ANOTHER VOICE

A devolved Scotland will throw up preposterous and sinister people. And they'll be English

MATTHEW PARRIS

Pausing recently at a small but by . a mountain path in Bolivia, we ordered drinks. Offered a guest book to sign, I saw that under 'nationality' walkers from all over Britain had at first entered 'British'. But then a group had written 'Scottish' against their names. The next traveller may have thought 'British' would now look fee- ble, so he had written 'English'. After that, many had done likewise. I hesitated, then sadly wrote 'English'.

After similar hesitation and with the same sadness, this is what the Conservative Party may have to do.

Not yet, of course. The Tories will fight the next election as Unionists. Omitting discussion of Northern Ireland and Wales (the first being a different issue, the second a subsidiary one), we can say that so far as Scotland is concerned most Tories probably are Unionists, though the commitment of some MPs and many English supporters may be more shallow than it appears. The Party will oppose Scottish devolution, how- ever, for reasons not of principle alone but also of political advantage. The stance may win the Party votes: not because devolution is unpopular with the majority in Scotland — it is popular — but because the minority who do harbour doubts have only the Tories to vote for. A clear stand for the Union could bolster the small vote the Tories can expect there. In England, a unionist stance is unlikely to hurt the Party: as people begin to think about Mr Blair's proposals, doubts will grow.

So Conservatives will fight vigorously and with reason for the Union, from now until the general election. Unfortunately, they may then lose the election.

And what then? The struggle will not stop there. In Opposition, the Party would begin a ferocious fight against a Labour government's plans for a Scottish parlia- ment. These plans are crackpot for reasons we need hardly labour, foremost amongst which is the howling inequity of involving Scottish MPs in the government of England while removing English MPs from the gov- ernment of Scotland.

England has not awoken to the lunacy of this, but will. It is Scotland — already over- represented — which will give Mr Blair the margin he needs to govern England. If he thinks Scottish MPs can vote to close Kent grammar schools or London hospitals, while reserving to Scotland the oversight of Scottish affairs, he is mad. You only need a pencil and the back of a small envelope to work out that there is no answer to the West Lothian Question, short of turning Britain into a federation of equal parlia- ments. Of such mighty power is the objec- tion that there must be a chance that even with a Commons majority Blair's plans for Scotland may be defeated. In this fight, too, Conservatives will be right.

But they may lose. Mr Blair has promised a Scottish parliament if he wins. He is likely to win. Have we really engaged yet with the thought that a devolved Scotland, with tax- raising powers of her own, may be here within five years? It is at least as likely as a single European currency. What will Tories do if it happens?

`Nothing,' some will say. 'We remain a Unionist Party.'

But could they? All but a fraction of the Conservative vote will have come from England. Scotland will have a working gov- ernment of its own. The Scottish flag will fly everywhere and no doubt the Scots will prove capable of managing their own affairs. What mileage would there be for Conservatives in Scotland to try to under- mine these demonstrations of nationhood, once they are in place? It could prove an historic blunder for the centre-Right in Scotland, and a gift to the Left, if the anti- socialist party there were to shackle its future to what would look like an English- based party's ambitions to re-annex Scot- land. This is precisely the mistake the Right, with its disdain for Basque and Cata- lan nationhood, has made in Spain.

If we do get devolution for Scotland, it will soon look eccentric for Scots Tories to stamp their feet at internal democracy. They will need to work within it. The argu- ment will move on.

And that leaves English Conservatives. In many hearts, I think, will be a mixture of sadness and irritation. The sadness will be at the dismemberment of the Union, a grief at parting. For a while this sense of loss will predominate: a generous spirit, but we should not overestimate it. Many of the English are Unionists as they are Chris- tians: at ceremonial occasions and for polite conversation.

Soon something less generous will grow: irritation at the kneecapping of England by a Labour government at Westminster. With no parliament of our own, we shall be threat- ened either with continuing government by a parliament where 'Socialist Celts' tip the bal- ance, or else with something craftier: the risi- ble sop of English 'regional' assemblies, a sort of divide-and-rule policy. The irritation will become venomous. It will tap into the well of anti-Celtic prejudice that lies quite strongly beneath the surface in England. Every spending decision which can be repre- sented as adverse to England will be blamed on our lack of a parliament of our own. If you want a preview of how this weed takes root, look at how it has taken root in Scot- land; look at how it is taking root in anti- European soil here now.

At this point, English nationalism will find a serious, popular voice. Tories will have to decide their attitude to it. The option of returning to the old Union will surely be gone, for to win an election on the backs of English Conservative votes and then 're-annex' Scotland against Scot- land's wishes will not be on. The only ques- tion will therefore be whether we accept England's kneecapped status quo, or cam- paign for an all-England assembly. This would represent an easy rallying-cry, address a genuine grievance and conve- niently link English patriotism with opposi- tion to the Labour Party. If official Conser- vatism shuns this new force, the new force may prosper anyway in the hands of rebels within and outside the Party.

We know the kind of people these will be, indeed we can guess the identities of a few already: a coalition of the preposterous and the sinister. The question for the Conserva- tive Party will be simple: do we leave the movement in the hands of these people?

I am torn. My respect for the Union is not so much a choice of one nationalism over a rival as a respect for a different order of nationhood, a mild and mature force: a nationhood which can embrace more than one nation. Diversity detoxifies patriotism. Discussing this with me last week, a Welsh Labour MP, Kim Howells, described our little nationalisms as adoles- cent: 'pimply politics,' he said. Arguing (as I had) that English nationalism was the coming thing, I felt shamed by his courage.

The embrace between the Tory Party and English nationalism will be a faintly shame- ful thing, but I think they will be forced into it. Prepare, at Tory conferences, for the flag, the rose, St George, `Greensleeves', and all that. The heart sinks.

Matthew Panic is parliamentary sketchwriter of the Times.