Regular visitors to this blog will know that I'm a great admirer of John Buchan. A son of the manse, with a remarkable education, learned in both Latin and Greek, he excelled in the written word, won prizes and scholarships here, there and everywhere, yet still had time to be a hoary handed son of toil during his summers in the countryside around Broughton in the Borders.
He was published at seventeen and during his lifetime racked up an impressive tally of published work. Somewhere in the region of 30 novels, 7 short story collections, and nearly 100 assorted
works of non-fiction, mostly historical accounts.
After various japes to South Africa where he worked on the reconstruction required after the Boer War, he returned to Blighty, to marriage, a career as a barrister and ultimately Head of the War Propaganda Bureau when he was recruited during the Great War.
After the war he settled down to the sedate life of running Reuters News bureau whilst churning out more books. In 1927 he was elected Member
of Parliament for the Scottish Universities. A position I would like to think could be resurrected in a brave new Independent Scotland, where a non-partisan person, say an expert on education, someone with both theoretical and practical experience is elected via the votes not only of University students but also...drumroll...16 and 17 year old school pupils.
Buchan won the seat in a bye-election where his opponent lost his deposit. In his memoirs, 'Memory Hold the Door', he described his political stance as follows:
"I was elected as a Conservative, for, believing in party government, I disliked the name of Independent. But I held that a university member should sit a little loose to parties and I was Independent in fact if not in name."
Buchan went on to describe himself as an old school Gladstonian Liberal. He was keen on innovation and advancement of all peoples. His views on the importance of the League of Nations were pivotal to that organisations continuation. Yes, his books have flashes of anti-Semitism and a stern Knoxian-Calvinist view of Catholicism. All very par for the course in those post Victorian days of glorious Empire, where Johnny Foreigner was to be looked at with an indifference best kept to the leather armchairs of a good gentlemen's club. Although saying that he aligned himself with Zionism and was a member of the Palestinian All Party Parliamentary Group.
The above photograph and quotation I've put together comes from the Hansard record on the Parliamentary proceedings from
24th of November 1932. Nearly 80 years ago. I've always found it odd that Buchan would espouse Scottish Nationalism, so resolved to find the original quote and its context.
In the midst of an economic meltdown that we wouldn't see again until, gosh nearly eighty years later, Parliamentarians sat down to debate the finer points of the previous days Kings Speech.
It's a strange debate, coming at a time when the status quo of the Union was under increasing threat. 1931 brought a National Government into being and and a depression that jostled Britain off the Gold Standard. The fledgling, almost non-existent Nationalist movement had rallied behind Hugh MacDiarmid's clarion call that Scots begin to "Speak with your own voice for our own times." That was in 1922, the next decade saw the launch of
The Scots Independent; Europes oldest political journal, the formation of Glasgow Universities Scottish Nationalist Association, the National Party of Scotland and finally in 1932, the Scottish Party.
First up was Sir Robert Horne, the MP for Hillhead whom Baldwin referred to as the 'Scots cad' due to his errant womanising ways...
Now I don't expect everyone to sit down and read the following 50,000 plus words, but I highly recommend that some of you do. Followers of the Independence campaign will be delighted to find the root of many of the NO camp objections, that are still being regularly churned out today. Of course the biggest surprise is the discovery that Scottish Labour MP David Kirkwood, a man who was arrested during the infamous George Square riots of 1919 had a go at both Horne and Buchan, claiming that the real reason for their desire for considerations of Home Rule, lay more in the fact that the Scottish working classes were being educated and demanding more control and that their constituency seats were under threat!
My favourite part is Horne discussing Compton McKenzie's Nationalism and his lack of moderate policies. "He tells us in a recent speech with a charming
naïreté,
that devolution ought to be spelled "devil-ution."
For those about to wade into this, I salute you. It's well worth the time and effort required to get to the end.
24 November 1932
→
Commons Sitting
→
KING'S SPEECH.
DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.
HC Deb 24 November 1932 vol 272 cc235-360
235
§
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [
22nd November],
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as
followeth:—
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's moat dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in
Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your
Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both
Houses of Parliament."—[Mr. Roy Bird.]
§
Question again proposed.
§
Sir ROBERT HORNE
It is the reputation, I believe, of Scotsmen all over the
world that they are inclined to talk a great deal about their own
country, but a certain number of my compatriots at the present time
believe that we do not talk enough about it in this House. I think they
somewhat misunderstand the procedure of the House of Commons and how
much of its business is concerned with Scotland as well as other parts
of the Kingdom. To-day I propose to take up some of the time of the
House in discussing matters which are of high importance to the northern
part of the Kingdom. But before I proceed to do that, may I be allowed
to make one or two very brief observations upon an event which occurred
yesterday. It was announced last evening that we shall be expected to
pay what we owe upon the American debt at the due date in December. The
question therefore arises; what are we to do? I have no doubt whatsoever
that we ought to pay. In the first place, for Great Britain to default
after the quite extraordinary recovery which she has made during the
past year, and the prestige which she has resumed in the economy of the
world, would be a disaster not merely to us but to the whole credit
structure of the world. In the second place, I am convinced that upon
merely sordid considerations, we shall do much better for ourselves by
paying than we should by defaulting.
236
How should we pay? I have no doubt that we ought to pay by
the shipping of bar gold. But there is a qualification which I ought to
attach to the suggestion. At the present time we have £140,000,000 of
gold in the Bank of England—a larger sum than we had in September last
year. We have lived long enough off the Gold Standard to know that we
need not be at all frightened by the absence of some of this gold at the
present moment. Moreover, the present amount to be paid is certainly
not large enough to create any perturbations. But the Treasury must
unite that action with another. In ordinary circumstances the absence of
that gold would lead to a reduction in the monetary circulation; that
must not be allowed to happen. If the shipment of this gold were to have
the effect of a great deflation in this country it would be most
harmful to every interest concerned, and I hope, especially as the
Chancellor of the Exchequer must within a short time deal by Bill or by
Order with the amount of the Fiduciary Issue, that steps will be taken
to see that the amount of money available in this country is in no wise
lessened.
What are the anticipated results of this action? The first
consequence is on the Budget. It seems to me perfectly obvious, when
dealing with this question as a budgetary matter, that we should suspend
the Sinking Fund in so far as it is necessary to pay this debt. It need
make no difference to the Budget figures of this year. After all, the
Sinking Fund is specially for the payment of debt—and this is one of the
country's debts. No one could quarrel with that action on the ground of
principle. Six months ago it would have been possible to take exception
to a suspension of the Sinking Fund on the ground that it might defer
the conversion of some of the country's debts, but the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, supported by his monetary advisers in the City of London,
with an astuteness and skill which we must all admire, has cleared out
of the purview of the present situation any difficulties connected with
conversion for a long time to come. Therefore we are in a very
advantageous position at the present time so far as this is concerned.
What is the next effect? It is a fall in the pound. As far
as I am concerned it will not give me the slightest anxiety
237
to see the pound fall lower than the figure at which it
stands to-day. It has not yet fallen so much as prices have fallen, and
if the pound drops to three dollars or less this country would still
find it a very convenient currency. The fact is that we should be in the
position of having to buy less imports and more of our own
manufactures, which would give employment in this country. We should
also help our export trade. So far as our purchasing from outside is
concerned, we are in the happy position of buying greatly from countries
which are already on a sterling basis, and, therefore, we have nothing
to fear. But I do not wish the House to believe that there is no
disadvantage in the action which the American Government has taken. The
real trouble is that it is delaying that revival of prosperity to which
we are all entitled to look. It is an action which stops the advance
which all nations should have made together in co-operation. It seems to
me to impose a special duty and responsibility upon us.
The most disappointing feature to me in the whole of the
results of the Ottawa Conference was the report of the monetary
conference. It seemed to suggest that we could do nothing unless we
combined with other nations of the world. I have never believed that to
be true, and at any rate the result of the action of America has been to
force us to turn in upon ourselves. After all, we are in a powerful
position. We are the centre of a great sterling area which represents
more than half the trade of the world. We are, to use a fine phrase of
the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the leading ship in a
convoy, and I hope, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves,
that we shall have the courage to take the action which responsibility
and leadership impose upon us, so as to help the world out of its
present troubles.
Now I come to the question upon which I rose to
speak—namely, the question of my native country. It is somewhat
disconcerting to turn one's mind from these great world problems, which
reveal more and more the necessity of unity of action on the part of
nations, to proposals which would create a division between two nations
which today form a harmonious and homogeneous community. The passage in
the King's Speech which refers especially to Scotland
238
deals with it in a very restricted way; in relation to some
proposals for the reform of Private Bill procedure. But a wider issue
has been forced upon our attention by certain movements which have been
taking place in Scotland. The banner of Home Rule has once more been
raised. This is not a new issue. The Home Rule question was debated and
discussed at considerable length some years ago, and then fell into
abeyance. It has emerged again. It is a notable fact that it has
received its chief importance in those communities in Scotland which are
most distressed, and I believe that the present movement has really had
its origin in the state of great depression into which Scottish
communities have fallen at the present time. Many think—wrongly as
figures will show —that they are more depressed than any other part of
this island. There is a sense of defeat amongst a considerable portion
of the population, to which Scottish people are not accustomed. There is
a feeling of a loss of pride, which may be unjustified, but
nevertheless is there and ought to be dealt with.
The movement has not yet attracted a large number of
supporters but it is not to be discounted. I am not one of those who
deride the Scottish Home Rule movement, nor am I disposed to treat it
lightly. On the contrary, I am as sensitive to the same influences as
most of my countrymen. It is perfectly true that, going about the world
to the extent that I do, I see this question perhaps in a better
perspective. Contrary to what some people in Scotland think, I find that
the prestige and reputation of our race are as high and as great as
they ever were. But at the same time I am as eager as they are that
there should be no lessening of the spirit of Scotsmen in Scotland, and
that there should be the opportunities for enterprise and the chances of
achievement which we would all like to see in existence in Scotland. I
am as perfervid a Scotsman as any man who breathes. I believe with my
whole soul that a prosperous Scotland strengthens Great Britain and is a
benefit to the British Commonwealth to a far greater degree than the
proportion of its population or wealth would suggest. But to-day I am
going to curb any tendency I might have towards expression of patriotic
sentiment, and if the House
239
will allow me I will present a quite cold matter-of-fact
analysis of the position as I see it, coming to it, I hope, with an
impartial and fresh mind.
As I read the speeches of those who advocate Scottish Home
Rule at the present time, I find that there are certain main features
which are common to all of them. In the first place, they complain that
unemployment is worse in Scotland than it is in England. They suggest,
by that complaint, that somehow this Parliament looks after unemployment
in England better than it does in Scotland. That is a wholly fallacious
view, as we in this Parliament all know. This Parliament deals
impartially with the whole island, as far as unemployment is concerned.
You can easily bring matters to a test, because the highest percentage
of unemployment that you will find anywhere in this island exists in
England. There is a district in England which is worse than any in
Scotland, and when you come to compare districts which are truly
comparable and which are often mentioned as the most distressful, you
will find that Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire are entirely eclipsed in the
figures of unemployment by the counties of Durham and Glamorgan.
§
Mr. JOHN
Glamorgan is not in England.
§
Sir R. HORNE
The Welsh are showing the kind of wisdom that is generally
attributed to the Scot, because, knowing that the amount of their
unemployment is so much greater than that elsewhere, probably they
realise that they would find great difficulty in providing unemployment
benefit by themselves, and they are wiser to rely on the richer country
than to seek any separation. Let us see how this argument runs.
"Unemployment is rife in Scotland. Therefore, there should be a Scottish
Parliament." It is perfectly obvious that there is some missing premiss
in that syllogism. How does it require to be stated? "Unemployment is
rife in Scotland; Parliaments are the cure for unemployment; therefore,
there should be a Parliament in Scotland." You have only to state the
proposition in that way to see how false the whole assumption is. Are
Parliaments the cure for unemployment? What has this Parliament been
doing ever since the
240
War and how much has it achieved to cure unemployment?
§
Sir R. HORNE
Look out upon the rest of the world. The Congress of the
United States of America has been attempting to deal with unemployment.
How much has it achieved? The Parliament of Germany has been dealing
with unemployment for several years. How much has it achieved? Take the
Parliaments in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. All have been dealing
with unemployment. Who can say that Parliament or parliamentary action
is a cure for unemployment to-day? The fact is that an argument could be
stated with far more plausibility in this form: "Unemployment exists in
every country where there is parliamentary government. Therefore, let
us do away with parliamentary government." There would be more
plausibility in that suggestion because, looking upon the world as a
whole, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that in Italy, which
is under a dictatorship, more has been done to cure unemployment than
anywhere else. Parliament is a false reed to lean upon, as a cure for
unemployment, which, because of economic conditions, is shaking the
whole world.
What is the next complaint? It is that industries are
leaving Scotland and drifting south. That is a matter that does not
depend upon Parliament. That is a purely economic question. You find
exactly the same drift going on from the north of England to the south. I
happen to belong to a body called the Scottish Development Council, and
I take such part as I can in its proceedings. There is one thing of
which I am perfectly certain, and that is that so far from a separate
Parliament in Scotland stopping the drift to the south it would
encourage it. After all, what does the industrialist or the trader say
to himself when he is considering his business? He says, "You are going
to set up another Parliament in Scotland. It is to have complete
legislative powers over all the things with which I am conected in trade
and transport and the like. You say that you will not pass provisions
which will in any way hurt industry, but how do I know that in the
assertion of your legislative powers those provisions will not do
something which will do me an injury in the markets
241
outside Scotland? Therefore, I must put my works where I
shall have the biggest market, and if I have to seek a market in. Great
Britain it will be in England rather than in Scotland." That is no
fantastic consideration, as the House will probably hear to-day from a
fellow Scottish Member who has very good evidence of the effect of the
proposal upon people's minds. Accordingly, I say to those who think that
a Parliament in Scotland would help to keep industries within their own
country, that they are labouring under a great delusion.
It is also said that Scotland is overtaxed, and that
picturesque countryman of my own, Mr. Cunninghame Graham, has within
recent times uttered a sentiment which I think might have been copied
from Mr. de Valera. He said:
He believed that a commission sitting upon Scottish
finances would find that England owed an enormous sum for taxation in
the past, and for misapplication of Scottish money.
That is the Irish claim in another form. What are the facts,
so far as we know them? It is impossible to give figures which are up
to date, although I am glad to think that the Treasury is taking trouble
now to provide us with statistics which will show us what is happening
even at the present time. So far as we can gather from the most recent
statistics that we have, which were taken in the year 1925, Scotland was
at that time paying rather less than the contribution which, upon the
basis of population, she ought to make to Great Britain's revenues, and
on the other hand she was receiving in grants a larger amount than, upon
the basis of population, she would strictly be entitled to. That, I
think, is perfectly fair. It is obvious that Scotland is not so wealthy a
country as England and, so long as she is part of the same system with
England, she is entitled to the full benefits derivable from that union.
If she chooses to be independent and to run her own finances then, of
course, she must take the consequences.
I am afraid that those consequences would be embarrassing to
Scotland and that she would not be so well off in those circumstances
as she is now. I think so for several reasons. We know something of what
has happened in the seven years since 1925. If we look at the education
figures we find that a much larger grant per pupil goes to Scotland
242
than goes to English schools. Again, if we examine the
figures of the grants for road-making, we find that Scotland gets back
in road grants about £1,000,000 a year more than she pays in motor
licence duties. Again, if it is true, as apparently it is, that there is
more unemployment in Scotland taken all over than there is among the
same proportion of English citizens, it is quite clear that Scotland
must be drawing a larger subvention from the Unemployment Insurance Fund
than the basis of population would indicate. All these instances seem
to show that, so far from it being true that Scotland is being unfairly
treated at the present time, she is in fact reaping the benefit to which
she is justly entitled, as a member of the community of Great Britain,
instead of managing her affairs in a separate Parliament in Scotland.
Some of the other statements which are made upon this
subject are even more extraordinary. For example, it is said that only
two days in the year are given to Scottish business in Parliament,
whereas we know that the great bulk of the business which goes through
Parliament from day to day is applicable to the whole Kingdom and
affects Scotland as much as any other part of it—and, if I may say so,
Scottish Members are as vocal as their English colleagues. Another
statement is that Scottish Members are flouted in the House of Commons.
It was even said at a recent meeting that they are trodden upon here.
When I read such statements I wonder in what assembly in all the world
would my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his
colleague the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) be listened to with
more appreciation than in this House or with greater admiration for
their sincerity and ability. To anyone who knows the House of Commons,
what nonsense it is to say that Scottish people are not listened to
here. All these things seem to show that this propaganda is being
operated upon grounds of prejudice and distrust, which are really
unworthy of the cause in which they are employed.
Let us turn now to the kind of schemes which are put forward
for Scottish Home Rule. I direct the attention of the House first to
the fact that Scottish Home Rulers are already split into two parties,
and as one might believe they trounce each other with much more vigour
than they
243
apply to those of us who disagree with them both. They are
the Nationalists and the Moderates. At the head of the Nationalists is
Mr. Cunninghame Graham and at the head of the Moderates is the Duke of
Montrose, both picturesque and aristocratic figures in Scotland. The
difference between these two distinguished men may be readily seen when
we find that Mr. Cunninghame Graham says that the Act of Union is the
greatest curse that ever came upon Scotland and has always hung like a
millstone about our necks, while, on the other hand, the Duke of
Montrose takes the contrary view which he put in the "Times" last week.
Nobody, he says, denies the great benefits which Scotland has obtained
from the Act of Union. In that view he seems to concur with no less an
authority than Lord Morley who was a very ardent Irish Home Ruler but
was also an accurate historian. In his "Life of Walpole" he writes:
Brilliant as was the lustre and real as was the
importance of Blenheim and Ramillies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet, those
glorious days were infinitely less fruitful in fortunate consequences to
the realm than the 6th day of March, 1707, when Queen Anne went dawn to
the House of Lords and gave the Royal Assent to the Act approving and
ratifying the Treaty of Union between the two Kingdoms, henceforth to be
known as Great Britain.
That view I believe is justified by the whole of the history
which has followed. Both England and Scotland have benefited infinitely
from the union of Parliaments which then took place.
§
Mr. KIRKWOOD
But you know that those who signed that Agreement were traitors to Scotland. Every one of them had his price.
§
Sir R. HORNE
I know my hon. Friend's view on that matter. I think he will
find it difficult to get support for that view from historians who have
dealt with the matter faithfully. I know it is a common tradition among
those who have always criticised the Act of Union, but I do not think
that it is completely justified in history. Both the parties which I
have described to the House are anxious and indeed determined that no
mere county council is to be given to Scotland if their demands are met.
A glorified county council is something which both are resolved to
oppose. They each want a Scottish legislative chamber with
244
final powers. But apparently there is going to be a little
trouble in that connection. In the first sketch of their programme this
Parliament was described as "sitting in Edinburgh." In a later edition
of the programme the words, "sitting in Edinburgh" have been struck out,
probably for very good reasons. There was, in my constituency, not long
ago a municipal election in which a Nationalist candidate stood, and he
was unwary enough to say that the Parliament was to sit in Edinburgh.
He was immediately overwhelmed by dissent from the audience. It cannot
be said that Glasgow and Edinburgh, therefore, are agreed upon that
matter. Now comes a voice from Aberdeen and the voice from Aberdeen says
that the people there are not going to be ruled "by a wheen Edinburgh
lawyers and Glasgow bodies." When Inverness is going to speak, do not
know, but undoubtedly the Highland counties of Scotland have a far
better claim for Home Rule than has any other part of Scotland. They
talk a different language, they have a different literature, they have
preserved their language: they belong to a different race, they have not
been afflicted with the taint which has overcome the South of Scotland
from adopting the English language in place of their own. They, as the
real original inhabitants of the country, would be entitled to claim
Home Rule for themselves, and I think that if one began to get down to
"brass tacks," as it is vulgarly said, we should have to admit that the
Highlands are able to make the best claim of anybody for Home Rule.
