Devolution debate

Preparing for battle

Keith Raffan

The new session of Parliament opening next week will be dominated by the devolution debate. The battlelines are already drawn up, not so Much between the parties as within the parties. For the devolution question has caused deep division among both Conservative and LaboUr supporters, especially in Scotland.

The political stance of the Scottish National Party is, of course, quite simple and straightforward. It is united in its desire to see an Assembly established, worthy of the name of a Parliament, with a Scottish Prime Minister and a Scottish Cabinet, and with control over levying — and spending — taxation, over the production of — and revenue from — Scottish oil, and over Scottish industry, energy, social security and the environment. In other words, the Nationalists adhere to what is now known in the devolution debate as the "maximalist" position in its most extreme form. If Scotland is not given what the Scottish Nationalists want, they will make it their job to see that every future economic setback, however minor, is blamed on the Assembly's lack of powers. They do not believe, as the two major parties do, that an Assembly will act as a dam against the flood of nationalism but rather that it will increase the Scots' desire for independence and so bring separation nearer.

The situation within the two main parties is much less simple. The Scottish Conservative Party, in particular, is in danger of disappearing out of sight in the quicksands of the devolution debate. At the end of the Scottish Tory Party Conference in 1968, Mr Heath, in his now famous Declaration of Perth, announced the formation of a Scottish Constitutional Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Alec Douglas-Home. It reported early in 1970 and recommended the establishment of a directly-elected Scottish Assembly, which would have the right to question the Scottish Ministers, discuss government proposals at an early stage, comment on Scottish Estimates, debate matters of concern to Scotland and take the second reading and committee stages of all Scottish Bills. The Tories went into the 1970 election saying that these proposals would form the basis of the Bill they would place before Parliament, "taking account of the forthcoming reorganisation of local government". In fact during the years 1970 to 1974, the SNP appeared to be on the decline so the Tories ignored the whole question. But they did implement the two-tier reform of Scottish local government without in any way taking account of the future establishment of an Assembly. After the loss of four of their safest seats in February 1974, they renewed their commitment to an Assembly but only of a non-elected kind — this being the highest acceptable common denominator without openly splitting the party. This did not succeed in stemming the nationalist tide, however, and after the loss of four more seats in October '1974, the Scottish Tories went back to square one and renewed their commitment to a directlyelected Assembly.

After such a display of political acrobatics, it is not surprising that the Scottish electorate — and a good many of the party's own workers —

are in a state of confusion, not to say dizziness, as to exactly where the Party does stand on devolution and are becoming pretty cynical about whether it would actually set up an Assembly if returned to power. Indeed, this cynicism is only increased by the fact that no decision has yet been taken on the crucial question of what powers the Assembly should have. This is still under study by the Party's Devolution Committee under Mr Whitelaw. Meanwhile, to make the existing confusion even greater, the sizeable minority within the party opposed to any kind of Assembly, even with minimum powers, has become more vociferous in recent months. Led by lain Sproat, the independent-minded MP for South Aberdeen, and by his former constituency chairman, Councillor Sandy Mutch, Chairman of the Grampian Regional Coluncil (the only Tory-controlled Regional Council in Scotland), they are arguing, not without considerable impact, that to add another layer of government to the existing district councils, regional councils, Westminster and European Parliament would be absurd — and an appalling waste of taxpayers' money. Another tier of government would mean another tier of bureaucracy, so giving Scotland five tiers of government with five bureaucracies and making it "the most overtaxed and over-governed country in the world", Only one of the Scottish Party's leaders, Teddy Taylor, MP for Glasgow Cathcart and a Scottish frontbench spokesman, has shown any sympathy for this viewpoint saying that the Party must rethink its devolution policy if an Assembly means "adding to the burden of bureaucracy, taxation and over-government". But others take the opposite line. Russell Fairgrieve, MP for West Aberdeenshire, now chairman of the party in Scotland, and Alex Fletcher, MP for Edinburgh North, feel that it is the Regional Councils that must go and that the commitment to an Assembly could not be abandoned yet again without the party losing all credibility. There is little doubt that this is the majority view among the party establishment. Alick Buchanan-Smith, MP for North Angus and Mearns and Shadow Secre'tary of State for Scotland, and Malcolm Rifkind, MP for Edinburgh Pentlands and also a Scottish frontbench spokesman, speak for the majority when they say they want to see an Assembly set up swiftly but with minimum economic powers. Yet the fact remains that theirs is far from a unanimously held view and they lead a deeply divided party.

