Scottish complacency
Jo Grimond
I make no claim to wisdom before the event. I thought that the SNP would make little more progress — but I did not expect its vote to decline, while in the central belt of Scotland I believed it still had some steam up.
It has always been a party of protest. Good luck to it for that. There is too little, not too much protest in British parliamentary politics. Most of those who voted SNP, would be horrified if they had to face the consequences of independence. But they regarded their vote as a useful way of asserting Scotland's interests and giving the other parties a kick in the pants. The strength of the SNP as a party of protest was that it could without inconsistency rally those who were fed up with the Tories in rural Scotland as well as those who were in revolt against Labour around Glasgow. It scored a right and left. It also had the inestimable advantage for a party of protest of being able to give a simple answer to all grievances — It's the fault of the English connection'.
The first question to be asked then is whether the grievances have disappeared, and if so why? Unemployment is only a little lower, the Labour-created and -controlled housing estates are no better; Strathclyde as a local authority is not much of an improvement on Glasgow. It is surprising that the Scots have apparently become so content. The only reasons I can find are, first, apathy: few people are interested in politics except as a horse race or a bran tub. The second is that perhaps Strathclyde is a little better than Glasgow — that would not be difficult. The third is that unemployment is not what it used to be. Apart from its acceptance by MPs, particularly Labour MPs, it no longer means rags and hunger — thank goodness. Many of the unemployed must either be working or drawing a satisfactory income from public funds. At any rate it is not easy to get people to do some jobs. Labour is regarded as the surest guarantor of the pork barrel. So long as its philosophy and its institutions, the nationalised industries and the state-supported Investment Boards, continue, so will a fair number of safe jobs, however little demand there may be for their products. The type of government we have experienced in the last fifteen months has proved popular.
The Scotland Bill is a thoroughly bad Bill. But 'devolution' is unconsciously accepted, best kept foggy — and my goodness the Scotland Bill does that. The Tories have fought a skilful campaign in the House of Commons, but thanks largely to two Englishmen, Pym and Brittan. Their chief spokesman in the Lords has also been an Englishman. They may regain some votes but they will not make much of a dent in the Clyde Valley, though the demands for hanging and flogging by the likes of Mr Teddy Taylor may rally their own supporters. Elsewhere they may win back some votes and seats from the SNP but they are not offering anything particularly new or inspiring.
The Liberals allowed the self government ball to be wrested from then by the Nats. They too have failed to develop policies which have a wide appeal in Scot land. The two possible leaders of the Scottish Liberal Party are too occupied else where. David Steel in London and Russell Johnston in Brussels. During the course of the Scotland Bill they have failed to make a hard fight for federalism, for proportional representation, for taxing powers to the Assembly, or for giving the Scottish people control of their public services, nationalised industries and their economy.
It is hard to prevent Scottish politics slipping back into the old rut of provincial dull ness: that their polling day in Hamilton had to be changed as it clashed with football in the Argentine throw i an appalling but reve aling light on the situation. There are two new features: oil and Mrs Thatcher. The first reinforces the feeling of complacency. The second is of unknown weight in the balance. Her walkabouts seem to have been successful, her television broadcasts less so. Here we come up against the difficulty of getting past the press. Some Scottish news. papers devoted so much attention to the Scottish Labour Party that the whole of their political judgment must be suspect. From the point of view of the Tories the danger is that Mrs Thatcher's television appearances will have been written off bY the press before they ever take place. BY contrast, David Steel is certain to put up the Liberals' rating when the election comes. I have said before that, from the angle of seat-winning, the Tories have made a mis' take in treating the SNP as an even greater enemy than the Labour Party. In the longer run it must have been to their advantage for the SNP to break the Labour hold in central Scotland. However honourable their motives, Tories and Liberals will not gain much by being associated too closly with support for the EEC or the advocacy of indirect taxation as against direct, or home ownership as against local authority housing — disastrous as the latter has been la many .places.
As I have said, I am under no illusions about the readiness of Scots to be fired with
political enthusiasm. They are not thirsting for new thought. But new thought is badly needed. There is a void. The losses would be small and the gains might be great for a party which outlined some fresh and specifically Scottish directions in which the Assembly might move. I would suggest that among these should be the abolition of one tier of local government accompanied by still further devolution down to the districts. The success of the campaigns from Shetland and Orkney in this regard is significant. Not only should more power be left at district level but the parties should produce policies for the separate development of the different districts or groups of districts. Scotland should experiment with new methods of reducing and controlling bureaucracy. It should see how far its tradition of democracy has a contributed to make to modern government. It should certainly take control of its nationalised industries. Transport, land ownership and fishing are of greater importance there than they are in England. Above all the Scottish tradition points to • much more continuous and efficient form of democracy than has so far existed in Britain. This means using the economic market to, widen choice, encouraging workers cooperatives and giving Scottish private savings a chance to find productive investment in Scotland.
Devolution is not the end, not an occasion for sinking back into old ways with sigh of relief. It should be the occasion for considering what sort of country we want and what new methods are required W achieve it.
A last word: the party which pays softie attention to the English may now reap considerable harvest of votes in England.
Previous page