§
Mr. BUCHANAN
How do you get your figures?
§
Sir R. HORNE
I have them from very high authorities. They could easily
form the determining element in the balance between the Scottish
parties, and you might find that what you had believed to be Scottish
Home Rule, turned out to be a form of very insidious Irish domination in
our politics. While I have every respect for the Irish people, that is a
result which I do not wish to see in Scotland. But while disagreeing
with the Nationalist party in nearly everything that they urge, there is
one thing in which I do agree with them as against the Moderate party.
I, for one, am not for making either a Dominion or a Province of the
ancient Kingdom of Scotland, which has given its line of kings to Great
Britain and to the British Empire.
What is the programme that the Moderate party put forward?
They reserve to the present Parliament—with some optimism some of them
assume that the Scottish Members are always to keep their place here—all
matters connected with the Crown and its succession, the defence
forces, foreign affairs, and Dominion affairs, except the question of
emigration, and so far as finances are concerned, upon which, believe
me, they are very vague, the questions of Customs and Excise and the
contribution which Scotland is to make to the Imperial revenue are to be
remitted to a statutory Commission of the two countries, upon which
Scotland is to have at least half—that is the way they express it—of the
representation.
Let me examine for a moment these propositions. Take, first
of all, this question of finance. It is laid down in the programme that
it is not desired to have a Customs Duty as between Scotland and
246
England—no Customs barriers between the two countries. That
has one inevitable result, that the Customs duties round the whole coast
of the two countries must be identical, because if they were not, it is
obvious that everybody would ship to the port where the duty was less
and bring the goods by rail into the other country. Accordingly, it is
clear that the statutory Commission, whatever else it is to do, must
have a uniform system of Customs duties all round the coast. That means
that Scotland can have no indirect taxes by which to replenish its
Exchequer. It must just receive its appropriate proportion of the
Customs duties which are collected at all the ports of the United
Kingdom, and it is going to be no better and no worse off than it is
now.
But how are they to meet these possible deficits, to which I
have referred, which would occur in the Scottish Budget, and how are
they to provide funds for the great schemes which they propose for the
help of unemployment in Scotland? By direct taxation? Can Scotland bear
any more direct taxes? Why, the hypothesis of the whole proposition is
that Scotland at present is much worse off than England. How is it to
bear the taxation which a Scottish Exchequer would put upon it in order
to raise extra funds? As soon as you begin to examine any of these
propositions separately, you find that the two Kingdoms now, Scotland
and England, are so interlocked and interwoven in all their interests,
financial, industrial, trading, commercial, transport, every one of
them, that you cannot break them asunder without grievous injury to both
countries.
If you want an illustration of it, take the question of
railways. We had this question Up in Parliament only 10 years ago. At
that time Sir Eric Geddes, who was Minister of Transport, proposed, as a
good Scotsman, to group all the Scottish railways together separately
from the English railways, but he was met with a storm of protest from
Scotland which completely overwhelmed him. There was not an interest in
Scotland that did not claim that that scheme must be given up. The
chambers of commerce, the railway companies themselves, the great
municipalities, the Highland Reconstruction Association, every interest
in
247
Scotland you can think of, protested against the Scottish
railways being grouped apart from the English, and insisted, from the
point of view of the stability of Scottish finances, that the Scottish
railways should be kept connected with the English railways with which
they had been so long associated.
§
Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD
They protested against an absolute monopoly.
§
Sir R. HORNE
No. They laid great stress upon the financial results to
Scotland and the menace of increased freights upon Scottish trade. That
is the kind of thing that affected them, and in that connection may I
just say that while the programme of this Moderate party in Scotland
includes the postal, telegraph, and telephone services among the things
which the Scottish Parliament should keep, the Duke of Montrose has now
dropped that suggestion, and very wisely, because Scotland would have
found that the delivering of a letter to the Outer Islands would have
been very expensive, and she could never run a postal system on anything
like the cheap lines on which it is operated as part of the combined
system. The same kind of considerations apply to the railways. I do not
want to weary the House with figures, but let me remind the House that
not merely these various associations I have described but all the
Scottish Members of Parliament united in the same protest. I remember in
particular the late Mr. William Graham saying that this was one of the
few occasions upon which all the Members from Scotland were of one mind
in asking the Minister of Transport to cancel his scheme, and to make a
new one by which the Scottish railways should be connected
longitudinally with the English railways. That, again, is a practical
illustration of the proposition which I have put forward, and I venture
to say that, in the interests of the Scottish people to-day, if you put
the Scottish railways under a separate legislative authority, it might
easily enact Measures totally incompatible with those which apply in
England.
If you proceed to the question of trade, the same views
apply, and I should like to add one special word about labour. We all in
this House know that trade
248
unions do not limit their operations to one part of the
kingdom. They go over the Border, and their members are widespread
throughout England and Scotland. What would be the result suppose you
had in Scotland a legislative assembly of a different colour from that
which you had here in Westminster, and different rules were laid down
with regard to trade unions 3 After all, this is a very small island
with a very close set population. What would be the effect if, for
example, the Scottish Parliament made different laws with regard to the
hours in mines from those operating in England? The Federation of Miners
is one body and, of course, acts as one organisation in both countries.
Again—and I give this simply as an illustration which will
occur to many—what would have been the situation during the last great
general stoppage of work if you had had in Scotland, as you might
readily have had, a Parliament which was Socialist and here a Parliament
which was Conservative? Could you ever have settled a great national
question like that? Imagine the appalling confusion and chaos which
would have been brought upon the country by a divided authority in these
two portions of this small country. Surely that is not a result which
any of us would wish to see. And it is no fantastic idea. Look back to
the last 50 years of Parliamentary records, and you will find that
repeatedly there was a majority of Scottish Members of a different
political colour from the majority in the House of Commons at
Westminster. It would be perfectly certain that, as between Scotland and
England, you would have legislatures which would be entirely at odds,
and would legislate in a totally contrary sense. So far as I am
concerned, I entirely disagree with the Socialist view of policy. But I
would rather have the United Kingdom governed by a body which was
Socialist than I would have different political legislatures in the two
ends of the island. I am perfectly certain the latter would be much
worse—for the interests of the country.
All these considerations which I have given to the House, I
hope without prejudice on one side or the other—I have attempted to
apply a fresh mind to the subject—have led me to the view that nothing
could be so disastrous for both
249
Scotland and England as that this union should be annulled.
Are there any things which we can do which can help to avoid some of the
unpleasantnesses that have occurred at the present time? There is an
indication in the King's Speech of a Measure which is designed to meet
some of the objections which Scottish people are at present raising. The
House may know that in the year 1899 there was passed in Parliament a
Bill for the setting up of Provisional Order Procedure in Scotland by
which, instead of Scottish private Measures, coming here in the form of
Bills, they could be taken before a committee in Scotland and proceed by
Provisional Order. The procedure by Provisional Order is much cheaper
than that by private Bill, because it requires only one inquiry in
Scotland, whereas under private Bill procedure there are inquiries in
both Houses of Parliament. In the end, of course, a Provisional Order
comes to the House of Commons on Third Reading, and is subject to any
comments which require to be made. The Secretary of State for Scotland
also has the power of excising any provision which he thinks is ultra vires or detrimental to the general interest.
That Provisional Order procedure has been circumcribed in
several ways. In the first place, all electricity schemes have been
excluded, and have to proceed by private Bill. That restriction need no
longer exist. At the time the Provisional Order scheme came into
operation, electricity was still regarded as a matter of very much
difficulty. There was little understanding about it, and so much
misapprehension, that it was regarded as being necessary to proceed
through the two Houses of Parliament according to the regular method.
But we have had plenty of experience of these Bills now, and I venture
to suggest, in connection with the changes which the Government propose
to make, that that restriction should be cancelled. There is also
another restriction to the effect that application can be made to the
Chairman of Committees by any person interested in one of these
Measures, who can claim to have the Bill heard before Parliament instead
of under the Provisional Order system, either on the ground of its
magnitude or because it raises a new principle. We have had a deal of
experience of that particular restriction, and I hope that the
Government now will propose to
250
allow far more Measures to proceed by Provisional Order than
has hitherto been the case, and that they will to the fullest extent
take away this discretion upon the part of the Chairman of Committees
and allow practically everything to be heard in Scotland. It will enable
the process to be made very much cheaper, and it will also have this
result: Many people of very small means will be able to make their
representations in Scotland which they have not the wealth to make
before committees in Westminster. These are remedies which, I think, are
immediately called for, and with which, I am glad to think, the
Government are dealing.
There is another matter which, I think, would be a question
of legislation which I would like to bring before the House. I do not
know whether anybody realises the vast amount of work that comes before
the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is, indeed, a, Cabinet in
himself. He has got to do for Scotland what the whole Cabinet has to do
for the rest of the country, and I think that he ought to have more
assistance. At the present time he has got one Under-Secretary. Scotland
is not unduly remunerated in this respect by the munificence of the
Imperial Parliament. The Secretary of State has still the salary of a
junior Minister, 22,000 a year, instead of £5,000 which is paid to every
other Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I
think I am right in my figure. With the Secretary of State for Scotland
so poorly remunerated, it would not he a great strain upon the
generosity of Parliament to ask that another £1,200 or £1,000 a year
should be paid to an Under-Secretary, who would relieve him of part of
the very onerous duties which he has to perform. It seems to me that an
Under-Secretary for Agriculture and Fisheries alone would have plenty to
do in dealing with Scottish affairs, and the other Under-Secretary
could look after the other matters. At any rate, it seems to me that
that is a reform which might readily be granted at the present time.
May I suggest something more? There is, in my view, far too
much of the departmental work of Scotland done in Whitehall. I think
that these Departments ought to be more accessible to the people
concerned in their operation, and that really, in general principle,
there should be retained at Whitehall only that
251
kind of Department which is necessary for the Parliamentary
side of their proceedings. There should be concentrated in Edinburgh—I
say boldly "in Edinburgh"—all the main work of the Departments which
look after the business of Scotland. What is the condition of those
Departments at the present time? I do not think that the House has any
realisation of the difficulties under which Scottish business has to be
conducted. The Secretary of State for Scotland has in Edinburgh a, dark
room in the buildings of the Courts, and I venture to say that every
delegation that goes to the Secretary of State gets a very poor
impression of the amount of dignity which is accorded to him by the
Imperial Parliament. And the Under-Secretary has to share the room with
him! So far as the Departments are concerned, they are spread over the
town, with long distances between some of the buildings. If you have to
go to more than one, you must travel through various streets to get at
them. I say that this is not only bad for business, but it is unworthy
of the dignity of Scotland.
I hope that the Government will now take in hand the
building of a suitable edifice which will accommodate all the
Departments engaged in Scottish business, and which will also provide
suitable accommodation for the Secretary of State. There is a site which
is free and available for the purpose—the Calton site —and plans were
prepared for some such building, but difficulties were made by a society
of architects with regard to the type of building proposed to be
erected and it has not gone on. I should like to be assured by the
Secretary of State for Scotland that the erection of such a building is
now in contemplation. It is a suitable time to undertake the work. It is
something which must be done sooner or later, and this time of
distress, when people are out of work, is a suitable opportunity for
building that accommodation which Scotland undoubtedly requires. I have
only sketched some of the devices which I think that the Government
might adopt at the present time, not only to make the conduct of
Scottish business much more easy, but also to give the impression of
Scotland's position in this Kingdom which it deserves.
252
May I refer to two more suggestions? One is that the Office
of Works should not be confined entirely to this part of the island, and
that there should be in Scotland a Scottish Office of Works. There is
no reason why there should not be. There is no difficulty so far as
administration is concerned and the Department is not legislative. If
there were a Scottish Office of Works the two offices would not cut
across each other, and they could always have liaison arrangements by
which they could purchase the materials they required on the best
possible terms. There ought undoubtedly to be a co-relative portion of
the Office of Works in Scotland which would employ Scottish people and
give consideration to the claims of Scottish architects. The other thing
which is in my mind is that factory inspections are done from the Home
Office both for England and Scotland. I do not think that the Home
Office is the proper place for the Factory inspection Department; it
ought to be in the Ministry of Health. I hope that a reorganisation will
be made by which both in England and Scotland the Health Department
will undertake the factory inspection. If that be done, the Health
Department, which is already an entirely separate office in Scotland,
would have the duty of looking after the inspection of factories in
Scotland.
I do not want to weary the House with a long dissertation
upon the operations that might be undertaken by the Government, but I
have given a sketch of a few which might now be taken up with great
benefit to the administration of Scottish business. 1 have been speaking
to the House with candour and in a matter of fact way upon a question
which, I must confess, is very near my heart. I do not profess any less
passion for my native land than those candidates for Parliament who in
the Lowlands of Scotland go to their meetings in a kilt to the playing
of bagpipes. In my view, that does not do anything to enliven patriotic
sentiment in Scotland. I am sure that we are all anxious to do our best
for our native country. I am so convinced that all the projects for a
separate Scottish Parliament would so weaken our influence in this House
where Scotsmen play a very prominent part, and so lessen our prestige
throughout the world, that I would give the last
253
ounce of my strength to fight it. I believe that in this
battle I should have the great majority of my countrymen at my side.
§
Mr. RHYS DAVIES
I am about to perform what is perhaps the most delicate task
that falls to a Member of Parliament who does not represent a Scottish
division, that is, to take part in a Debate where Scottish problems only
are under discussion. I venture to do it because I am in a rather
favourable position to consider some of the suggestions made by the
right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). I should
like right away to inform him of the impression which his speech made
upon my mind. It looks to me as if the Tory party in Scotland is afraid
of the Nationalist movement in that country, and that the right hon.
Gentleman is doing his level best to make his own seat safe at the next
general election. The right hon. Gentleman has made some astonishing
statements in his speech. He is one of the leading supporters of the
Government who favour economy on all hands, and yet he now wants public
relief works in Edinburgh and more Ministers for Scotland provided of
course the money goes to Scottish pockets. That is an extraordinary
state of affairs.
I have great sympathy with the desire for devolution, but
every argument that the right hon. Gentleman employs and which the
Scottish National party may employ in favour of devolution for Scotland
can easily be multiplied many times over in favour of devolution for
Wales. Whenever the right hon. Gentleman or his friends argue in favour
of Home Rule for Scotland, they will find at once a claim justly made,
not only for Wales, but for England too. In this connection it must be
remembered that I am an Englishman for political purposes. Let me
analyse what the right hon. Gentleman has just propounded. I want first
to make a protest. We have to confine ourselves to this Home Rule issue
because the right hon. Gentleman opened the Debate with it, but the
subject is very remote from the actual facts of life. There is not a
single Member for Scotland or Wales, however clamant he may be for
devolution, who can for a moment say that Home Rule for either Scotland
or Wales is an imminent issue. It cannot,
254
at any rate, be compared in importance with our industrial
and economic issues. I am astonished at the right hon. Gentleman, to
whom I have paid tribute more than once for his grasp of financial and
economic affairs, that he should come to the House and ask Parliament to
spend a day on an issue of this kind merely because he is afraid of Mr.
Cunninghame Graham and the Duke of Montrose.
While I feel keenly for Welsh Nationalism I have often
wondered what makes a people into a nation. I spent three weeks in the
Balkans recently studying the conditions of the 14,000,000 Yugo-Slav
people who were thrown together under a Peace Treaty at the conclusion
of the War. There are together, under one regime, Macedonians, Turks,
Gypsies, Croats, Montenegrins and Serbs. I always thought that language
had a great deal to do with nationality. If we are to have a scheme of
devolution, Wales has ten thousand times more claim on the score of
language than Scotland. Wales has, at any rate, retained its language.
There are three of us on this Front Bench now who can speak the Welsh
tongue. I doubt on the other hand if there is a single Member from
Scotland who can speak anything but English. I thought once that the
culture of a nation determined its nationality, and that
religion—whether a people belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church, the
Protestant or the Roman Catholic Church—was another important factor. I
was disillusioned. I have come to the conclusion that the foundation of
nationality rests neither on religion, language nor culture. The best
description of the qualities of nationhood appeared in a newspaper the
other day:
A nation is a people who believe that they have done
great things together in the past, and who believe, too, that they can
do bigger things together in the future.
That seems to me an admirable summing up of the meaning of
nationality. If I ask hon. Members for Scotland whether they have done
great things together in the past, they would all probably say "Yes."
But I wonder if they are capable of doing as big things together in
future as they have done in the past?
Not only do Scottish Members want to establish a Parliament in Edinburgh
255
or Aberdeen, but they want representation here as well.
Those who represent English constituencies would never allow that. I
have often wondered why the Scottish people complain so much that they
are not getting a square deal at the hands of our Parliament. I have
been looking at the records of the present Government. There is not a
single representative from Wales in the present Cabinet, but there are
three and a-half Scotsmen, the half being the Prime Minister—he
represents an English constituency.
I must pay this tribute to the Scots quite sincerely; they
undoubtedly have a better conception of what intellectual attainments
mean to the youth of their country than have the folk across the Border.
Their desire for a higher standard of education is proverbial, but they
must not forget that quite as keen a desire can be found among the
people of Wales. Hon. Gentlemen who care to note the figures of the
number of boys and girls in the secondary schools of Wales and in
England will find that the contrast provides a remarkable indication of
the difference in outlook on education in the two countries. I must add
that the difference between Scotland and England is also very marked. We
have one thing in Wales which the Scottish people have not yet
achieved. We close all our public houses on Sundays—and there are some
Welsh people who would close them every day of the week. There is a
difference, therefore, between these three separate peoples living in
these islands.
I would conclude what I am saying on this point by warning
the right hon. Gentleman that one claim which has been advanced in the
propaganda for devolution for Scotland and Wales has fallen completely
to the ground. I have been a member of the Select Committee on Procedure
in this House, and that claim for devolution was put forward there by
many witnesses in this way. They said: "The Parliamentary machine is
clogged in the House of Commons. The Rules of the House are not flexible
enough to express the will of Parliament itself. We must, therefore,
send all Scottish business to a Scottish Parliament, and all the
business that pertains to Wales ought to go to a Welsh Parliament, in
order to
256
relieve the congestion in this House." The answer to that is
a very good one, and, in my view, it is a conclusive answer. When the
Irish people were represented in this Parliament it was similarly held
that if they could have a Parliament of their own and went home to
transact their own affairs the congestion in this House would be
relieved, but as a matter of fact there has been no difference
whatsoever, since the establishment of a Parliament for Southern
Ireland, in the pressure of business on this House of Commons. There is
one thing, however, which I wish to say in a whisper as it were, that I
for one would consider this House to be a very dull place indeed if we
were without a single Scotsman. Whilst I agree that on cultural,
historical, and even on religious grounds there is a strong case to be
made for devolution both for Scotland and for Wales—and for England
too—with a federal Parliament transacting the whole of the business
common to the three communities, I would like to tell the right hon.
Gentleman that his speech on this subject this afternoon, by comparison
with the bigger problems which are confronting us to-day, was nothing
but a mockery.
Before the right hon. Gentleman came to the subject of
Scotland he seemed to traverse the whole of the United States, and as he
was entitled to deal with the United States, with debts and with the
monetary question I may he forgiven if I say a word or two on issues
that are dearer to some of us than devolution for Scotland or Wales. I
am very sorry that the Government have not seen fit to deal with some of
the problems which are of fundamental importance to our people. After
all, the vast majority of our folk care little about the abstract
principles of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. What hope have
the men and women working in factories, in coal mines and workshops, in
the fields and on the farms, of getting anything out of this Ring's
Speech? There is nothing about a 48-hour working week, nothing about a
Factories Bill, nothing about the tendency which is growing all over the
land to destroy the six-day working week. It would astonish hon.
Gentlemen if I told them of the growth of Sunday trading among some
sections of the community in this country; it is literally appalling.
