as we well know, considers that the right answer is “No.”
We hold that it places the unity of the United Kingdom in danger as never before.
I believe the question of whether or not there should be a Scottish Assembly should not be a matter for party politics.
It so clearly divides Scottish opinion irrespective of party, it must now be decided without partisan interference, and without outsiders stumping the country telling people how to vote.
A constitutional change on which there can be no going back; a change which may wreck the United Kingdom and will certainly alter Scotland's position within it—such a matter has to be above “party” .
That is why I ask that the Scottish people make full use of this chance to express their views on their future.
They must vote freely, sinking their political differences, without ulterior motives and without care for party advantage either way.
Speaking, then, not just as a party leader but as a native of Britain I should wish to say this to Scotland.
Please let us stick together. We need each other now as much as we ever did.
The United Kingdom as a whole is, and always will be, greater than the sum of its parts. Divided we are diminished, both individually and collectively.
We have been through a bad patch as a country, and we are still not out of it.
I refer not only to our economic difficulties. Look outwards. Look at the Far East, to the Middle-East today, to anywhere where Britain once held sway. And reflect that the world of 1979 is as dangerous and uncertain a place as ever in which to walk alone.
Now we have been assured by those who brought this Act before Parliament and manoeuvred it through the House of Commons that it offers a stable and durable settlement.
But it would not be stable and it could not endure.
Two questions at least—and there are many more—are still to be solved before effective devolution could be furthered.
One is the question of revenue-raising—a subject that would engage the Assembly in perpetual quarrels with the central government about money.
The other concerns Scottish Members of Parliament and the strange position they would find themselves in. Able to vote on many English domestic matters but not able to vote on those same matters which affected their constituents in Scotland.
Can anyone seriously believe that situation could be tolerated for long.
How in fairness could any future Government depend for its majority on such Scottish MP's?
Surely there would be demands for changes in their numbers and in their status.
This Act, if accepted, would be a time-bomb under the unity of the United Kingdom. Fundamental changes should not come about that way. We must make them by negotiation and agreement.
There was no general agreement on this Act to be found in Parliament.
Whether or not the Scotland Act would lead to separation—to an independent Scotland—is a hotly-argued question.
Some of its supporters openly intend to split up the United Kingdom.
Other people say the slide would not stop short of a federal system—a system, I might add, in which 95 per cent. of the British people have so far shown no interest at all.
If we adopt these proposals for an Assembly which cannot be stable or durable, we would be creating conflict later.
I believe the common interests of the British people would rapidly disintegrate to the dismay of most and to the disadvantage of all.
It would lead back, I believe, to all the quarrels and injustices that the Union, nearly three-centuries ago, put behind us.
To vote, “Yes” in the Referendum would not, I am persuaded, advance the cause of Scotland in any material or moral way.
It would give to people in Scotland no real powers beyond those already available to their MPs at Westminster, their local councillors in Scotland, or their Ministers in the Scottish Office.
It would lead to frustration in the north and—I fear—to resentment in the south as the real and well-justified constitutional and economic advantages now enjoyed by Scotland were subjected to scrutiny.
It would do nothing for the real problems of Scotland which, like inflation, unemployment and social problems, are common to the whole of Britain. And it shows little enough promise of making an impact even on the devolved matters like health and housing whose problems, too, are echoed in the south.
If the Assembly does not come about, it may be asked, what then?
Well—what are the questions to which it is said to be the answer? Do people want more government? No.
They want to be pushed around less—and 150 more politicians and 750 more civil servants won't help that.
Do people want to be closer to government? No. They want less of it and better. Another tier of governmental interference in Edinburgh would just provide another opportunity for shuffling off responsibility.
My own party has tried on its own to find a workable system of devolution. We do not believe it can be found by one party alone, and constitutional matters of great moment should not be approached that way.
If the system on offer now were to be adopted it would make any real improvement of that present well-tried system impossible.
That is why we believe it right to vote “No.”
The House of Commons examined this Act, clause by clause, and discussed as much of it as was possible in the time allowed.
It is lamentably defective. It is damaging to our future strength.
In the Referendum you are being asked to sign a blank cheque. If the account once approved, had the consequences that the enemies of our union intend and that every thinking politician fears, then no Westminster government of any complexion could afterwards be relied upon to put the United Kingdom together again.
A “No” vote on Thursday will ensure that we spend the 1980s together as well.