The situation in the Scottish Labour Party is hardly less confused. In 1969, Mr Wilson as Prime Minister set up the Royal Commission on the Constitution to examine the relations between central, regional and local government. The majority report, published in 1973, recommended a directly-elected Assembly for Scotland. A Scottish Labour Party spokesman said that, at first glance, this was "totally unacceptable". Two days before the report's publication, one of the party's own study groups had come out against an Assembly and in favour of a larger role for the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. The Scottish Labour Party Executive's hostility to any kind

of Assembly eventually forced Transport House last year to have a special conference convened in Glasgow to overrule them. Now the vexed question under debate is what powers the Assembly is to have and there is a possibility of a further clash and yet another special conference if the Government and Executive do not agree. The Executive is dominated by the "minimalists", those who want the very minimum of powers, and certainly no economic or industrial powers' devolved to the Assembly. They are in an even stronger position on the Executive than last year, when they voted six to five against an Assembly. For this March the Scottish Labour Party conference resolved by a narrow majority that major economic authority and responsibility should remain with Westminster and that the new Scottish Development Agency should be responsible to the Secretary of State and not to the Assembly. So the Party's official position is that it wants to see a limited Assembly, financed by a block-grant syster1. and without economic or tax-raising powers of its own. This policy is fully supported by Willie Ross, MP for Kilmarnock and Secretary nf State for Scotland, who has long been anti-devolution but has reluctantly come to accept it as a necessary though minor cosmetic operation. But reports and rumours continue that the Government's Devolution Unit, headed hY Edwart Short, is considering giving the Assembly much wider economic powers' Councillor Tom Fulton, Chairman of the Scottish Labour Party's Executive, has alreadY led a delegation to tell Mr Short that they are "categorically" opposed to granting the Assembly powers over trade, industry or the Scottish Development Agency. They are determined to stop the Government "putting teeth into the gums of the infant Scottish Assembly".

As in the Scottish Conservative Party, there are some who would not even go as far as the Executive's "minimalists" while there are others who would go much further, almost as far as the Scottish Nationalists. Tam Daiyell, MP for West Lothian, Vice-Chairman of ale Parliamentary Labour Party and Chairman of Labour's Scottish Parliamentary Group, is totally opposed to devolution. He believes that, once an Assembly was set up in Scotland, nib independence would be inevitable and the country would go careering down the slipperY slope to separation. He accepts the nationalist argument that any ill, real or imagined, would, be ascribed to the fact that the Assembly din not have sufficient power so that Westminster would have continually to concede it more authority until the break-up of the United Kingdom came about. He also feels, like lain Sproat, that the Scottish people are not yet fully aware of the enormous cost of setting LIP an Assembly and a parallel bureaucracy. Ttle, enormous pay awards made to the new local government officers, together with other examples of the extravagance of the new „ regional councils, have given a foretaste 0' what an Assembly would cost. He believes that "the way to tackle nationalism is to face it head on and confront us Scots with the stark choice — are you part of Britain or aren't you?" On the other extreme, Jim Sillars, MP Or South Ayrshire, (together with his colleagues, John Robertson, MP for Paisley, and Davi' Lambie, MP for Central Ayrshire) sees Labour's devolutionary stance as far too cautious. Fie, believes that "because of Scotland's peripheral position the devolution bill should give to our, Assembly as many economic and industrial powers as possible. It should stretch the maximalist view to the limit." He even goes so far as to say that Scotland should have full membership of the EEC as a nation state while David Lambie has said several times that a separate Scotland would give Scots a better deal.

In between Siliars' "maximalist" view and the "minimalist" view of the Scottish Labour Party Executive and Conference, lies the view

of John Mackintosh, MP for Berwick and East Lothian, and the party's leading thinker on the Whole question of devolution. A former Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University and author of such standard works as The British Cabinet and The Devolution of Power, he believes that there is a close similarity between the Scottish situation now and that in Ireland in the nineteenth century when the Irish desire for self-government was continuously underestimated, too little always being conceded too late with Ireland eventually moving outside the United Kingdom. He believes that the present position of delay and neglect regarding Scottish legislation is totally unsatisfactory, with Scottish divorce law still unreformed despite the English reform of 1969, with the licensing laws still unreformed despite the Clayson Committee Report of 1973, and With all the work of the Scottish Law

Commission still unenacted. If the Government backtracks on devolution or produces a

half-hearted — in other words, "minimalist" — measure, he sees the the break-up of the United Kingdom. But on the other hand if the

Government vests the Assembly with considerable economic and industrial powers (Powers to raise taxes and to aid and locate industry) then he sees the Assembly, like regional parliament in federations all over the

World, asking Westminster to give more grants in aid and to resume responsibility for very costly services, such as higher education. The Scottish TUC takes a verysimilar view. The devolution argument is already raging and the parliamentary debate is about to begin,

But it is already clear that the Government faces an acute dilemma. If the Labour oppon ents of a powerful Scottish Assembly join up with the Tory opponents, there must be

considerable doubt that a "maximalist" bill would get through the House of Commons. At the same time there is little doubt that a

"Minimalist" bill would merely fan the flames of nationalism.

The Government is already encountering enormous problems. It may yet discover, as Tam Dalyell has said, that "the reality is there May not be a halfway house. It's all or nothing."