Those of us who are interested in some of these questions thought that the Gov
257
ernment would, in the King's Speech, have implemented the
report of the Select Committee on the Conditions of Life in Shops. In
this Debate many hon. Gentlemen have talked about agriculture, a large
and important industry, others have dealt with coal mining,
shipbuilding, transport and the rest, but perhaps it is not generally
known that the largest single industry in this country is that of the
distributive trades. It employs nearly 2,000,000 people, twice as many
as are engaged in agriculture and twice as many as in the mining
industry. The vast majority of those people have looked to Parliament
ever since the time of the late Sir Charles Dilke, a quarter of a
century ago, to maintain decent conditions of employment for them, and
on behalf of those who take an interest in this section of our
industrial population I must say that we are sorry the Government have
completely left them out in the cold.
Let me pass to something else. This King's Speech is one of
the most puny and puerile documents I have seen during the 11 years I
have been a Member of Parliament; but however weak and disappointing it
is the speech of the Prime Minister the other day was really appalling
in the extreme. I have begun to wonder what is wrong with the Prime
Minister, and 1 hope hon. Gentlemen will pardon me when I say that in my
view his political soul is in bondage. He cannot speak as he used to
do. He is preaching to-day a gospel quite contrary to that which he
preached for about 30 years. He is manacled to the capitalist system,
which he has denounced for more than a quarter of a century, and I was
not in the least astonised to see that hon. Gentlemen belonging to the
Liberal party and the Tory party were as disgusted with his effort
during this Debate as we were. I cannot conceive that the whole of this
Session is to be devoted exclusively to the two or three problems
mentioned in the King's Speech, and I would like the Government to let
us know whether it is at all possible to take any action on the lines of
the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Conditions of Life
in Shops.
Then I must mention the growth of tote clubs in this country
and of dog-racing tracks too. I come now to points that are entirely
non-partisan, and I feel
258
sure that every Member will agree with me when I say it
would be a calamity for our country if the tote club business were
allowed to develop. I hope that all of us, to whatever party we may
belong, will set our teeth against the undermining of the morale of our
people by those clubs. I ought to say by way of parenthesis that it
seems to me the only flourishing industries in this country at the
moment are tote clubs and dog-racing tracks. That is a terrible thing to
say. I do not blame the Government entirely—
§
Earl WINTERTON
And dirt track racing is just as bad.
§
Mr. DAVIES
Yes, and dirt track racing too. These are not partisan
questions, and I am a little astonished that the Government have not
included something about tote clubs and dog-racing tracks in their
programme of legislation. I would point out that local authorities have
no power to prevent the construction of clog-racing tracks within their
boundaries. They have some power over some areas which are subject to
town planning, but where industrial districts are already in existence
they seem to have no power to prevent the construction of dog-racing
tracks. In Manchester the other day a company asked the city council for
permission to construct a dog-racing track in one quarter of the town.
The council unanimously turned down the request, but there is no law
behind the city council to support their decision. I would like the
Government to look into this problem.
I would finish by saying how very pleased I was to find the
right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) commenting so well on the
subject of the League of Nations and its work. It was very pleasing,
coming from him above all people. I have very little knowledge of
international affairs; I am quite a novice in those great issues. But it
has impressed itself upon my mind that Members of the House as a whole
are not conversant with what is happening in Central Europe at this
moment. Unless I am gravely mistaken, the country that provided the
first shot in the last war may very soon provide the first shot in the
next war, and that is Yugo-Slavia. I would like the Foreign Secretary,
as representing our Government, to keep his
259
ear to the ground and to watch the Balkans once again. I
trust he will urge the League of Nations to do something else, to see
that the Powers which drew up the Treaties which threw those peoples
together into new States in Central Europe shall secure that those
Treaties are carried into effect, instead of allowing the peoples in
those new territories to quarrel among themselves, lest at some time
soon we see a rising once more of one of those small nations against the
other.
I also support the League of Nations. I know that criticisms
are brought against it, but however, weak the League may be, however
difficult its task, I hesitate to think of Europe without a League of
Nations at all. Before I sit down may I say this about war as a whole?
It is an observation which was made the other day by an old gentleman
standing at the Cenotaph, and I cannot close my speech with a better
quotation. When the two minutes' silence was over he turned round to a,
friend and said, "This silence, my son, is as nothing compared with the
silence that will follow the next war."
§
Mr. BUCHAN
I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down
in the many topics which he has raised in his interesting speech. I
propose to return to Scotland. His observations seemed to me to bear
out, on the whole, the arguments which were used by my right hon. Friend
the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) who expounded with great
moderation the difficulties in the way of any scheme for a separate
Scottish Parliament. That question is a very old question. Those who
turn to the second volume of Professor Trevelyan's "History of Queen
Anne's Reign" will find that in 1707 all those modern arguments were
brought up against the union. I am not proposing to retrace the ground
which my right hon. Friend has so amply covered. I would only add one
point to his case. We are told that Scottish business is swamped in this
House because of the numerical inferiority of Scottish Members. If you
had a parliament in Edinburgh, in a year or two you would have exactly
the same complaint from the point of view of the Highlands, which would
have only about 12 per cent. of the representation and would be entirely
at
260
the mercy of an enormous Lowland majority representing
different interests. No, however much you may subdivide representative
institutions, you will always be met at every stage by the complaint of
minorities.
First, let me say that many arguments brought against
Scottish Home Rule are merely foolish. We are told sometimes that a
Scottish Parliament would be a fiasco and that it would be a kind of
enlarged, noisy, incompetent town council. What earthly warrant is there
for that view? The Scottish people, with a long tradition of democracy
in their bones, are at least as capable of running a parliament
successfully as any other race. Moreover, we all know that there is in
Scotland to-day a great deal of public spirit and administrative ability
which, for various reasons, cannot find an outlet in this Parliament,
but might, in a domestic legislature.
Let us get rid also, once for all, of the absurd argument
that because Scotsmen are successful in England and in the Empire and
take a large part in their maintenance, it does not matter what happens
to Scotland. It is not with what Scotsmen outside are doing that we are
concerned, but with Scotland herself. That argument misses the whole
point. Many people believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is a danger
of Scotland sinking to the position of a mere Northern province of
England. Finally, there is the argument, not so often put into words,
but which I think lies at the back of the minds of a good many people.
It is what I would call the genteel argument. They think that Scotland
is, after all, only a province, that Scottish affairs are provincial,
and that it is out of date
261
and a little vulgar to fuss too much about minor local
attachments. I do not think we need bother about that class of person,
the class who are quick to discard honest local loyalties, and who would
fail to be citizens of the world, but are only waifs.
I believe that every Scotsman should be a Scottish
Nationalist. If it could he proved that a separate Scottish Parliament
were desirable, that is to say that the merits were greater than the
disadvantages and dangers, Scotsmen should support it. I would go
further. Even if it were not proved desirable, if it could be proved to
be desired by any substantial majority of the Scottish people, then
Scotland should be allowed to make the experiment, and I do not believe
that, England would desire for one moment to stand in the way.
I turn to my first question, as to the nature of and the
reason for this feeling that something must be done, and done soon, if
Scotland is not to lose its historic individuality. All is not well with
our country. Our population is declining; we are losing some of the
best of our race stock by migration and their place is being taken by
those who, whatever their merits, are not Scottish. I understand that
every fifth child born now in Scotland is an Irish Roman Catholic.
§
Mr. KIRKWOOD
Where did you get that from?
§
Mr. BUCHAN
I am not responsible for it; but it was given to me by a
careful inquirer. Our rural population is shrinking, and many of our
industries are decaying. Our ancient system of law and justice is not
what it was. Our Churches, perhaps, have no longer the same hold upon
the hearts of the people. In language, literature and art we are losing
our idiom, and, it seems to many, that we are in danger very soon of
reaching the point where Scotland will have nothing distinctive to show
to the world. Many of those misfortunes are shared with England and
indeed with the whose earth, but some are special to Scotland. Those
statements are based upon facts, though they may sometimes be too highly
coloured, and the fear which springs from them is an honourable fear.
Far be it from me to decry it.
262
Who are those who feel this alarm for the future of
Scotland? In the first place it is chiefly the youth of Scotland. Do not
let us despise it or call it a whim of hobbledehoys; the temper and the
spirit of youth are an influence that we cannot ever afford to
disregard. As a University Member I have had opportunities of coming a
good deal into touch with the younger generation of Scotsmen and
Scotswomen, and I have been at some pains to try to discover what
sections exactly were infected with this dissatisfaction. There is the
crank, with whom we need not concern ourselves. If he were not a,
Scottish Nationalist, he would be a Communist or a Fascist or some other
extravagance. Then there is a considerable section of young people who
are Nationalists on romantic, historical or literary grounds. That is a
respectable type. You may say that that is only a phase with them, and
that it will pass. Yes, but it is also found among young people who are
hard-headed, ambitious and practical; who are shaping out for themselves
careers in medicine, law and business. Very few of that class would
agree for a moment to any of the schemes of Home Rule at present put
forward, but they all feel the dissatisfaction. They all believe that
much is wrong with Scotland, and that it is the business of Scotsmen to
put it right.
That feeling has spread also to certain classes who have
long left their youth behind. The discontent of some of the small burghs
with the Local Government Act
of 1929 has caused many worthy people, to whom Home Rule would
otherwise be anathema, to question in unmeasured terms the wisdom of the
whole present system. The feeling has probably not gone far among the
working class. They have grimmer things to think about. On the whole it
has not affected the business community to any large extent. But it has
infected a very important class who do a good deal of the thinking of
the nation. I would have this House remember that it is not any scheme
put forward that matters. Those schemes may be crude and foolish enough
in all conscience. It is the instinct behind that matters, and unless we
face that instinct honestly and fairly we may drive it underground, and
presently it will appear in some irrational and dangerous form.
263
The main force clearly in the movement is what might be
called the cultural force, the desire that Scotland shall not lose her
historic personality. I am afraid that people in cultural movements are
always apt to run to machinery for a solution. Machinery will never
effect a cultural revival. I would remind the House that the greatest
moment in Scottish literary and artistic history was at the end of the
eighteenth century when Scotland was under the iron heel of Henry
Dundas. To imagine that a cultural revival will gush from the
establishment of a separate legislature is like digging a well without
making an inquiry into the presence of water-bearing strata. Still
institutions do play a part in cultural life, and machinery cannot be
disregarded. I would ask the House to consider whether, inside the
present system, it is not possible to devise reforms which will not only
be defensible on the grounds of greater efficiency, but will do much to
satisfy a legitimate national pride, and to intensify that
consciousness of individuality and idiom, which is what is meant, or at
least is what I mean, by national spirit.
My right hon. Friend has outlined a number of changes within
the four walls of the present system. I would go a little further, and
suggest that there are three main headings which our policy might take.
In the first place, there are questions of pure machinery. There is the
question of Private Bill procedure referred to in the Gracious Speech.
Then we should get rid once and for all of the entirely indefensible
system of "tacking'—tacking Scotland on to English Measures in one or
two interpretation Clauses, which are usually obscure, and sometimes
quite impossible to construe. Agriculture, education and health are
already administered in Scotland, and I think that the other problems of
Scottish administration should be administered from Edinburgh, and that
Whitehall should be no more than a London office for the Scottish
Secretary. Again, the salaries of Scottish civil servants should be
revised to bring them to the level of those of the greatest Departments
of State, and so to attract the best men to the Service. Scottish
administration should not be regarded as a backwater, but as one of the
main currents of the
264
stream. I give these as examples—I could give many more—of
reforms, some trivial, some important, which would do a great deal to
convince Scotland that she was not regarded as a mere Department like
the Department of Health or the Department of Labour, but as a sister
nation, with her own compact and organic system of Government.
But efficiency is not the only thing to aim at, and
machinery is not the only thing that matters. In spite of our reputation
as a hard-headed and impassive race, everyone knows that we are highly
susceptible, that we have a great affection for the colour and the
spectacular side of life. We want a visible proof of our nationhood. If I
may say so with profound respect, the recent frequent visits of their
Majesties to Holyrood have done an enormous amount in that direction. I
think we ought to do more. The Secretary of State for Scotland at this
moment, as my right hon. Friend has told us, has no proper local
habitation, just a back room in the Parliament House, and I do not think
the Under-Secretary even has a desk. If we created in one building or
in one area a dignified and worthy centre of Scottish administration, we
should do a great deal to enlist Scotland's interest in her own
administration. Glorify Edinburgh as against Whitehall, raise Scottish
salaries to national and not provincial scales, provide a worthy home
for your Scottish Secretary, and you do something which is not only the
logical consequence of Scotland's constitutional position, but would be
an outward and visible sign of Scotland's nationhood.
There is a third point which is more important still. We
want a Scottish policy. We have never had one; we have only had a policy
tacked on to English policies in a Clause or two which my hon. Friends
must have thought to be peppered with unintelligible jargon. While
agriculture, education, health and other branches have many points in
their problems which are common to English problems, they have many
which -are individual and idiomatic. The mere fact that Scotland is
constitutionally to a large degree a distinct unit gives us a chance of
planning ahead in Scotland in a way that is not possible for any other
part of Britain. The Scottish National. Development Council is an
excellent
265
thing, but it will never succeed without a big backing from
Parliament. Our ancient system of education has in some ways declined,
and we want the opportunity to plan ahead to improve it, realising that
it is something wholly different from the system in England. I want to
see Scottish Members, over and above their particular party
affiliations, regarding themselves as a Scottish party who will treat
Scottish matters purely from the point of view of Scotland's interest.
We shall quarrel among ourselves; we shall differ violently; but we
shall always differ on Scottish lines. I do not, of course, mean to
suggest that there should be an overriding loyalty. It would be a bad
day for Scotland if Scottish Members ever came to support a Measure
which was for the moment good for Scotland, but was demonstrably bad for
England, or the Empire, or the world. In that case it would in the long
run be bad for Scotland. I do not, therefore, suggest an overriding
loyalty, an overriding interest, but a determination that Scottish
affairs shall be a first charge upon their care and attention.
The conclusion to which I have been forced is that, real as
the needs are, to attempt to meet them by creating an elaborate
independent legislature would be more than those needs require. Such a
top-heavy structure would not cure Scotland's ills; it would intensify
them. It would create artificial differences, hinder co-operation, and
engender friction if we attempted to split up services which Scotland
has had in common with England for 200 years. Today the industrial
problems of all Britain are closely related, and, if we attempt to
localise them, we shall lay the axe to the root of all healthy
development. It is our business to realise that, while Scotland is a
nation in a true sense, she is also a nation in the closest corporate
alliance with her Southern neighbour in most practical matters, and to
attempt to separate them would be a costly blunder. I do not believe,
and no Scotsman believes, in spending money without a proper return.
Further, I believe that it would produce a far more sinister result —it
would check the hope of that true material and spiritual development
which Scotland needs, by turning her attention from the things which
really matter to the barren task of working a clumsy and unnecessary
machine.
266
The arguments of those who desire a separate legislature for
Scotland would have been more effective 50 years ago, for 50 years ago
people still believed that the one cure for all our troubles was what
they called the antiseptic of self-government. They thought that a
Parliament was a panacea for every disease of the body politic. Do we
quite believe that to-day? We have seen, in many parts of the globe,
Parliamentary institutions falling into disrepute. I have not lost my
faith in Parliament; I have not lost my faith in democracy; but we
realise to-day as never before that there is no magical efficacy in a
Parliament—that it all depends on how it is handled, and what conditions
we desire to meet. A Parliament mishandled, a Parliament which is more
than the conditions require, would not be a sedative for our troubles;
it would be an irritant. Moreover, I think we have learned to-day as
never before the evils of a too narrow nationalism. I believe as firmly
as ever that a sane nationalism is necessary for all true peace and
prosperity, but I am equally clear, and I think we all agree to-day,
that an artificial nationalism, which manifests itself in a barren
separatism and in the manufacture of artificial differences, makes for
neither peace nor prosperity.
But the problem is insistent, and must be faced. I believe
that the kind of reforms which I have tried to sketch, and which my
right hon. Friend has sketched, would meet what is sane and honest in
the present movement—and there is in that movement a great deal that is
both honest and sane. In the future it may be necessary to go further; I
do not know; I have no gift of prophecy. But if we assert our national
individuality, and give it a visible form in our administration, at any
rate we are creating a foundation on which can be built any structure
which the needs of the future may require.
May I be allowed to say one word to my friends who regard
this whole question as trivial—trivial compared with the great economic
problems with which we are faced to-day? I do not deny for a moment the
gravity of these other problems, but, believe me, this question is not
trivial; it goes to the very root of the future not only of Scotland but
of Britain and of the Empire. Britain cannot afford, the Empire cannot
afford, I
267
do not think the world can afford, a denationalised Scotland. In Sir Walter Scott's famous words,
If you un-Scotch us, you will make us damned mischievous Englishmen.
We do not want to be, like the Greeks, powerful and
prosperous wherever we settle, but with a dead Greece behind us. We do
not want to be like the Jews of the Dispersion—a potent force everywhere
on the globe, but with no Jerusalem.
§
Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR
I feel no little diffidence in breaking into a Debate which
has been distinguished by three such brilliant speeches as those to
which we have just listened, and in intending, as I do, to give to the
Debate a slight twist away from the line which up to now has been
followed. We have listened to these three speeches, each of them
remarkable and impressive, with interest and instruction, but at the
same time, in the case of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys
Davies), not without entertainment at hearing him, a Welsh Member for an
English constituency, discussing the question of Scottish Home Rule. I
was, however, struck by one observation that he made. It struck a
responsive note in my own mind, and it is my justification for the
course I propose to adopt in my speech. Important as I believe the
question of Scottish Home Rule to be—and I agree with my hon. Friend the
Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) that it is a vitally
important and fundamental question—it is not, to my mind, so immediate
and urgent, and does not at the moment grip me in the same way, as the
question of unemployment and the appalling conditions of so many of our
fellow-countrymen at home, in my own town, in my own county, and in all
parts of Scotland.
It is not particularly a Scottish problem. Of course, it is
not particularly a British problem. It is a world problem, and it can
only be handled effectively by the proper handling of large issues of
world policy. But, even if we had a trade recovery to-morrow, and even
if it proceeded at a rate greater than any of us would now venture to
prophecy, the symptoms alone would leave behind a scar which would mark
the life of our
268
country for many a long year to come. Unemployment is bad in
Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R.
Horne) has said it is worse in some parts of England but, taking
Scotland by and large, and not measuring one district in one country
against another district in the other, it is certainly even more serious
in Scotland than in England.
I do not wish to twist the subject of the Debate so far as
to deal with the fundamental issues of policy which lie at the roots of
the disease of world depression. I am going to deal merely with the
symptoms of unemployment. I realise that it is our duty to try to bring
home to the people that they should concentrate their attention largely
upon those fundamental issues, and that it is useless to propose
remedies for the symptoms of unemployment which would themselves
aggravate the disease of trade depression. Having said that, and keeping
it always in mind, I would suggest that we have reached a point at
which the frustration of young men and women leaving school and going
out fully equipped for life, the moral and physical deterioration, the
loss of skill and habits of work and discipline and the aggregate of
human misery caused by unemployment are threatening to cripple our
powers of industrial recuperation even when trade revives, and to infect
our social organism with the germs of revolutionary desperation. The
vagueness of the reference in the Gracious Speech from the Throne to the
subject must have struck a chill into the hearts of many who supported
the National Government at the last election. This question of
unemployment is the crux of all our domestic problems. We have balanced
the Budget, we have restored the national credit, we have converted the
War Loan, and we have lowered the price of money. How are the Government
going to use these advantages to stop the rot that is afflicting the
minds and bodies of scores of thousands of our fellow-countrymen?
The first direction in which I would ask the right hon.
Gentleman to turn his eyes is in the direction of the land. I do not
want to repeat the speech that I made in introducing the Estimates for
the Department of Agriculture a few months ago. A ruthless pruning of
expenditure, even on land settlement, was essential until the finances
of the country had been
269
restored. I have never, either before I entered the
Government or while I was in it, failed to take every opportunity of
arguing the case for land settlement in Scotland. Now there is a great
opportunity. Land is cheap, stock is cheap, money is cheap, and
thousands of men are hungering for land. There are two great weaknesses
in the structure of our agriculture at present. The first is the
breakdown of the landowning system, to which my right hon. Friend the
Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) drew attention yesterday and
to which the present Minister of Education, when Minister of
Agriculture, drew attention in one of the last speeches he made as
Minister of Agriculture to his constituents at Boroughbridge about seven
years ago, a breakdown which leaves industry drained of the capital
which it needs for the energetic exploitation of scientific discovery
and for its adaptation to changing economic conditions.
The second weakness—that is the one that is relevant to the
argument that I am addressing to the House—is the absence of a
peasantry. How many times has the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) pointed out that countries like
France and Germany, and small industrialised densely populated Free
Trade countries like Belgium and Holland, have from two to four times
the number of men upon the land in proportion to population that we
have. And he is right. Now is the time to repair those weaknesses, and
the instrument is at hand in the Land Utilisation Act.
The smallholders show a stronger resistance in times of adversity than
any other category of farmers. The percentage of failures, including the
men settled 10 years ago, at the height of the boom in prices in 1921,
when admittedly the rate of failures was exceptionally high—in all the
years since the War the rate of failures is only 6.2 per cent. in the
aggregate. Nor is it true that you must only have countrymen settled.
The successes include miners, cabinet makers, blacksmiths, tailors and
many others, men quite untrained for agriculture and not even country
bred. As was shown in the investigation made by the Society of Friends,
there are scores of men in the mining industry who have only recently
gone into it and are longing to get back to the land.
270
Of course, such a policy presents difficulties of finance,
and it is to those difficulties that I wish now to address myself. Any
scheme for dealing with the symptoms of unemployment, if it is not to do
more harm than good, must not be such as to aggravate the disease of
trade depression. That implies the avoidance of wasteful and
unremunerative expenditure which will increase the burdens upon industry
of rates and. taxes. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Carnarvon Boroughs said the other day that you could do this thing
without putting a burden on the taxpayer, many Members laughed, but he
was quite right. The argument is very often loosely and wrongly used
that the cost of unemployment benefit can be deducted from the cost of
public work. It is always to be remembered that, if you spend £1,000,000
on a particular public work and you employ 4,000 men for a year, at the
end of that lime, unless they can be reabsorbed naturally into
industry, or unless you can give them some other public work at the cost
of fresh expenditure, you have to go on paying their benefit and for
40, 60 or 80 years or whatever it may be you have, in addition, to pay
interest and sinking fund on your £1,000,000 loan, which is only adding
another burden of rates and taxes on the back of industry. But, if the
public work is remunerative, then, out of the income that you are
receiving for the use of that work, you can pay your loan charges and
there is no addition to rates and taxes, and the whole transaction is to
the benefit of unemployment and to the enrichment of the country.
Now let us apply these principles to the problem of land
settlement. To settle a man on a family farm cost on the average last
summer £1,137. This is one of the chief types of farm, of 30 to 50 acres
with outrun or a share in sheep stock club, which we need in the
Highlands to repopulate our glens and straths and settle the people
there. That work is work of vital social importance. I have pressed it
always upon successive Secretaries of State for Scotland. I hope the
present Secretary of State will be able to give us an assurance that
that work will continue. But it is not unemployment relief. The net cost
to the State of settling a man on a 10-acre market garden holding was
£685 last June or on a holding of the same size
271
with pigs and poultry, £602. This is not the preliminary
cost but the net cost allowing for outgoings, rent, and loan charges. A
market garden cost the State only £453 while a poultry holding cost only
£444. Yet on such holdings in suitable places smallholders are earning a
livelihood and maintaining their families. It costs the State to
maintain in idleness a family consisting of man, wife and three children
no less than £76 a year. In six years the State will have paid out, in
order to keep that family in soul-destroying idleness, no less than
£456, more than it would have cost, even at the prices of last June
including the price at which you had then to borrow money, to settle
them permanently on a four acre market garden or poultry holding.
Moreover, they would be bringing up their children well. Their life
would be healthy and their souls contented and they would be giving
employment to others. Here is the choice that I put to the right hon.
Gentleman. Will he spend, on these June figures, £453 or £444 on either
of these two types of holding to produce this result in perpetuity or
£456 in doles for six years and, if the man is not reabsorbed into
industry, still more doles?
Of course, it must be remembered that, if land settlement is to proceed on a large scale—it is provided for in the Land Utilisation Act—there
must be advances of capital to enable men who have no capital of their
own to equip their holdings. This will add to the preliminary cost of
the scheme but should not add to the ultimate net cost to the State. On
the other hand, the situation has changed in two respects which are
favourable to a scheme of land settlement since last June. In the first
place, money can be borrowed more cheaply, which must bring the net cost
of a 10-acre holding with pigs and poultry well below £600 and, of
course, the cost of the 2685holding would come down proportionately. In
the second place, we have received the report of the Unemployment
Insurance Commission. They made it clear that we cannot go on thinking
that we can merely afford to pay unemployment and transitional benefit
to these men. The majority report says:
This should be made clear at once, that no solution of the problem is possible unless the community is willing to spend a
272
good deal of money on this service. For our part, we think
that the expenditure is well worth while, that it is indeed an essential
part of the provision for unemployed workers.
If the amount of money required for training is taken into
account—and it is stated in the report of the Commission that the
minimum sum for occupational training only is £15 for a nine weeks
course in one year—if you allow the unemployed man only one course of
nine weeks in each of those six years, there is another £90 to be added
to the cost of his maintenance. Therefore you have brought up the cost
of the maintenance to £540. You have got it into the region where
perhaps all those four types of holdings and certainly three of them
will become a defensible financial proposition for the State, and,
incidentally, make a difference between useful, happy, productive work,
permanent for a man and his family, and doles going on indefinitely
until these men are eventually absorbed into industry. I ask the right
hon. Gentleman to realise that every consideration points the same way.
The most economic organisation of agriculture, the re-enforcement of our
social structure—we remember the phrase which the Lord President of the
Council used to use, "the balancing factor in our national economy—the
health of the people, the interests of the children, and the future of
the race seem to point, not in an opposite, but in the same direction as
the considerations of finance which lay at the root of the problem of
trade depression. The way is clear for action on the lines of land
settlement, and I beg of the right hon. Gentleman to take that course.
§
Mr. BUCHANAN
How many do you think he could supply?
§
Sir A. SINCLAIR
It is not for me to say. There is ample evidence in the
thousands of applications which the Department of Agriculture have
received and have not yet dealt with, in the evidence which they have
found whenever they have started to constitute holdings of a latent
demand which does not express itself until a scheme is started, and in
the inquiry instituted by the Society of Friends into the previous
occupation of miners in particular, to show that there are scores of
thousands of families willing and anxious to take the land. The only
practically limiting factor with which I think we need concern ourselves
at the
273
moment is the amount of energy and finance which the Government are pre- pared to put behind the project.
§
Mr. KIRKWOOD
Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us how many
men he put on the land when he was at the Scottish Office?
§
Sir A. SINCLAIR
I dealt quite bluntly and frankly with the House in regard
to that matter at the beginning of my re- marks. I told the House the
position in which we found ourselves. I can tell the hon. Member that
within the limits of the money available we went full-steam ahead while I
was at the Scottish Office, but at a time when it was necessary to cut
down expenditure in order to balance the Budget and to restore the
national credit and to get money down to the price at which it can now
be obtained, from a 5 per cent. basis to a 3½ per cent. basis, we had
certainly to cut—and I defended it at the time—even land settlement.
Now, when we have achieved these objects, is the time when we ought to
use the advantages which our policy has given us.
But more still must be done. I hope that the right lion.
Gentleman will be able to give us an explanation of the announcement
which appeared in the Times "this morning about the scheme which the
Government are introducing for giving help and providing work of
different kinds for the unemployed through the National Council of
Social Service. Is there a similar body being constituted in Scotland to
co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman in Scotland? What arrangements
are being made there, and what money will be available for these
purposes there? It is admirable. I notice that the only feature which is
absent from the scheme is that there is no mention of playing-fields. I
think that there is a direction in which useful employment might be
found and that the Government in Scotland could well co-operate in the
provision of playing-fields with the National Playing Fields
Association. We are greatly behind in the equipment of recreation fields
in our Scottish towns and cities and it is very important that they
should be extended.
The Prime Minister said the other day in the Debate that
local authorities were to be encouraged to embark upon remun-
274
erative expenditure. Good I But equally necessary is it that
they should not fall behind with expenditure which may not be
remunerative but which is absolutely necessary and the postponement of
which would be false economy. One example of that is to be found in
dilapidated, insanitary, and overcrowded school buildings, and I hope
that, in spite of advice which the right hon. Gentleman may receive from
some quarters, he will press on with the reconstruction of such schools
and will not leave behind him—for I believe that it will be false
economy—a crushing legacy of accumulated arrears to his successor.
I come to the question with which we originally opened the
Debate. There are, indeed, as I have pointed out, many directions in
which activities in Scotland should be stimulated, and the question is
whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, or
anyone in his position, would feel that there was a greater impulse
behind him and that his hands were being strengthened the more if he had
not merely to deal with a House of Commons which naturally regards, or
many Members of which, at any rate, are naturally inclined to regard,
Scotland as merely one part of the British Isles, and also with a
Treasury and with other Government Departments who cannot be expected to
regard Scotland as their most important, and certainly not their sole,
preoccupation; but if he had behind him a Parliament of Scotsmen whose
sole preoccupation was the development of their country and the welfare
of its people—I cannot help feeling in matters such as I have been
discussing, land settlement, housing and other similar questions, the
development of our educational system to which the lion. Member for the
Scottish Universities referred, that in all these questions, he would
find more powerful support in a Scottish Parliament than necessarily he
could find in this Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Member for
Hillhead has impressively performed to-night his function of advocatus diaboli,
and he and the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities have said that
Parliaments are not a cure for unemployment. That is true, and I
certainly dissociate myself, if that be necessary, from the arguments
which have been used that if you had a Scottish Parliament in Scotland
you
275
would immediately be able to abolish unemployment. What is
also true is, that there is a demand growing insistently from the
Scottish people that they should be given the right, which they believe
is theirs inalienably, to control their own domestic affairs.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead and the
hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities have declared
impressively that Scotland is culturally and commercially in a low and
distressed state. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a sense
of defeatism in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish
Universities said that there was a feeling that Scotland had no longer
anything distinctive to show. Though it would be no panacea for our
ills, and though it would not be able to introduce at once legislation
to solve the fundamental questions on which the problem of unemployment
depends, a Scottish Parliament might well be able to give a
psychological impulse to the Scottish people at the present time. It
might well be able to give them a feeling of greater confidence. It
might well enable Scotland to draw into its legislative and
administrative deliberations the services of Scotsmen, who, engaged as
they are in every kind of activity in Scotland, are unable to come here
to give their services to Scotland in the House of Commons, but who
would give them gladly and willingly for shorter periods of the year in a
Scottish Parliament. The control of banking, transport and of many of
our industries is moving southwards. The control and the activities of
industry as a result of rationalisation in industry and in some
departments of the public service, the Rosyth Dockyard for example, are
tending to ebb southwards. Scotsmen feel the need of a political and
administrative centre in Scotland which will act as a counter-magnet to
the attraction of London, as a power-house of Scottish energy directed
by Scotsmen familiar with Scottish conditions to the solution of
Scottish problems, for the regeneration of their native land.
The legislation passed here, as my hon. Friend the Member
for the Scottish Universities said, is often not well adapted for
Scotland's conditions. It is sometimes not of the nature most urgently
required. The hon. Member for
276
the Scottish Universities referred to what he called the
indefensible practice of tacking on to English Bills a Measure for
Scotland by means of an obscure and in-comprehensive application Clause.
If Scotland in existing circumstances is to get any progressive
legislation at all, it is necessary to proceed by means of such a
Clause, otherwise legislation for Scotland will lag far behind English
legislation. Time is limited. We cannot claim, as long as we are Members
of this Assembly-70 Members out of 615—precedence for all our Measures.
It means that the English Measure must be introduced, and that if there
is time the Scottish Measure will come along.
As long as you have Scottish business dealt with in this
House you will have to face that dilemma. Either you have the
application Clause in one of its various forms—I think the best form was
the form which the Government used in dealing with two Bills in which
Scotland was interested last Session, the Housing and Town Planning Bill and the Children Bill—or
you must wait for your legislation. There are many things for which
Scotland cannot wait. Sometimes there may be things which Scotland
wants, but which the Government might say: "That would be a dangerous
precedent. If we have that Bill for Scotland we shall have to have
another Bill like it for England. It would create all sorts of
difficulties for us in England." Therefore Scotland has to go without.
The system of tacking on Scottish Measures to English Bills by the
Application Clause cannot be abandoned, as long as we are sitting here
in this Parliament, without injury to Scotland, and without depriving it
of the benefits of the legislation which it requires. The only
alternative method for dealing with the situation is to hay e a Scottish
Parliament dealing with these questions in Scotland.
§
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton)
Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give the House any idea of the kind of Parliament he has in mind?
§
Sir A. SINCLAIR
I am coming to that in a moment. I am going to disappoint my
hon. Friend and I will give him reasons why I shall disappoint him. The
right hon. Member for Hillhead referred to the need of reinforcing
minis-
277
terial control, of lightening the burden upon the Secretary
of State for Scotland by providing him with an additional
Under-Secretary, and of concentrating Government offices in Edinburgh.
The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities suggested increasing the
salaries and remuneration of the Scottish civil servants, and bringing
them up to the English level. Incidentally, I might say that the
Government propose to introduce a measure for improving the method of
dealing with Private Bill legislation. All these things are admirable as
far as they go, and all of them would be useful in the preparatory work
for Scottish Home Rule, but they will never satisfy the demand of the
Scottish people, and they are no substitute for Scottish Home Rule at
the present time.
§
Sir R. HORNE
The demand with which I dealt was the demand of the more
moderate of the two groups. I did not deal with the other nationalistic
view, because a. fortiori the argument
against the other applied to them. I dealt with the only programme
before Scotland at the present time, which would deal separately in a
Scottish Parliament with the finances of Scotland, the trade of
Scotland, the postal services of Scotland and the labour of Scotland. It
is to these questions that the right hon. Gentleman will have to reply.
§
Sir A. SINCLAIR
Certainly, I am going to reply to them. I have notes about them.
§
Sir R. HORNE
And the railways.
§
Sir A. SINCLAIR
I have a note about the railways. The right hon. Gentleman
certainly did attempt to answer arguments which have never been used by
moderate Home Rulers. I do not regard the separation argument as an
important one, and I do not regard the separation party as a powerful
party in Scotland. Therefore, I do not want to spend too much time on
it. The right hon. Gentleman did use an argument that a Scottish
Parliament would abolish unemployment,
278
an argument which has never been used by moderate Scottish Home Rulers.
Lieut.-Colonel C. MacANDREW
Has not the right hon. Member who is now addressing the
House just said that a Scottish Parliament could magnetise things in
Scotland?
§
Sir A. SINCLAIR
That is not quite the same thing. I was dealing with the
argument that a Scottish Parliament would abolish unemployment, and I
say that is nonsense. Surely, the hon. and gallant Member agrees with me
on that. If so, why does he interrupt? I am now coming to the main
argument of the right hon. Member for Hillhead, but I do want to say
that there is not much substance in the argument about separation.
§
Sir R. HORNE
I wish to put the right hon. and gallant Gentleman right on
this matter. It is one of the reasons put forward for Home Rule in
Scotland that they are suffering at the present time worse from
unemployment because they are attached to England, and the remedy they
offer is the setting up of a Scottish Parliament. That is the argument
to which I referred.
§
Sir A. SINCLAIR
It depends how it is put. If you say that the setting up of a
Scottish Parliament will abolish unemployment, or will remove
unemployment, and that some people have said that, I say that it is
nonsense, and I would never agree to it. If, on the other hand, you say
that you are going to give an impetus to Scottish life to have
concentrated upon Scottish problems the brains and the intelligence of
Scotsmen living in Scotland, acquainted with Scottish conditions, and
you say that that is going to do something to strengthen Scotland and to
enable it to grapple more effectively with the evils of unemployment,
then certainly it is true, and that argument may be used both by the
extremists and the moderates. I am not going to deal with the question
of Dominion status, which has been mentioned in this Debate. I would
never suggest that Scotland should aim at such a humiliating position as
Dominion status. We are a mother nation of the Empire, and it is absurd
that we should claim the lower status of a daughter nation. The
movement of the Nationalists is, as the hon. Member for the Scottish
279
Universities said, a movement largely of youth, joyous
inexperienced youth. The Nationalists are the playboys of Scottish
politics, as visionary, unpractical and irresponsible as they are
romantic, attractive and fervent in their patriotism, numbering in their
ranks as they do many of the choicest spirits in Scottish art,
literature and oratory.
Now I come to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments against
that proposal. Re says that it will frighten industry. I agree that
separation would frighten industrialists and business men, but there is
nothing in this proposal to frighten them. They have not been frightened
in Northern Ireland. They are proceeding with their work in Northern
Ireland. They are proceeding with their industries perfectly unhampered
by the fact that there is a Legislature in Belfast.
§
Sir R. HORNE
Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seek for Scotland the constitution of Northern Ireland?
§
Sir A. SINCLAIR
I think it would certainly satisfy the great mass of Home
Rulers in Scotland, but for reasons that I shall give I am not going to
specify the particular kind of constitution in detail. That is a matter
for Scottish public opinion to decide. Scottish opinion has
280
not ripened to the point at which it is possible to lay down in detail the constitution which is to be advocated.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to transport. He said that
the Duke of Montrose had deliberately made a distinction between posts,
telegraphs and telephones on the one hand, and transport on the other.
§
Sir R. HORNE
I did not say so.
§
Sir A. SINCLAIR
I think the right hon. Gentleman did make a particular point
about transport. At any rate, I am dealing with transport now. In a
letter to the "Times" he certainly drew that very distinction. In his
letter to the "Times," in one paragraph, he drew the contrast between
the Duke of Montrose's proposals in regard to posts, telegraphs and
telephones on the one hand, and transport on the other. The answer to
that is that posts, telegraphs and telephones are conducted by the
General Post Office, based on London. What object would there be in
rupturing that organisation? It is working very well throughout the
country. There is no great question of policy concerned. No Scotsman
would want any other method of delivering letters. You cannot continue
to have a General Post Office functioning all over England and Wales as
well as Scotland under the control of a Scottish Parliament. It
functions in Northern Ireland under the control of the General Post
Office but not under the Northern Ireland Parliament. Transport is very
different. Take the question of the railway companies. Grouping need not
be
281
broken up because you have a Scottish Parliament. Railway
lines and steamship lines cross frontiers all over the world. Why on
earth, because you are going to put up a frontier for certain very
limited purposes between England and Scotland, should you break up the
grouping of the railway systems?
Now I come to the question asked by my hon. Friend the
Under-Secretary of State. He asks: What are my proposals? The limits but
not the details are definite. We must not relax our hold on things in
this House; on the conduct in this House of national and Imperial
affairs. These things are vital, and we must certainly continue to have
our share in their control. We are a mother nation in the Empire, we
have responsibilities in every part of the Empire which we shall
continue to bear, but we can, and we' ought, to have control of our own
domestic affairs, in the same way as Northern Ireland and as the Isle of
Man, without any serious results to the Empire. [Interruption.]
Hon. Members may not have realised that there are five Legislatures in
the British Islands, and to add a sixth really would not mean the
downfall of the Empire.
I have many friends among those who are opposing Home Rule
and many among those who are advocating it. Let me, if I may, without
being impertinent address a word of counsel to each. To those who are
opposing Home Rule I say that there is a third choice between extreme
nationalism and standing on the Union, but I do not know how long that
option will remain open. It may be withdrawn. Opinion in Scotland is
rising, and if this demand is frustrated the extremists will seize and
exploit their opportunity. Instead of adopting a negative attitude, I
would suggest that the business interests of Scotland should lend their
weight and counsel to those moderate Home Rulers who wish to work out a
scheme which will at once satisfy Scottish opinion and at the same time
provide ample safe-
282
guards for the business interests of Scotland.
To those of my friends who are supporters of Home Rule I
would say that what matters is not Home Rule, and still less—to return
to the question of the Under-Secretary of State—any particular form of
Home Rule. This is only a means to an end; and the end is the welfare of
Scotland. Therefore, what matters is the success of Home Rule in
achieving that object. Self-governing institutions need for their
success the support of men in every department of Scottish life,
representative men and women, and organisations in every branch of
national life. We cannot indeed wait until we have converted the right
hon. Member for Hillhead. In the first part of his speech he adopted a
position of impartial and objective detachment, but in the end he came
to talk about fighting to the last gasp against the Home Rule proposals.
But we must be prepared to conciliate reasonable and politically
unprejudiced Scotsmen. The Prime Minister is committed to the policy of
Home Rule. Two years ago he promised an inquiry into the question of
Scottish self-government; and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to let us
know whether the Government have any plans for such an inquiry in order
to elucidate the facts, particularly in relation to finance, which ought
to be put before the Scottish electors before the next election.
The business of this House grows increasingly congested. The
hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) referred to Ireland, and
said that the absence of Irish Members had not relieved the pressure on
the business of the House; but does anybody doubt that if we had had
the Irish Members here during the last 10 years the congestion of
business would have been a great deal worse than in fact it has been I
It would he a great advantage to this House, to the Government and to
the Empire, if domestic issues were withdrawn from its purview and it
was able to concentrate on larger questions of international and
imperial policy. The demand undoubtedly exists. The fact that the right
hon. Member for Hillhead has raised this Debate is the clearest
testimony to its increasing insistence. It is a demand which is right in
itself, and if it receives the support of Scotsmen in an in-
283
creasing degree, as it is, it will undoubtedly have to be
conceded in some form or other by this House of Commons. Let me remind
the House what was said by a famous English Member of this House, Mr.
John Pym:
That form of Government is best which doth best actuate and dispose every part and member of the State to the common good.
It is in that spirit that Scotsmen would work
self-government. Their national life would be strengthened and
invigorated, and they would be able to make not a less but a greater
contribution to the common purposes of our two countries and to the
commonwealth to which we both belong.
In conclusion, may I offer to the Secretary of State—I have
to do this before he has spoken in the Debate—my congratulations upon
his assumption of office? He came to the office with the approval and
goodwill of his Scottish colleagues of all parties. The hon. Member for
the Scottish Universities said that we ought to try to form ourselves
into a Scottish party in dealing with Scottish questions, with something
of a feeling of the unity of Scottish interests which would transcend
the ordinary barriers of party divisions. In that connection the
Secretary of State would naturally be the leader, and it would be the
wish of Scottish Members on matters which do not touch upon party
politics, and which transcend all party divisions to give him our
wholehearted support.
§
Mr. BUCHANAN
Let me say a word or two first of all about the proposals of
the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A.
Sinclair) in regard to smallholdings. I want to put one or two questions
to him which I hope will not be considered impertinent or cheeky. When
one hears a speech coming from a man who has held Cabinet rank, the
ordinary man is apt to regard him as something exceptional. That is the
ordinary view taken by the ordinary man and, therefore, I want to say
what I feel about it. The right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness
made some criticisms about smallholdings, and my hon. Friend the Member
for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) interrupted and asked what he had
done. Cabinet Ministers seem to be different when
284
sitting on the Front Bench from what they are when sitting
where the right hon. and gallant Member is now sitting. Only a few weeks
ago I asked the right hon. and gallant Member why he was not giving
smallholdings in Scotland—
§
Sir A. SINCLAIR
I have been quite frank with the House. We are now faced, as
everybody will admit, with a very serious position in the amount of
unemployment in Scotland. The Prime Minister has already told the House
that he is anxious to encourage remunerative work. It is now possible,
as I have shown in the course of my speech, to borrow money at present
rates and settle men on the land without putting a strain on the
national finances. When I was at the Scottish Office it was not possible
to do that, and because we refused to do it then we are in a, position
to do it now.
§
Mr. BUCHANAN
I do not see it that way at all. Let me put the issue simply
and honestly. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman held the office of
Secretary of State, and the position is that as he has left the office
and sits in another part of the House he now says that things are
different. When he held the office he said the same thing as will be
said by the present Secretary of State for Scotland. It may be that
things are somewhat different from what they were when he was Secretary
of State, but he did not resign from the Cabinet on this issue. He
resigned on Free Trade. If the Government had remained loyal to Free
Trade he would still he a member of the Government—and its decision on
the question of smallholdings would hare been the same as it is to-day.
Therefore, he would have stood at that Box as a. member of the Cabinet
and made a speech saying that they could not go on with smallholdings in
Scotland; exactly the same speech as will be made by the present
Secretary of State. If Ottawa had gone Free Trade the Cabinet decision
about smallholdings would have been the same and the right hon. and
gallant Member would still have been a member of the Cabinet. [Interruption.] In any case there would have been only two changes, and it cannot be said that they would have dominated the Cabinet.
The financial situation may be different but the Cabinet is
substantially the same, and the Cabinet has decided against the
285
policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The Secretary of State is
going to say so in a moment. He has said all along that the financial
situation does not allow it. He has already told us that it costs £600
for each smallholding. Assuming that 5,000 are put on the land in
Scotland and 10,000 in England, that is 15,000 altogether; which is not
very much when there are 3.000,000 unemployed. See what the cost is? The
cost is roughly about £9,000,000.
§
Sir A. SINCLAIR
The hon. Member, I think, would be fairer if he referred to
the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow and saw what arguments I used. I dealt
with all sorts of other factors.
§
Mr. BUCHANAN
The right hon. Gentleman said that £600 would be the cost of
certain types and £435 the cost of other types. Let me take an average
of £500, and my figure of £9,000,000 is correct for 15,000 people. That
is 15,000 people on the land out of an unemployed total of 3,000,000.
The right hon. Gentleman is a great man and I am not, but he comes here
and puts that forward as a proposition for solving the problem and makes
that the burden of his speech. He speaks as a member of what was once a
great party. I pay my respect to the Liberals of the past when I see
what politicians accomplish now, even in the party to which I once
belonged. I think the Liberals were a great party and that they
accomplished wonderful things. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to
settle 15,000 people on the land at a cost which he estimates at
£7,500,000. Is that not merely tinkering with the problem of
unemployment? I often ask myself what is wrong with me when I come to
analyse such proposals. I ask myself whether I have something in my
make-up that prevents me from seeing the depth of a problem. I am not
against settlement on the land. If men want to work on the land I
welcome any proposal that will provide them with the honest toil that
suits them. But at the best this is a meagre solution and does not face
the realities of the situation.
Let me turn to another issue in this Debate. One has to some
extent to face the Scottish Home Rule problem. I differ from all
previous speakers in their criticism of the extreme group. In British
politics extremists have not always great numbers to support them, but
it must be
286
remembered that in the past extremists have often become the
party. In Ireland the moderates were set aside. It might have been well
for Britain if the moderates' advice had been taken at the time it was
given. In British politics the Liberals were swept aside for the
extremists who occupied the Government Front Bench, though one would
hardly call them extremists now. In the Scottish Home Rule movement it
is the extremists who have power. The moderates have been created only
since the extremists have captured public favour and public votes. The
moderates could never have polled the votes that the extremists polled
at the Scottish Universities. The Scottish moderates can never make the
sentimental appeal to the electors that the extremists make.
Consequently this House has to dismiss the moderates.
What has to be faced is the extreme movement, and in certain
quarters that extreme movement is making an appeal. From my point of
view it makes an appeal in a limited way. It is an appeal to the
professional and middle classes. It has no strength among the working
classes. I meet lawyers and sheriffs, and nearly every one of them is in
sympathy with the movement. I met a distinguished sheriff of the City
only the other day and he was a keen Nationalist. His first question
was: "Why is the canal stopped?" It is the same with the doctors and the
higher paid civil servants. I differ from the right hon. Member for
Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) and the hon. Member for the Scottish
Universities (Mr. Buchan) in their statements about the Irish in
Scotland. I represent a bigger Irish Catholic population than any other
man in Scotland. I have never been much questioned about Scottish Home
Rule by any section of the population in my Division, and that is
because it is purely a working-class division. Least of all have I been
questioned by the Catholic Irish. Every demand that I have got from the
Irish has come from the non-Catholic Irish.
§
Sir R. HORNE
I have here and could quote at length a declaration made by the vice-president of a certain organisation.
§
Mr. BUCHANAN
I am coming to that. The House should remember that I once
introduced a Bill for Scottish Home Rule. It was a moderate Bill,
drafted on Liberal
287
lines. At the time I knew nothing about Parliamentary
draftsmanship, and the man who helped me to draft that Bill was a great
Parliamentarian, the late Mr. Pringle. In those days it was we who
started the discussion of Scottish Home Rule. To-day we find the
discussion initiated by others. I think that in many respects the
movement is anti-Irish. It is quite easy to prove that some Catholic or
Irish are associated with it. Mr. Compton Mackenzie is a distinguished
Roman Catholic, but he is not Irish by any means. Indeed part of the
motive power behind the movement is anti-Irish. I have involved myself
in great risk in discussing this point. There is nothing that can be so
easily twisted as statements on religious or racial matters. I represent
more religions and more races than any man in this House. I have in my
division a Jewish population, in addition to the Catholics and a large
section who are strong Presbyterians, and I represent a fair number,
possibly a larger number than anyone, of people who have no religious
beliefs at all. Part of this movement is anti-Irish. Its supporters say,
"The Irish have taken our jobs. They are coming across here and taking
our work. If we had a Scottish Parliament we could stop them from doing
it." Who has not heard that statement? That is one of the motives behind
the movement; anyone who knows Scottish politics knows that that is one
of the drives and urges behind it.
The other day, in the Smokeroom of this House, I discussed
with some Conservatives and Liberals the youth of today, particularly
the female part of the population. My parents were Scottish. My father
had charge of the kirk plate and went through the silver on Sunday. When
I was to be christened he made my mother carry me miles because she
would not go to a church to which contributions were made out of State
funds. She carried me on her back with five others running behind her.
She saved in order to give her family an education and her family are
looked upon as having done well. Yet, speaking with all due respect, I
say that the women of to-day are better even than the women of my
mother's time. I think the women in Glasgow and in Scotland generally
are the finest generation to which our country has given birth. Take any
test you like—the illegitimate birth-rate, the morals of the streets,
cleanliness, anything you like, and, even with unemployment, the modern
women more than compare with any generation of women who have gone
before them. We hear a lot about how the older women could cook and so
on. I am not very long married and my wife is a typical Glasgow woman
—just a typical, decent, fairly good-looking—[Laughter.]
I mean that she is a typical Glasgow woman of to-day, just as, I
suppose, I am typical in the fact that I drifted into marriage. You
start and you drift into it and it is not because of any great capacity
in himself that a man chooses well or chooses badly. But I say that from
every standpoint my wife compares with any of the women of an earlier
generation and I think it is the same generally with the women of
to-day. As for the men of to-day, I know of young men who have never
been in employment in their lives and who have families. Many of them
are better men than I was at their age when I was in work. In
book-learning, in general knowledge, in acquaintance with politics and
science, many of them excel the young men of an earlier generation. Far
from
289
being demoralised, I say that they are cleaner and better
than their forebears were at the same age. No, I do not accept the
demoralisation theory in that respect. But I would plead with my Glasgow
colleagues, nay with Members of this House generally, to come with me
and to see the real demoralisation which is taking place. I would ask
them to go to the Glasgow Sheriff Court any morning after there has been
an eviction. We have been discussing Home Rule to-day, but what is the
overwhelming problem for the people in Hillhead and in Glasgow at the
moment. It is not Home Rule. It is how they are going to keep their
houses. If hon. Members would go to the Glasgow Sheriff Court to-morrow
they would see demoralisation but not demoralisation caused by
unemployment. The most awful power in Britain is fear. It was fear that
put Britain into the War. It was fear that carried on the War. It is
fear that makes us go on preparing for another war and it is fear, that
is killing our people to-day.
In that court which I have mentioned you will see hundreds
of women, women of 35, women of 60, haggard in appearance and everyone
of them demoralised, but not demoralised because they are not working.
These women, although they have families, all have to work and they are
far more demoralised than the men. It is not unemployment which has
caused that demoralisation but the lack of income and the problem which
we have to face is the problem of getting income into the pockets and
the homes of the great mass of the people. For my part I would welcome
some form of local government or national government in the hands of the
Scottish people. I can see none of the gravity in that which the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead indicated. He drew a picture of a
general strike, of a Bolshevist Government in Scotland, or rather a
Socialist Government in Scotland and a Tory Government here. I wish I
could see that picture as easily as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to
see it. But even if it were so there would be nothing dreadful or awful
in it. You might have a Socialist Government here and a general strike
for the whole of Britain.
§
Sir R. HORNE
I would rather have that.
290
§
Mr. BUCHANAN
The right bon Gentleman would rather extend the area. That
makes the thing better. It suits me. The only difference between us
apparently is that we would like to cover not only Britain but other
countries as well. But on that point may I say that in regard to this
Scottish demand it is all nonsense to talk about reforms. In passing, I
wish to enter a caveat in regard to the appointment of Scottish
Secretaries under the present system. I can stand a good deal of slush
at the time of a man's death for example, but not when men are living
and can stand up for themselves and there is a great deal of slush about
appointments in this House. It is excusable perhaps when a new Member
is making his first speech. We always talk slush on those occasions and
the new Member is always told that his speech is the finest we have ever
heard. The same thing applies to new appointments and in this case I
wish to dissent from it and I am not to be moved from that dissent. I
would be a liar if I said that I approved of the appointment of the
present Secretary of State for Scotland. In all our hearts we know that
he ought not to be there. He has been 21 years in this House. I have
been here for 10 years and during that 10 years he has taken practically
no part in the public affairs of the House of Commons. [Interruption.]
I ask hon. Members how many times has the present Secretary of State
for Scotland taken part in those affairs? How many of us know him as an
active Member of this House of Commons in the same degree as his
predecessor? To what extent has he shared in the life and work of
Scottish Members here? Any of us who would honestly answer those
questions would have to say that the right hon. Gentleman has not done
so.
That is bad enough, but there is a second thing which I have
against him. Other holders of this office have been reactionary but he
is probably the most reactionary holder of it that I have known.
Therefore I cannot say that I view his appointment with delight or
approval. As regards administrative changes we are told that it is
proposed to put factory inspection under the Scottish Office. I would
not mind that if those responsible would show us what good such a change
was going to do, but I cannot see what good is to be achieved
291
by having factory inspection under the Scottish Office. I
say that it would be a change for the worse. I would not mind if you put
it into the hands of the Under-Secretary, but God forbid that we should
hand anything more over to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
There is one curious thing about Secretaries of State for
Scotland. They alter in name—we have had Mr. Willie Adamson, Lord Novar,
the present Home Secretary, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the
Member for Caithness, and now we have the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins)—but they are all the same. It has
been the same Scottish Secretary all the time —Sir John Lamb. It is the
most reactionary Department in the whole Government. Hon. Members may
think that sometimes I claim a great deal, but I can claim this, that as
regards constituency complaints and complaints from individuals I carry
more than my share. I must be a terrible worry to the Under-Secretary
of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate in regard to these matters.
The curious thing that as regards the Lord Advocate sometimes the reply
which I receive is different in tone from other replies. It is not
always the same. As regards the Under-Secretary, there is no single
holder of that office whom I have known whether Tory, Liberal or Labour
who has not applied himself to the job. Mr. Joe Westwood worked hard on
it and did greater work than ever I expected. He did magnificently. So
did Mr. Tom Johnston. There have been Conservative Under-Secretaries in
the past and there is the present Under-Secretary of whom we can say
that he will look into your case and give you a reply which has
something of human feeling in it. But as regards the Secretary of State
the replies are always of the same type, whether they are signed
"Archibald Sinclair" or "William Adamson." The reply is always the same
—cold, cruel, mean. I have never known of a Department crueller and
meaner than the Scottish Office. Unless you are going to hand over
Scottish affairs altogether to a Scottish Parliament, far be it from me
to consent to factory inspection being handed over to an autocracy which
is in my view cruel and unfair.
292
As regards the demand for Scottish Home Rule, Parliament
would do well not to dismiss it with the cheap sneers which so often
greet demands for reforms of that kind. There is a genuineness behind
this demand. It is, as I have said, in the main a middle-class movement.
I and the few who sit here with me, welcome it in so far as it
represents the progress of human liberation, a progress which has gone
on in Ireland and is going on in India, which has captured our Colonies
and is now moving into Scotland. We welcome that movement but we hold
that the movement is only good in so far as- it applies itself to the
great poverty problems in our midst. We say that far greater than Home
Rule for Scotland, or for England, or for Ireland are the great
fundamental economic problems, the problems of a community which is
producing untold wealth and untold poverty. Whether you have Parliaments
in London and Edinburgh and Dublin or not does not matter if the
problems of economic want and economic misery are not solved. No
Parliament and no Government, local or national, will last or will have a
meaning for the people, which does not wipe out needless poverty in the
country which it governs.
§
The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins)
The House has listened, as it nearly always does, to a very
moving, human speech from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan),
who paid, and rightly paid, a noble tribute to the poorer classes,
which, I am sure, touched the hearts of many hon. Members who heard it.
When we cast our minds back to the intense depression which this country
has suffered during the last 10 or 12 years, I feel sure that the world
as well as Great Britain admires the courage and fortitude with which
our people have faced these unhappy years. The right hon. and gallant
Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), who preceded him, asked me one
or two questions, and he told the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr.
Kirkwood) that his policy while he was Secretary of State for Scotland
was a policy of full-steam ahead within the means at his disposal. Let
me assure him that that is my policy, too. I thought I detected in parts
of his
293
speech that he thought the crisis which faced this country
12 months ago had passed, but I am sure he must be as conscious as I am
that the crisis has not passed and that large sums of money cannot yet
be forthcoming for schemes which are dear to his heart and to the hearts
of other hon. Members.
The figures are indeed very remarkable. I have here a
statement, sent to me from the Board of Trade at my request, showing the
value of domestic exports from Scotland per head of the insured workers
in 1929 and 1931. In 1929 the figure was £53 per head, but in 1931 that
figure had dropped to £28. In the very short period of two years the
export trade from Scottish ports had dropped by nearly 50 per cent. Can
we wonder, therefore, at the extreme depression which exists to-day in
Scotland? Then I have here figures which show the percentage of
unemployment in Scotland during those two years. Taking the figure in
January, 1930, and comparing it with 1932, the percentage of unemployed
workers has increased from 14.7 to as much as 27.7; in other words, a 10
per cent. increase during the short space of two years.
I have given some figures showing the extreme fall in our
export trade, and in some quarters it is not fully realised how largely
dependent the Scottish coal trade is on her export markets. Upwards of
294
nearly a quarter of the Scottish output of coal is dependent
upon overseas markets, and we all know how those markets during the
last two years have shown contraction, but in that connection I am glad
to remind the House that this year the Scottish export trade in coal has
turned the corner and is showing a fair increase. The figures for the
first three-quarters of 1932 show that the foreign coal shipments from
Scotland have increased in comparison with 1931 from 4,780,000 tons to
5,490,000 tons—a very considerable increase during the last nine months.
I am sure the House hopes that that increase will continue in the
future.
But with these figures of decreased exports and increased
unemployment, is there any wonder at the extreme depression which exists
in the minds of many Scottish people? Let me remind my fellow
countrymen that while India is unsettled India cannot buy locomotives,
which have been largely made in Scotland as in former years; while
Russia is unsettled and considers herrings sinful luxuries, she is not a
ready buyer of the herrings which our Scottish fishers are so skilled
in catching; and while the Australian exchange is so heavily
depreciated, Australia is unable to buy freely Scottish products. I will
not on this occasion touch on the Government policy for dealing with
these matters, but I only remind my hon. Friends in this House of these
facts to show how vitally dependent Scotland is upon her export trade.
Until that export trade is righted and international trade starts again,
there must be, I fear, considerable distress in our native land.
That is the background, which exists in Scotland to-day and
has existed during the last 12 months, which, I think, has created this
demand for a separate Parliament. Naturally, in times of distress,
people turn to various remedies to improve their economic situation. Let
me turn now to this demand. So far as the Government are concerned,
Home Rule for Scotland is an academic question, and I have not asked my
colleagues to consider it. Throughout my remarks on this subject, I am
expressing my own individual views, although later I will explain fully
the views of His Majesty's Government on certain questions which have
been put to me by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hill-
295
head. Let me consider the case as presented by the Duke of
Montrose in his letter to the "Times" of 14th November. Sir Alexander
MacEwen, in his book "The Thistle and the Rose," largely covered the
same ground. The Duke of Montrose said:
The only thing which will save Scotland as an industrial
nation is intensive development, activity in public departments, and the
service of the best brains.
The Duke went on to say:
We will never get these things until we have the control of our domestic affairs in Scotland.
Can these results be obtained to-day under our present
system? Let me consider them one by one. As to "intensive development," I
believe that our industrialists, our workers, our public bodies, and
the people of Scotland are aroused to the vital importance of this
matter and are actively applying themselves today in many different ways
to the question of a solution. For instance, the Scottish National
Development Council are actively pursuing their investigations, and they
have to-day a number of subcommittees at work. We look forward with
interest and hope to their report, and any concrete proposals from a
representative Scottish body would naturally be considered most
favourably, as we are genuinely anxious to assist recovery from the
present depression and to brighten the home lives of our people in
Scotland.
The Duke's second point was "activity in public
departments." My short experience as Secretary of State for Scotland has
revealed to me, as I am sure it was revealed also to my predecessors,
that the civil servants in all the Departments under my control are not
only a very capable and hard-working staff, but are keen and zealous in
the interests of Scotland. If there be any lack of activity in any
sphere of the many-sided activities of the work of the Secretary of
State for Scotland, and Scottish Members of Parliament or others bring
it to my knowledge—and if I know my fellow-countrymen aright, they will
not be slow to criticise in this as in other matters—I shall welcome
their criticisms with a view to remedying any shortcomings which may
exist, and I shall willingly act as a medium for stimulating action if
practical proposals are put forward.
296
The third point in the letter from the Duke of Montrose was
that the service of the best brains would not be available unless a
separate Parliament were established in Scotland. It is not so simple or
so pleasant to touch on this point, but let me remind the House that a
very widely signed Memorial against the setting up of a Scottish
Parliament in Edinburgh was signed by many of the best brains in
Scotland, who view that proposal with consternation. The Duke of
Montrose's points of intensive development and activity in public
departments can, I submit to my colleagues in this House, be fully met
under the present system, but there is room for alteration and
improvement, and that is contemplated by the present Government. The
community of interests between Scotland and England extends over a vast
field and embraces trade union law and organisation, industrial
legislation. Factory Acts, workmen's compensation, friendly societies
and insurance, social services, railways, as was pointed out by my right
hon. and learned Friend, and a vast range of industrial and financial
enterprise. In my view, a separate Parliament in Scotland would be a
definite handicap to the trade, industry, and well-being of Scotland,
and in my opinion—and naturally I am only speaking my own mind on this
subject—it would be a distinctly retrogressive step.
The House listened with deep interest to -the speech of the
senior Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), who touched on
a point which is always dear to all Scotsmen, Scottish sentiment and
the distinctive Scottish characteristics which have made our little
country a great race in the eyes of the world. If I understood him, he
meant that mere machinery of Parliament would not develop these gifts.
These gifts to which he referred, if I understood him aright, were gifts
of the spirit and, I am sure that every hon. Member, and everyone who
fears the introduction of a Scottish Parliament, will do all they can to
cherish and nurture this distinctive Scottish sentiment we all admire.
My fellow-countrymen value and cherish their heritage of having had for a
long period, representation in the Imperial Parliament. They demand
to-day that legislation adapted to the needs of Scotland must not be
frustrated by the fact that Scottish Members are a minority in this
297
House. Let me hasten to add that, during the 22 years I have
had the honour of being a Member of this House, I have not detected any
desire on the part of my fellow-English Members to delay the passage
into law of any legislation demanded by Scottish Members. From
observation I can say that Scotland is to-day in the Imperial Parliament
well able to safeguard her interests and control her destinies, and, at
the same time, exercise her due weight in the Imperial Parliament.
Let us, therefore, as realists address ourselves to what can
be done to improve the economic position and well-being of Scotland,
both in town and country, and a t, the same time give expression to
those distinctive national characteristics which mark Scotland as a
nation. I link together in common policy the material well-being of our
people and the expression of the spirit of Scotland on the lines of our
historic past. It is with these objects in view that I turn to some
matters of more immediate interest. The paragraph in the Gracious Speech
reads:
Bills relating to Scotland will be introduced to amend
the procedure governing, private legislation, to facilitate the
administration of civil justice, and for other purposes.
Let me briefly explain the Government's proposals. As hon.
Members for Scottish constituencies know, if private legislation takes
the form of an opposed private Bill, it must be referred for Inquiry to
Select Committees in each House of Parliament sitting at Westminster.
This system also applies to a certain proportion of Scottish Private
Legislation. The' remainder is dealt with by Provisional Orders under
the special Scottish procedure established by the Act of 1899. I propose
that the proportion dealt with under the Scottish procedure, by
Inquiries conducted in Scotland, should be increased. Of course the
Provisional Orders, after the Inquiry in Scotland, require confirmation
by Parliament. My broad object is to secure that a greater proportion of
Scottish Private Legislation should be examined in a Scottish
atmosphere in Scotland. In the past some purely Scottish local matters
including such as burgh extensions, and other matters involving much
time and expense, have been dealt with by Select Committees at
Westminster. I propose to try to avoid this in future, and hope, after
298
consultation with the Parliamentary and Departmental
authorities concerned, to introduce a Bill very shortly. The other Bill
will be based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission presided
over by Lord Clyde. It is intended to expedite and cheapen litigation in
the Court of Session.
I turn to another matter mentioned by the right hon. Member
for Hillhead, that is the question of the erection of a Government
building to house the staff at Edinburgh. During my first official visit
there it was apparent to me, as it had been to my predecessors, that
the existing arrangement, whereby 10 different Departments are scattered
in 22 different buildings throughout the city, is neither conducive to
economy nor efficiency. Moreover, the condition of many of these
buildings is hardly consistent with the dignity of a capital. A
centralised building in Edinburgh to which all sections of public life
could come for the transaction of business with responsible heads would
have real and obvious advantages, and I feel certain that, sooner or
later, such a building must be provided. Accordingly, in conjunction
with the First Commissioner of Works, I am working upon a scheme which
may meet the situation I have described, but I must warn the House that,
at the present time, financial considerations are paramount in England
as in Scotland. I shall, therefore, endeavour to be ready for the
opportunity when it comes, but I cannot undertake to say when the
Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give favourable attention to
my proposals.
I now turn to certain administrative changes to which my
attention has been directed this afternoon by several hon. Members. I am
also carefully considering this problem to find out by what means
Scottish administration can, to a greater extent than at present, be
carried out in Edinburgh. Progress on these lines is undoubtedly, to
some degree, dependent on the erection of a centralised building, but,
at the same time, I have little doubt that, even in present
circumstances some devolution of work to Edinburgh, and in particular
that which concerns the local authorities, is both possible and
desirable. I am sure the House will not expect me to go further on that
point, having been such a short time in office. May I remind the House
299
of the departmental position in Scotland and England? The
great bulk of the work in the important services of education, health,
housing and agriculture are done to-day in Edinburgh by the Departments
charged with these Services. We have here, in London, besides a branch
of the Scottish Education Office, the Scottish Office which handles a
great variety of work of different kinds, and there is a liaison between
Edinburgh and London. I am considering further development and,
particularly, the transfer to Edinburgh of further administrative work
so that the local authorities may get immediately in touch with those
concerned.
The senior member for the Scottish Universities is very
interested in the Records Office. We have been making an examination of
these very old records, and I am glad to he able to tell him they are a
valuable addition to our knowledge of public life in Scotland 200 to 300
years ago. Examination of these records reveals that they are, speaking
broadly, only in need of cleaning and airing. Most of them are in a
well-preserved state.
The right hon. Member for Hillhead asked me about the
financial relations between England and Scotland. A few weeks ago I
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to arrange for the preparation of a
return giving the particulars of revenue and expenditure in relation to
these two countries. He acceded to my request, and I hope, therefore,
that it may be possible to publish the figures at a very early date.
These figures will give to the people of Scotland the financial
relations between the two countries. I feel sure that when they are
published they will be carefully studied by my fellow-countrymen, who
will thus realise the full implication of the demand for a separate
Parliament sitting in Edinburgh. The right hon. Member for Hill-head
also addressed to the Government a question regarding the appointment of
a further Under-Secretary. The arrangement in the past has been that
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is charged with Health and Housing,
under the general supervision of the Secretary of State. A few weeks ago
I asked the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Skelton)
who, I may say, has been very helpful to me, if he would also undertake
to give me a large measure of assist-
300
ance in regard to the work of education; and the
Under-Secretary will be charged in future not only with Health and
Housing but Education as well. The appointment of an additional
Parliamentary Under-Secretary is an interesting suggestion, and I hope
the House will not expect me to go further on that point than I have
this evening, having regard to the paramount necessity for economy in
the spirit as well as in the letter.
I have endeavoured this evening, quite briefly, to deal with
the question of a separate Parliament for Scotland. I have endeavoured
to show that, in my judgment, it would be against the best interests of
Scotland. One reason why I regret that this question should have come to
the front is because it will divert the attention of my
fellow-countrymen from the realities of the case, and lead them to
endeavour to solve their problems by some fresh political device. That
is the gravest feature of the situation. They would seek out their
remedies and try to solve their problems by the institution of a fresh
Parliament. There is no hope for Scotland if she pursues that policy in
the present time. I sincerely hope, now that this question has been
ventilated in the House this evening and the subject approached from
many quarters, that those who I know are good Scotsmen will in future
direct the thoughts of the young to the more immediate problems which
face our country so that our material well-being will be improved in the
future. My fellow countrymen may be slow starters, but they are good
stayers. Britain, including Scotland, has her back to the wall to-day.
We have surprised the world during the last 12 months, and we hope in
Scotland that we will regain our export markets so that our trade may
prosper and our people find employment in work suitable for them. No one
would suggest that all is well with Scotland, but her prosperity and
her future greatness will be found, as in the past, to reside in the
character and genius of her people. While I hold my office, my policy
will be what was, I am sure, the policy of my predecessors, jealously to
guard the true and best instincts of my native land. Therefore, I call
upon my fellow countrymen, irrespective of party, to assist the
Government and the Secretary of State in common
301
action designed to encourage our people and to restore prosperity to our native land.
§
Mr. MILNE
I am sure that I express the feelings of all Scottish
Unionist Members when I say that we cordially welcome the programme of
legislation foreshadowed in the King's Speech. Last winter I cast my
vote in favour of every Measure proposed by the Government, and I hope
during the coming Session to continue my loyal support. I did not get on
my feet merely to say that. I want to draw attention, not so much to
what the Speech contains, as to what it omits. I venture to think that
Scotland is not receiving sufficient consideration. Scotland has her own
special problems, which demand special treatment and special
legislation. What is troubling me is that the Standing Committee on
Scottish Bills has gone out of existence; it has ceased action. Six
months ago I drew attention to this matter. I was speaking on the
Town Planning Act,
and I reminded the House that the Scottish Standing Committee had sat
for only five days, or to be accurate, for four mornings and part of a
fifth. That was on the 6th June. Since then the Scottish Standing
Committee has not met on a single occasion and it has practically gone
out of existence because the Government have failed to provide it with
any work. I am not overlooking the fact that a couple of days are
allocated for the discussion of the Scottish Estimates, but I never
remember a more dreary lackadaisical business than that discussion. It
is not the fault of the Scottish Members. The reason is that we know
that nothing will result from our discussions. In short, we do not want
conversation, we want legislation.
But we are disturbed, we are filled with disquiet, when we
consider the situation of our own country. I dread to look at statistics
relating to Scotland. For the first time since the census was
instituted, the figures show a decline in our population. Last week I
chanced upon a report. It is not propaganda, but a prosaic report issued
recently by the Department of Agriculture upon the acreage and
production of crops in Scotland. On page 6 is the general survey of the
Department, showing that the total area under crops and grass in 1931 is
the smallest since 1876. The area of arable land is the smallest
recorded since returns were first made in 1866. Permanent grass, on the
other hand, is the largest area on record. Our land is going out of
cultivation. I share the admiration of the Scottish Members for our
fellow-countryman, the Minister of Agriculture. We admire and applaud
his energy and his decision. His predecessor solved the problem of the
wheat grower. The present Minister is on the way to rehabilitate the
livestock industry. But the future of wheat and even of live-stock does
not constitute the problem for the Scottish farmer. Oats, barley and
potatoes are of paramount importance to him, and I would pray the
Ministry of Agriculture to give us a second display of action, but
action this time directed to the solution of the problem of the northern
farmers.
There are many other evils which are crying out for
attention and legislation. Reference was made to one of the most
significant and alarming tendencies of the time in the drift south of
industry away from Scotland. I know that business men and
303
captains of industry tell us that the causes are economic.
They say that legislation is of no avail and worse than useless. I
cannot think so poorly of this High Court of Parliament as to believe
that it is powerless to arrest, or at any rate to control, the drift
south of industry away from Scotland. I would earnestly beg the
Government, even at the eleventh hour, to revise and enlarge their
programme of legislation. I would not have it be supposed that we regard
the Government as entirely unregenerate. I detect in the gracious words
from the Throne some signs of awakening interest in Scotland and a
promise of legislation. The mountain has laboured and brought forth a
Bill to regulate the procedure in the Court of Session and to remedy
some defects in the machinery of Provisional Orders. But that is not
all. Let us be thankful for small mercies. I see that there is also a
cryptic reference to a Bill for other purposes. That may mean little, or
it may mean, let us hope, a great deal.
I turn with pleasure to another and more hopeful proposal
emanating from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R.
Horne). He wants to reorganise the Scottish Office. That is a reform
which is long overdue. I speak with confidence on this subject, because I
speak with some special knowledge, and I know more about it perhaps
than even the right hon. Gentleman. The position in any other country
but Scotland would be regarded as intolerable. The whole government of
Scotland is focussed in the Scottish Office, and the address of the
Scottish Office is Dover House, Whitehall. Not a single official, not a
single clerk, not even an office boy is stationed in Edinburgh. The
Secretary of State is provided with a room. Let me be entirely accurate,
however; the Secretary of State does not even have this room. It is a
species of back parlour situated at the top of a stair in Parliament
Square, and he has to share it with two advocates who supervise in an
advisory capacity private legislation in Scotland—responsible and
important work. When the Secretary of State for Scotland visits
Scotland—I use the word "visit" advisedly. It is the term employed by
our newspapers—and goes to this room, I do not doubt that he finds it
swept and garnished, but I will tell him
304
a secret. He is unaware of the fact that these two
advocates, so long as he remains in occupation of that room, are evicted
and separated from their papers and records, and have to go on holiday.
The work of that department is therefore brought to a standstill.
I wonder sometimes, when I wander round the palaces of
Whitehall, what Englishmen would think if they were told that every time
the President of the Board of Trade or the Home Secretary had occasion
to enter his office, the work of an important branch of his Department
was brought to a standstill and the officials had to go on holiday. It
is a comedy, it is a burlesque, or, if you will, it is the tragedy, of
what was once the Kingdom of Scotland. It is not merely a matter of
economy; there is more in it than that. It is the cause of gross
injustice. Suppose a. member of the public has important business with
the Scottish Office. He can send a letter; but it may be a matter of
urgency which cannot be settled by correspondence, and he may want an
interview. He can have his interview at a price—provided he is willing
and able to snake a 400-mile journey from Scotland to Dover House,
Whitehall.
The Scottish Office, the whole of it, should be transferred
to Edinburgh. We have complete confidence—I have for my part—in our new
Secretary of State, and we have the most entire confidence in our
well-tried Under-Secretary of State, but what we fear in Scotland is the
company they keep. We see them sitting on the Treasury Bench. The words
"The Treasury" are words of evil omen in Scotland. In these matters the
Treasury has been a cruel step-mother to Scotland. I say with profound
respect to the Secretary and the Under-Secretary that if this reform is
left to the tender mercies of the Treasury, then good-bye to any hope of
its ever coming to pass. I would assure them that in their struggles
with the Treasury, when they are wrestling with the powers of darkness,
they have behind them the united support of the whole of the 70 Scottish
Members.
§
Mr. KIRKWOOD
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr.
Milne), because he has given us some enlightenment on the reasons for
the delay in replying to letters sent to the Scottish
305
Office. I sent them a letter which it would take about five
minutes to reply to, and I have specially seen the Under-Secretary of
State about the matter, and I still await a reply. I can see to-day the
proof of what I have said many a time in my native land, that this idea
of Home Rule for Scotland can be raised at any time in order to
side-track the working class of. Scotland from the great economic
problems of which they are the victims. When the right hon. Member for
Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) is so eloquent on this subject and spends such a
tremendous amount of time on it, not only in this House but in the
country, then I, as a Socialist, am very suspicious. But he started
to-day far away from Scotland, he was away across the wild Atlantic sea
in America, and he said that Britain ought to pay America considering
the great recovery we have made. I am going to keep that phrase for my
closing remarks, because it is very interesting to us on these benches
—"the great recovery we have made." There is no hint of poverty there.
Then he went on to wax eloquent, and I agree with him on that, about our
love of our native land. It is perfectly true that Scotland has a
distinct language. We are a distinct race, we have a distinct
literature, we have songs that are entirely our own, and we have given
to the world the most outstanding working-class poet the world has ever
seen, Robert Burns. Many characteristics of the Scot are peculiarly his
own, and it will be an ill day when Scotland surrenders those
characteristics.
306
§
Sir R. HORNE
Really, that is an unworthy insinuation on the part of my
hon. Friend, when all my life I have been trying to help education
throughout the whole community. I myself, as a boy, went to an ordinary
parish school, where all my friends were of the ordinary village people,
and they are my friends still. I have no desire to discourage education
in Scotland.
§
Mr. KIRKWOOD
The right hon. Member for Hillhead knows perfectly well that
I do not wish to say anything against him as an individual, or against
the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities as an individual. I have
said here time and time again that as individuals they would not mete
out the treatment that they do as administrators here in making laws for
the country, and I still say so. The hon. Member for the Scottish
Universities distinctly stated that the young men and women in the
universities in Scotland are desirous of Home Rule. So it is because the
educated section of the people are becoming alive to it! But that is
not what I was going to say when the right hon. Member for Hillhead
interrupted me. I said this was the policy of the Tory
Government—because this is a Tory Government. If ever there was a Tory
Government, this is one. They may hold the right hon. Member for Seaham
(Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) as a hostage, but that is all. The policy is
given out by the Minister of Education. What does he say? That the
children of the working-class to-day are, on the average, being better
educated than are many of the children of the middle-classes, and that
this has got to stop. That is the outlook of the Government. That is, in
essence, what the Minister of Education said at the Box there. The
first to give utterance to that sentiment was the Noble Lord the Member
for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), when he was Minister of Education. He
said, just as the Minister of Education in the present Government said
the other night in my hearing: "What are we going to do with all the
working-class if they are educated up to this standard? They will not
work. They will want something higher." Of course, they will want
something higher, and that is the danger; and that is what we see here
as far as Home Rule for Scotland is concerned. In my opinion, that is
why the right hon. Member for Hillhead said distinctly in his
307
own constituency that he would require now to approach this
question with an open mind, that he had always been against Home Rule
for Scotland, but that the time had now arrived when they would have to
approach it with an open mind, because the demands for it were coming
from the educated section of the community. It is because of that that
they have to attend to it. I do not object to Home Rule for Scotland,
but I do object to the whole time of this House being taken up, because
to me Home Rule for Scotland is a mere bagatelle compared with the
situation with which this country is faced.
§
Sir R. HORNE
Hear, hear!
§
Mr. KIRKWOOD
Yes, but after I have said that there is a reason—this is
the natural outcome of the economic depression from which our country is
suffering. The young, the strong, the intelligent are looking for a way
out. Metaphorically speaking they are saying, to use the Biblical
phrase, "What shall I do to be saved?" They are wanting a way out, they
see no hope. Again, I hope the right hon. Member for Hill-head will not
object when I quote once more from his speech here to-day. He said that
Parliamentary action was no use. Those are his words, and they will be
used in evidence against him. The right hon. Gentleman is a great
Parliamentarian and I am a Parliamentarian. I believe in Parliamentary
action. It has been my quarrel with the Communists ever since the
Communist movement took a grip in this country. I believe it is still
possible, on the anvil of the Floor of this House, to forge out our
Socialist policy. It is because of that that I am a Parliamentarian. The
right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead tells my fellow-countrymen
and women that through Parliamentary action we can solve this riddle of
the universe. We can solve it through Parliamentary action, and it
would materially assist in the solution if we had a separate Parliament
in Edinburgh.
I hope you will excuse me for being a bit personal to them,
Mr. Speaker. They are the two leading lights. The rest do not matter,
because they are a lot of diehards. They do matter in things in
Scotland. I have a lot to say to the
308
Liberal the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A.
Sinclair) before I have finished here. The right hon. Gentleman the
Member for Hillhead and the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities
saw a bogey, which was the Irish. That is the Irish problem. I want to
ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead who brought the
Irish to Scotland? Who? Ask the Chairman of the Tory party, Lord
Stonehaven. It was his great-grandfather who brought the Irish to the
west of Scotland because they were cheap labour. We were all right then,
but now the descendants of those Irish have assimilated all the
outstanding good characteristics of the Scot. Their educated children go
to the Glasgow University. There you will find their sons and
daughters. We were all right as long as our forefathers were serving the
ruling class of Scotland. The trouble is that the Irish in the West of
Scotland have supported the working-class in Scotland. They have stood
by the Labour movement and because of that everything is all wrong. It
ill becomes the senior Member for the Universities of Scotland, who, in
his book on Montrose shows the great friends that the Irish were to the
Duke of Montrose. The senior Member for the Universities makes out
Montrose as one of the greatest Scotsmen that ever lived, and I do not
think that be is far wrong.
After having said all that, let me turn to the right hon.
and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness. Like a great many other
hon. Members who rise up in this House, he seems to think that we have
no memories and that we do not remember when they were in office. He has
only just come from office. When Scottish affairs were before the House
on the very last occasion, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Caithness was then the Secretary of State for Scotland, less than a
couple of months ago. He has the audacity—this rich landowner, the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness—and he has the habit, of rising
in the House and of twitting the present Government because they have
not done certain things. That is the reason why I interjected and asked
what he had done when he was in office. He stopped the whole business.
He started to talk there to-day about getting the smallholder back to
the land. Among the first things he did when he went to
309
the Scottish Office was to stop the whole business. Not a
single ex-service man was put on the land while he was in office. He
said that they should be put on the land, that land is cheap and money
is cheap and that there are 10,000 idle hands still looking for work. I
want to say to him, before I go on to the Gracious Speech from the
Throne, that I know what it is to work on the land and that the right
hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness never did. He viewed
it from afar. Distance lends enchantment to the view.
I want to ask questions of him and the Liberal party,
because back to the land is one of their strong planks. He was in great
favour with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs
(Mr. Lloyd George). Whether it was throwing out a sprat to catch a whale
I do not know, but there are no two ways, he was very friendly with his
greatest enemy. He complimented him on three different points. In his
famous statement, the right hon. Gentleman for Carnarvon Boroughs stated
that he was going to conquer unemployment. He was a conqueror. The
right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness is backing up that idea. I
would like to ask the Liberal party: What are the men going to do on the
land? What are they going to produce? What kind of article is there a
shortage of? Is there a shortage of wheat? Is there a shortage of any
article? None! They do not know what to put the men to.
Why do men work? It is in order to produce what is required
to live a decent, comfortable life. Everything that mankind requires
to-day is already produced in abundance. There is not a single article
that men and women in civilisation require but what is already produced
and stored away in abundance. If there were any article of which there
was a shortage, millions of pounds would be found to build works or
factories to produce that article. There is no shortage of money or of
men and women to work. Super-abundance, that is what we are faced with.
That is the trouble, a superabundance of everything that man requires.
Yet the Liberal party and the Tory party are looking for work—work for
somebody else; it is always work for the other fellow, when the work is
all done. What is required is that the minds
310
of men should be turned from the idea of looking for work,
and on to the idea of how they are going to distribute what is produced
and how best to utilise the great power of production of which we, in
civilisation, are the joint heirs.
We, as Scotsmen, have contributed no mean part in making
possible this great engineering age, or, as John Ruskin puts it, the
cradle of it was Lowland Scotland. It was there that James Watt
discovered the separate condenser which made the steam engine of
commercial value and which accomplished the greatest revolution the
world has ever seen. From it has flown all our great productivity and
the output of man's ingenuity in tapping the sources of nature and
making nature do man's work. We are the joint heirs of this glorious
inheritance but millions—we used to say tens of thousands—of our fellow
creatures in our own land have to be content with a miserable pittance
of 15s. 3d. a week to maintain body and soul together. While that is the
case, along comes this insignificant arrangement called:
His Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament.
I am quite satisfied that, if His Majesty understood the
situation of the vast majority of his subjects, he would never have been
a party to such a Speech. I have no complaint of Him, for I know
nothing about Him; but can all those who were responsible for this
Speech be innocent? They know; they have been among the people. The
Prime Minister time and again has sat at the firesides of the working
folk of this country—all over it, in England, Ireland, Scotland and
Wales, apart from foreign countries. He has mixed with them; he has
lived with them; and he knows their joys and sorrows. The King knows
nothing about it, so that I have no business with Him; my business is
with those who are responsible for it, and who know the situation, and
who still claim that they are Socialists. The Prime Minister of England
still claims that he is a Socialist, and this is what he produces. If
there is a line here which gives any indication that this has come from a
man who understands the situation of the working class at the moment, I
do not know what the English language is.
Think of the tens of thousands of homes to-night, all over Britain, where the folk
311
honestly and sincerely voted for this National Government.
They believed that this National Government would do something. They
reasoned with themselves, and said, "Here is a combination of the
outstanding Socialists, the leaders of the Socialist party—they are
leaders without a doubt, with no one challenging their authority that
they care about—the leaders of the Liberal party, and the leaders of the
Tory party. Never was there such a powerful combination." So reasoned
the working class in Britain. Their lot was terrible in the extreme, and
the heads of these three great parties used their influence on this
mentality that was abroad at that moment, with the result that we had an
avalanche, the like of which politically we have never had in this
country before, and they gave to the Prime Minister and his colleagues a
blank cheque. They said to them, metaphorically, "We have implicit
confidence in you; go and do what you can to make Britain safe."
Majorities the like of which were never seen before—the Minister of
Pensions had a 60,000 majority—were absolutely handed over by Britain to
this Government, and, after a year, what do we find? We find that the
right hon. Member for Hillhead says, "Britain should pay America,
considering the great recovery we have made." In the name of the working
class, I want to know where that recovery is. It is not in the homes of
the working folk of this country. There never were so many sad sorties
in Britain, not even during the War, as there are at the present moment;
and all that this Government, which has had all that wealth, all that
power, and all that trust given to it by the people of this country,
produces, after a year, is this insignificant paper which they call "His
Gracious Majesty's Speech from the Throne." There is nothing in it that
is going to ease the lot of the working class of this country by one
iota.
Let me come to the paragraph below that referring to
Scotland, which says that there are to be Measures dealing with rent
restriction. We on these benches have been promised, the folk in the
country have been promised—and promised by the Prime Minister—that we
were going to get, not rent restriction, but rent reduction. I wish the
working class of Scotland were able to listen to this Debate that we
have had here to-day
312
about Home Rule for Scotland, in which we have been told
about the awful conditions under which the Secretary of State for
Scotland has to exist in Edinburgh. It would make a cat laugh. No; the
folk in Scotland, the working class in Scotland—the class that
matter—are interested about their rent more than they are about Home
Rule for Scotland. This rent question is a very serious question. It is
the most grave question as far as the working class of my country, and
also of England, are concerned. What is the rent question? It deals with
the homes of the people—not with houses, but with their homes. It is
homes that the folk want, not houses.
I would like to draw the attention of the House, and
particularly of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, to the fact
that it is only since the War that Parliament interfered with rents. In
1915 the landlords, the owners of the houses in our country, thought
they had a right to raise the price of the houses in the same way as the
rest of those who were profiteering. They thought they had a right to
have an increase in rent. It is not necessary for me to go through the
whole thing to-night; it is sufficient to say that in the West of
Scotland we "downed tools." I took a very active part in stopping their
works in Scotland, because they had 200 people up before the Rent
Court—it was in its infancy then—and, out of the 200, 58 had either
fathers or brothers fighting on the fields of Flanders, and at that time
the soldiers had not received any increase in their wages. The result
was the passing of an Order-in-Council at that time, that for the
duration of the War and six months afterwards, there would be no
increase in rents.
Six months after the War the Coalition Government, the boys
who had won the War, said they were the boys to win the peace, and they
said at that time that there was going to be no increase in rents. But,
when they got back to power, they gave the factors, as far as the West
of Scotland was concerned, an increase of 33⅓ per cent., and 25 per
cent. of that increase was to do the necessary repairs, which had not
been done during the War. I am only telling the House that to remind
them that Parliament had to interfere to save the people from the
rapacious action of those who owned the homes
313
where the people lived. Since then they have had another
increase of about 60 per cent. Every section of the community has had a
decrease in income. Even Members of Parliament have had reductions in
their wages. The only people I know who have escaped are the rapacious
blood-sucking lot, the property owners. They still have the same
increase that they got immediately after the War, when the working-class
on the average had three times the wages which they have at present.
The great honour of being Secretary of State for Scotland
carries with it some responsibilities. During the administration of that
great Secretary of State the Liberal Member for Caithness, for the
first time within the memory of living man, the population decreased. I
hope we shall not have complaints against the present Secretary of
State. I hope he will be worthy of the position that he occupies. The
Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the health and the
welfare of the people. Up to now he has never made one move to assist
the shipbuilding and engineering industry. No one in the House has a
closer association with the shipbuilding and engineering industry than
he. He represents a shipbuilding constituency just on the other side of
the Clyde from mine. He knows what it would mean to that industry if we
could set work going on the building of the Cunarder. I do not want him
to be like some Secretaries of State that I know of who hardly ever
raised their voice in the Cabinet. I want him to be a Secretary of State
that we Scotsmen can be proud of.
On this question of the building of the Cunarder, I have
done everything a man can do short of sacrificing my Socialist
principles. I have gone to every type of man in the House. I have tried
to move everyone inside and outside the House. I believe, if a census
was taken, the House would vote that, if the Cunard Company are not
getting on with the building of the boat, the Government should get on
with building it. I should like the Secretary of State to sail down the
Clyde from Broomielaw to Greenock. There he will get something that will
stagger him. He will understand why it is that I can scarcely keep my
temper when discussing this question. I see the finest shipbuilding
yards in the world
314
lying idle, stark and stiff. You find slip after slip all
moss and grass-grown—not a hammer, where the river ought to be
resounding with tens of thousands of men driving in the rivets that have
made Britain famous the world over. All that is silent now. It is not
only shipbuilding. You can go right through the engineering shops. At
Motherwell and Wishaw you see steel works after steel works derelict. If
you go further into the heart of Lanarkshire, you see mine after mine
shut, and village after village deserted. If it was possible for our
folk to get away from Scotland, they would go. The right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Hillhead and the senior Member for the Scottish
Universities tried to inspire and instil into the House the spirit of
Scott's verse:
Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself bath said,
'This is my own my native land'.
Now it is a land of poverty. What is the flag of Scotland? A
flag of yellow with a lion rampant red. The flag of Scotland to-day is
not a rampant lion, but poverty rampant in its very worst form. It is
not, as some would try to make us believe, that it is an agitation
headed by a few Communists—a few disgruntled, ignorant individuals. It
is simply the individual that Burns spoke about:
See yonder poor o'er-labour'd wight,
So abject, mean and vile,
Who begs a brother of the earth
To give him leave to toil;
And see his lordly fellow-worm
The poor petition spurn,
Unmindful tho' a weepin' wife
And helpless offspring mourn.
There is no finer race of men and women in the world, no
higher skilled or better educated, and they are right up against it. I
know the finest educated men and women, who are prepared to work for £2
10s. a week. A friend of mine advertised for a manager for a cinema in
Glasgow. There were two chartered accountants and four M.A.'s,
unemployed school teachers, among 90 applicants. Men and women are
willing and anxious to give of their best to their native land. They can
find no outlet. They are not even on the. Employment Exchange. I hope
the Scottish Office will take this business to heart and will go into it
and see if there is no way out. It is no use looking for work. The
right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead said they
315
had all tried. Of course, they have, and they have all
failed. All the Governments and all the statesmen in civilisation have
approached the problem from the same angle, that is, they are all
looking for work. We are faced with a world of sellers. All want to sell
something, and nobody wants to buy. Let the statesmen of to-day turn
their minds in another direction. We have come to a time in the history
of the world when we have to change our outlook. Instead of bending our
energies upon how to work, let us think of the possibility of reducing
the hours of work. It never seems to dawn on the ruling classes of this
country that our sons and daughters, that we of the working class, have a
right to leisure, to play, to enjoyment instead of having to toil and
toil all the time. Let them think of the advisability of reducing the
hours of labour and of sharing out the work which has to be done. It is
true that men who are unemployed and have not worked in a factory would
think that it was a great thing to be able to get into a factory and
commence work. It is the ambition of the working class to work in the
factory. The collier's lad wants to be a collier. Why? Because he does
not know any better. We Socialists know better. We know that the
collier's boy, the engineer's boy, the labourer's boy, the working class
child is the heir of all the ages and that he does not require to go
and moil and toil in the way his predecessors did.
The rulers of to-day ought to be looking at the position
from the point of view of distributing the great power of productivity.
Until this is done, there will be no peace. There cannot be any peace.
You may try to crush our spirit as you tried during the War. It was
thought that by imprisoning and deporting some of us you would crush the
spirit of revolt. You thought that it belonged to the Clyde at that
time, but the spirit of revolt and the love of liberty are innate in
man. Even the black savage taken from the wilds of Africa to the cotton
fields of Carolina revolted against slavery. Men will rise above it, and
it will be a bad day for this or any other Government which stands
deliberately in the way of the working class of this or any other
country enjoying the full fruits of their toil. What could be done at
once?
316
They could give the unemployed man £1 a week instead of 15s.
3d. I stand for that. I have always stood for it and shall continue to
do so. They could give the wife of the unemployed man 10s. a week—the
unemployed man and woman, 30s., and five shillings a week for each
child. Apart from the human side of the business, the Christian ideal or
anything of a humanitarian kind, it is sound economics. There would be
on an average an increase of 10s. a week going into about 2,500,000
homes in this country. That would mean that nearly £1,500,000 would be
spent every week. The money would not be invested in the Argentine or in
Brazil, which never pays, as Russia has done, although you always blame
Russia. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] It is true. The money would be usefully
spent by the unemployed. To-day in this inclement climate, in our mad
and ridiculous weather—I was the first Socialist to stand in Parkhead,
where Professor Robertson Watson described the weather as "mad and
ridiculous"— we have children underfed and under-clothed. The mothers of
the children are gasping for the money. They would spend the money in
the shops. They would go to the grocer, butcher, tailor and bootmaker,
and they would spend the money at once. The retailer in turn would
require to go to the wholesaler to get his stock renewed. He would be
sold out. The wholesaler in turn would require to go to the
manufacturer, with the result that it would set the wheels of industry
humming. That is the first step, and it would be a humane step.
What does it mean? It means—what we Socialists have always
stood for—that there is only one way to get it, and that is by taking it
from those who have it. The Government can go on tinkering with the
question, but we were sent here to fight on behalf of the working class
of this country who are more downtrodden, comparatively speaking, than
at any period in history. If a sane Socialist regime were holding sway
to-day, the people of the country would be living in comparative comfort
instead of at the moment in degradation and fear. As my hon. Friend the
Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, the greatest disease and the
most awful thing which our folk have to face at the moment is fear and
317
dread of what is likely to happen. The mothers of our
children are crying—their voices have reached well nigh up to God—"What
am I to do with my boy?" "What is to become of my son?" They do not know
what to do, and in the midst of that terrible state of affairs—not in
Russia or Germany, where they have their own troubles, but in our native
land—in the midst of that terrible tragedy a King's Speech is brought
forward which does not touch the fringe of the problem. I shall vote
against the Address, and I shall use all the power I have in the
country, as I have always done, by telling my class how they have been
robbed and treated in a shameful manner by the present Government, in
whom they placed their confidence, so that at the earliest opportunity
they will chase them off those benches,
§
Lord DUNGLASS
The House will not expect me to follow the hon. Member who
has just spoken into all the points which he put before us in his very
lengthy speech. I am going to divide his speech into two main spheres.
The first I can sum up best in his own words, when he said that the
Tories were bad and the Liberals were worse, but tactfully omitted any
reference as to where his own party stood. In the second part of his
speech he invited me, or whoever followed him, to go with him into the
distressed districts in Scotland and to sympathise with him with the
unemployed in their difficulties. I can assure him that I am going to
accept that invitation, because I, too, have some knowledge of what it
must mean to leave school with nothing to face but unemployment, and
what it means to people to stand at the street corners with the
knowledge that they are simply going to be submitted to that same deadly
routine. But I am not such a fatalist and not so helpless as the hon.
Member and other hon. Members opposite. I prefer to concentrate on the
remedy, and to start the wind blowing which will unfurl the flag of
Scotland over a happier working population.
I should like to refer to the speech of the late Secretary
of State for Scotland. I have heard him make two speeches since he went
into Opposition. The first speech was on the Second Reading of the Ottawa Agreements Bill—a
318
speech perhaps thin in substance but rich in oratorical
effect, and with genial good-humour, he twisted the terrors of
Protection and the fate of the Protectionists into his audience for all
the world like the old Scottish Minister who, in his part of the world,
used to distribute the certainty of Hell among the sinners of his
congregation, complacent in the knowledge that his own constant, rigid,
unswerving adherence to doctrinaire principles would gain for himself a
certain place in Heaven. Then we had the right hon. Gentleman's speech
this afternoon. The oratorical effect and the geniality and good humour
were there, but where was the conviction? I never heard a more lukewarm
defence of any system than he made in his proposals for Scottish Home
Rule. The people of Scotland are acute-minded. They wish to know whether
a system of Scottish self-government would be good or bad for them,
whether it would lead to more employment or to less employment, whether,
in short, it would make Scotland a happier place. They want evidence.
They do not want hon. Members to come along and merely to make it a
plank of their political party programme.
I would ask the House to face the realities of the position
so far as the outlook of Scottish industry and agriculture is concerned,
in the condition of the world as it is to-day. It seems to me that now
and for a year or two to come we have to face a position like this, that
each country will try to reserve to itself a maximum of its own home
market for its own producers, and that over and above that each country
will be willing to take a proportion of imports, which will be the
result of international arrangement and international bargain. When we
look at the outlook for Scottish industry, I would invite hon. Members
to focus the spotlight on this fundamental change that we are entering
an era of control, that we are entering it consciously, on equal terms
and even on advantageous terms, with the strength the British Isles
commands.
What then does Scotland demand in regard to a policy? Our
difficulty is, of course, unemployment, but I would analyse it further.
If one looks at the incidence of the figures of the distribution of
unemployment one finds that our problem, although the general level of
319
unemployment is high, is rather one of distressed areas than
of distressed trade. When one carries the analysis further, one finds
that the unemployment concerns four trades in the main, coal, iron and
steel, engineering and shipbuilding, and I would say that if the
Government by any policy that they can bring forward can help to break
the back of unemployment in those four trades, the problem with which we
have to deal in Scotland will be very much easier and will be well
within our control, because we can bring in agriculture at the other end
of the scale to help to absorb our people, and we can bring in schemes
of land settlement, which I regard of very real value.
Therefore, we must demand of a constructive, long-term
policy that it should operate among these basic trades, and it must
operate in this way: It must seek to relieve them of charges which are
crippling them at the present time, and by economy, and, if possible, by
the reduction of taxation, allow them to play a better and more
profitable part. It must try to secure and to explore new markets. I
would ask hon. Members to realise that it is only on the successful
marketing of coal, steel and the products of our engineering industries
in Scotland that those unemployed people are going to return to the jobs
in which they are skilled and around which they live. I would ask the
hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to go with me to his own
constituency. There 51.8 per cent. of the insured population are
unemployed. In my own constituency the percentage is 33.3 and in Renfrew
it is the same. One has only to go into those districts to realise that
no temporary measure is doing more than fiddling with the fringe of the
problem. We have only to go to these districts to realise that these
communities, complete with their little retail traders round the
skeletons of their factories and blast furnaces, cannot be moved short
of wholesale emigration. Therefore, we are back again to this point,
that on successful marketing and upon our success in securing markets
for coal, steel and engineering products the solution of our
unemployment problem in Scotland not entirely but in great proportion
depends.
This is not the place to assess the probable effects of the Ottawa Agreements, or
320
to decide the effect of any future arrangement which the
Secretary for Mines may make with Scandinavia or other foreign countries
to increase the sale of coal. As the Debate has taken a turn towards
Scottish Home Rule I will content myself with this comment, that in
future there will be two markets open to the Scottish producers, the
market within the shores of the British Isles—an unrestricted market, in
which Scottish producers will be able to compete on exactly the same
terms as their opposite numbers in England—and, secondly, the market we
may be able to obtain in response to economic demands or the strength of
our bargaining power. I hope that by no hasty or ill-considered word
anyone of our countrymen will prejudice the full enjoyment of the home
market for our own heavy industries and for our agricultural industry,
or that by any hasty or ill-considered word they will prejudice and
forfeit the great bargaining power which this country can wield
successfully only if we remain united.
I live on the Border and have always taken the view that we
have successfully borrowed the canniness of the Highlander to make a
living out of the Englishman. We have done it very successfully. I hope
that I am not bigoted on this question and I am not afraid that Scotsmen
would make a mess of the question of Scottish devolution and Scottish
self-government. When a Scotsman sets the heather on fire he looks at
the strength of the wind and the direction from which it is blowing.
What we do not want is the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel)
coming along and dropping stray matches in Scotland. Therefore, I say to
the producers in the heavy industries, and also to the people who work
in them, that as they have the home market available and also the whole
bargaining power of Great Britain at their disposal to find new markets
in every part of the world it is up to the Scottish people to try and
secure that position and bring more work to our people in that way.
The case of agriculture is even better than that of the
heavy industries. Practically the whole of our meat market is in London,
and to create a situation in which there might be some restrictions on
our agricultural produce going into the English market would be folly. I
invite all those in Scotland who dabble with the question of
serf-government to realise
321
that we want to be certain that it will not in any way
injure our industries of coal and steel, shipbuilding and engineering,
and the still greater industry of agriculture. I have not time to deal
with these questions at any length. I beg the Government to realise that
it is dangerous to treat smallholdings and land settlement as an
emergency measure. The greatest care must be taken in selecting tenants
and in selecting the land on which the smallholder is to grow his crops.
It is also necessary to avoid the mistake of putting the smallholder
into actual competition with farmers who are producing the same goods on
a- larger scale. The smallholder will succumb. The ideal smallholding,
to my mind, is one upon which a man can grow vegetables and fruit, and
perhaps keep a pig or two, make enough to feed himself and perhaps
provide a supplement to his wages or compensation for his meagre
unemployment benefit; in other words, to keep him alive and his family
well fed. If the smallholding is situated near an industrial town he
would be able to dispose of any surplus produce easily. All I ask is
that the Government will keep that in mind.
Let me remind the right hon. and gallant Member for
Caithness of two things that have made land settlement possible on a
reasonable scale—factors which he did not mention—first, that you have
now a secured market, and, secondly, that you have a Government which is
wilting to raise wholesale prices and keep them at a level which is not
hopeless for the producer. The present violent fluctuation of prices is
death to the smallholder. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Binghs quoted
from our great national poet Sir Walter Scott, and also brought in
perhaps our greater poet Robert Burns. The doctrine of independence
which Robert Burns gave to Scotland did not mean that we as individual
Scotsmen should carve and hew our lonely way, and, in doing so, tread on
our neighbour's toes. He meant that we should fit into such society as
that in which we found ourselves in the best possible way to help the
whole community. H the Government will help Scotsmen by a sympathetic
appreciation of our legitimate needs and of our very real and sincere
national feeling, that will go a, long way; and I hope it will
322
never be said of a Scotsman that he helped to break up the
British Union or that he made its power for good less, in a sadly
harassed world.
Lieut.-Colonel MacANDREW
I should like to put before the House one or two reasons
which have not so far been mentioned in the Debate in support of the
undesirability of setting up a Parliament in Scotland. In the King's
Speech there is a reference to a proposed amendment in Private Bill
legislation, which in itself is a proof that Scotland, if it requires
development, will get it at the hands of the British Parliament. Ever
since the Union development has been going on, no doubt at greater speed
since 1885 with the creation of the Secretary for Scotland. The right
hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) in his able speech referred to
Private Bill legislation which was created by the Act of 1899, and since
then ninny things have been passed as regards local government to the
benefit of the people of Scotland. The Department of Agriculture was
established about 20 years ago, and there has been the Scottish
Education Department and the Department of Health, both growing steadily
in authority. Why then, when we are getting this development, should we
find this agitation springing up for a Scottish Parliament, which
raises constitutional issues of the greatest magnitude? The answer is
that it is owing to the serious problem of unemployment. If this problem
was facing Scotland only there might be some reason in the argument;
but that is not the case, because no country is unaffected by
unemployment. It is the outcome of world conditions; and I cannot see
how the question of unemployment eau be an argument for setting up a
Parliament in Scotland.
Those who advocate this policy base their arguments on two
heads, first, sentiment, and, secondly, the need for solving the
economic problem. As far as sentiment is concerned it is said that the
English people consider that Scotsmen are not fit to govern themselves.
We have not very far to go to prove the fallacy of that argument,
because out of the last 10 Prime Ministers six have come from Scotland.
The advocates of Scottish Home Rule try to pretend that the Union was
forced upon Scotland. But we find that the Union was not forced upon
323
us at all. If we read history carefully we find that the
Union was a perfectly sane, business deal so far as Scotland was
concerned. The hon. Member for Dunbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) in an
interruption' of the speech of the right hon. Member for Hillhead seemed
to suggest that the Union had been forced on Scotland. I do not think
that a Scotsman ever admits defeat, and I should be sorry to think that
we were defeated at the time of Union any more than we are defeated in
1932.
§
Mr. KIRKWOOD
If you read history you will find that all Scotland, rightly
or wrongly, was against a union of the Parliaments. I am not saying
whether that was for good or ill. Scotland as Scotland was against the
union of the Parliaments. The picture down in St. Stephen's Hall is the
greatest black spot in the history of Scotland, because every one of
those individuals that goes before Queen Anne handing away Scotland's
separate Parliament had his price.
Lieut.-Colonel MacANDREW
I think my hon. Friend will find that Scotland came into the
union as an independent Kingdom and equal partner, and on terms
mutually agreed. However, we will leave the matter there, because I do
not want to be at cross purposes with my hon. Friend and many others
wish to speak. We do not want to judge the union by the fancied wrongs
of two-and-a-quarter centuries ago. Surely we have gained enormously
from the union if we look at the facts. Let us leave the sentimental
appeal and take the economic point of view. At the present time we find
nations becoming more and more interdependent. As far as Scotland and
England are concerned, they are geographically, historically and
socially very closely linked together. We hear certain things said about
industries drifting South. They are, and that is a very unfortunate
state of affairs. But does anyone suggest that a Parliament in Scotland
is going to attract industries that would come South for economic
reasons? The right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A.
Sinclair) said that a Parliament in Scotland would magnetise industry.
Did anyone ever hear such nonsense? No one who studies industry, no one
who looks at the reasons why industries come South, would believe for a
moment in such magnetism.
324
The people who advocate Scottish Home Rule, as has been
said, pride themselves on their vagueness. It is only by vagueness that
they are able to create any enthusiasm for the cause. They are so vague
that they do not even know whether they want their Parliament in
Edinburgh or in Glasgow. There was a Speaker's Devolution Committee set
up in 1919, which reported after many sittings. There were so many
sittings and so much talk at cross purposes that it was quite impossible
to come to any agreed finding on this problem. As long as advocates of
Home Rule keep vague they do manage to get a certain amount of support,
but when they are definite they are up against very serious trouble
indeed. The only thing that would not be vague about a Parliament in
Scotland would be its cost. The putting up of another Parliament
building, to say nothing of the staffing of the departments, the paying
of Members of Parliament, and the cost of new legislation, would be very
considerable indeed. There is no question about that. The advocates of
Scottish Home Rule say that that would be more than offset by the
millions out of which Scotland is swindled by the English. For some
reason it is generally 1921 which the Scottish Nationalists cite for
their example of how we are losing money. Scotland's contribution to the
Imperial Exchequer in 1921 was about £120,000,000, of which we received
back about £33,000,000, leaving a balance of £87,000,000 which the
Scottish Nationalists hold was entirely spent in England. Let us
consider that statement. How was that £87,000,000 spent? It was spent on
the interest of the War Loans and national loans, on war pensions, the
various Civil Services, the Navy, Army and Air Force, a total
expenditure of over £1,000,000,000. Therefore, the Scottish share of
that expenditure was less than 10 per cent.
But that is not the whole of the picture. Out of the
interest on War loans, War pensions and so forth, a great deal of money
was actually going back to Scotland. In addition there was the building
of ships and other equipment for the fighting forces. Incidentally I
think that we in Scotland ought to be very grateful for the large share
of the naval programme which has come to Scotland this year, a share
which, if there had
325
been Scottish Home Rule, would not have come to us. Let us
look at the money we get in other ways. In the three years from 1928 to
1931 the expenditure on the Scottish roads under the Ministry of
Transport was over £1,500,000 more than our contributions to the Road
Fund. We certainly were not being swindled in that; we were getting a
very remarkable gain. As has been said, an investigation is going on as
to the amount paid by Scotland and the amount that Scotland receives.
Take the eleven-eightieths, which is the proportion we get of Government
grants, and consider the difference in population since that was fixed
compared with now, and it is quite possible that the people who have
stirred up this question of a Scottish Parliament may find that instead
of their proposal doing Scotland any good we Scotsmen have had more than
our share. They may damage us instead of helping us. I cannot imagine
that the people of Scotland wish to pay national taxes in addition to
Imperial taxes and local rates.
Unemployment is a problem which is as serious in Scotland as
elsewhere. We sometimes hear it said that the percentage of
unemployment in Scotland, 26.6 per cent. last year, is worse than that
of Great Britain, which was only 21.4 per cent. That is a reason given
by some advocates of Home Rule for a Parliament in Scotland. But if we
look at parts of England and Wales we find a very much higher percentage
of unemployment than that of Scotland. That proves at once that a
Parliament cannot deal with the problem. The advocates of Home Rule
cannot have it both ways. In the industrial areas of Wales the
percentage is a good deal higher than that of Scotland. About a month
ago Lord Maclay, who was Shipping Controller during the War, had a
letter in some of the Scottish newspapers, in which he pointed out that
orders for 11 out of 12 of the great ships which we build on the Clyde
come to us either from England or through English channels. He, of
course, is a very strong opponent of any change in the present system of
an Imperial Parliament here.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H.
Samuel) came to Scotland not long ago and said that the Liberal party
would regard Home Rule as being among its main purposes. I do
326
not know when the right hon. Gentleman will he in a position
to put that proposal into force. He has perhaps heard that we are
rather slow at seeing a joke. He probably thought that Scotland would
not see that joke but I think our people are able to see it. How can the
right hon. Gentleman advocate political nationalism for Scotland and in
another breath denounce economic nationalism for the rest of the world.
Everyone knows that economic nationalism must follow political
nationalism. We have an example of that in Southern Ireland. The right
hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland
mentioned Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man but took good care not to
mention Southern Ireland. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman looks
back to what was said by Isaac Butt in. 1874, when he sent a message to
this Parliament asking for Home Rule for Ireland, the right hon. and
gallant Gentleman will find that the Irish demands then were very
moderate—just as moderate as those of the most moderate Scottish Home
Rulers to-day. But look at what those demands have led to and the
position which now exists in Southern Ireland. The Scottish people have
that warning. Let them remember that there cannot be a Parliament in
Scotland without that Parliament coming into conflict with the
Parliament here. The very reasons which are advanced to show that we
should have a Parliament in Scotland, prove that there would be friction
between such a Parliament and the Parliament here.
Those who advocate self-government seem to think that they
would get it on their own terms. What a fantastic idea. Of course
nothing of the kind would happen. It is possible that up to now this
proposal has not been taken seriously but I am convinced that there will
be intense opposition to it, if it once gathers way in Scotland. I am
sure that the people do not want it. They appreciate the fact that it
would do enormous harm. It would he a dangerous policy, even in
prosperous times, but at a moment when we are in such difficulties as we
are in at present, it would be little short of madness. We are renowned
in Scotland for our common sense and our thrift. They are both splendid
characteristics. Let us keep them and let us not turn to extravagance
and futility.
327
§
Lord SCONE
In the course of to-day's Debate we have heard a variety of
arguments for and against Scottish Home Rule, and I think that any
visitor here who had not come prepared to prejudge the case would agree
that the opponents of Scottish Home Rule have had very much the better
of the argument. They have given many reasons why such a Measure would
be a very great disservice to Scotland. The protagonists of Scottish
Home Rule, on the other hand, have been unable to show any reason
whatever why it should be of service to Scotland. I suppose that we may
regard as the leader of the Scottish Home Rulers, among those who have
spoken to-night, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for
Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). I am sorry that he is not in
his place as I have a few hard things to say about him and I prefer to
be rude to people before their faces rather than behind their backs. I
have listened to a great many speeches from the right hon. and gallant
Gentleman in the course of the last few weeks but seldom have I heard
one less inspiring than the oration to which he treated us to-night for
the space of something like an hour.
He started by referring to "definite proposals" for Scottish
Home Rule, but he went on to speak of these proposals in a manner which
was completely indefinite. Indeed, as regards policy, he contradicted
himself not once nor twice, but many times in the course of his speech. I
submit that he was unable to show any cause whatever for the
introduction of Scottish Home Rule. To judge from his argument, one
would think that the greater portion of the Scottish people were panting
for some such Measure. Such is by no means the case. It is true there
is a certain element among the people of Scotland, largely drawn from
the middle classes, though with a certain amount of working-class
support, which desires a separate Parliament in Scotland. But that
portion of the Scottish people is not one which is of very great
importance, nor are any of its members to be regarded as true leaders or
great figures in Scottish national life. If the majority of the
Scottish people ever do demand Home Rule it is obvious that they will
have to get it. They will get
328
it, however, not as Southern Ireland got it, but rather by
constitutional methods and those others of us who now oppose it, if such
an event ever came to pass, would do our best to make the system work
ever though we did not believe in it. But if Scottish Home Rule does
come to pass it must be given time. Some 10 years will be necessary
before its opponents will venture to suggest a reversion to the
conditions of affairs which we find to-day. I do not believe, however,
that the day will ever come when there will be a majority among the
Scottish people in favour of Scottish Home Rule. There are no signs at
present, despite all the efforts of Liberals and Socialists, that that
is so and I do not think that a case can be made out for Scottish Home
Rule at the present time.
Turning to the subject of agriculture. I could not agree at
all with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne) when he said that the
measures taken by the present Government to relieve agriculture were of
little benefit to Scotland. It is true that we have our own special
problems which have not yet been dealt with, but it is also true that
the most important branch of Scottish agriculture is the livestock
industry, and, obviously, the steps taken in that respect will benefit
the Scottish livestock industry equally with the English livestock
industry. At the same time, I would respectfully ask the Secretary of
State for Scotland to confer with his colleague the Minister of
Agriculture as to whether something cannot be done in the near future to
assist those branches of agriculture which have a particularly Scottish
importance, that is to say the production of oats, barley and potatoes.
The Minister of Agriculture has said that he considers the best way out
of the present potato difficulty to be the setting up of a Potato
Board. That I agree with, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will
use all his influence to see that such a board materialises in the near
future. As regards oats, we have here what seems to be the simplest
problem of them all and the reason why it has not been dealt with
appears somewhat obscure. Scotland can produce all the oats necessary to
feed her population and I cannot see why we should permit the
importation into this country of any oats. It may be that at the present
time commercial treaties stand in the way of such
329
exclusion. Then why should not such treaties be denounced
now, even if they could only be brought to an end in a year? I do not
see why we should import when we can produce what our population needs.
I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Sir
M. Wood) in his place because if newspaper reports are correct a few
days ago he went to the of Tyree and said that the new fiscal policies
of the present Government were bound to drive people back to the land. I
do not think I misrepresent the purport of his remarks. Surely it is a
very remarkable thing that while the Liberal party have been for the
last 20 or 30 years proclaiming their devotion to the policy of "back to
the land" and declaring how necessary it is that we ought, to re-people
our glens and straths—a statement which has of course the complete
agreement of everyone of us— the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his
colleagues have been voting solidly for the last month or so against a
policy which does that very thing. That seems to indicate a distinct
cleavage between theory and practice. The hon. Member for Dumbarton
Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) bitterly assailed the Liberals, and I think was
well justified in so doing. There is one point in his speech upon which I
wish to touch. He took exception to some remarks of mine with regard to
the Irish population in the West of Scotland. I do not wish to offend
the hon. Member, but I still hold to what said, namely, that culturally
the Irish population there has not been assimilated into the Scottish
population. It is not my purpose now to discuss whether the Irish
culture is good or bad, but merely to state the definite fact that there
is in the West of Scotland a completely separate race of alien origin,
practically homogeneous, whose presence there is bitterly resented by
tens of thousands of the Scottish working class.
§
Mr. KIRKWOOD
Will the Noble Lord answer me this? Is it not the case that
if you go to the Glasgow University you will find what have stated to be
true, namely, that ever so many of the students there have come from
Irish parents—I mean poor parents—who have struggled and starved in
order to send their boys and girls to a university Surely that is
assimilating what we consider to be our outstanding Scottish
characteristic.
330
§
Lord SCONE
I think the hon. Member is quite irrelevant in his
interruption, which I do not resent in the least. I said that the Irish
population in the West of Scotland has not assimilated Scottish culture,
and I stand by that statement. I do not think any such assimilation is
proved merely by the fact that they have sent a large number of their
sons and daughters to our universities.
I have not spoken long, and I want to voice a protest
against certain senior Members who, night after night and week after
week, speak here for very long periods. I refer particularly to the
right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and also to the hon. Member
for Dumbarton Burghs. I know the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs is
perfectly sincere when he expresses his dismay at the conditions
prevailing in the West of Scotland and elsewhere. At the same time, I
think—and I say so quite frankly—it shows considerable selfishness on
his part, and on the part of the others to whom I have referred, when
they know that a very large 'umber of Members wish to speak, that they
should occupy so much of the time of the House. I do not want to set
myself up as a paragon. I have been here a short time, but this is the
tenth occasion on which I have been on my feet, and my speeches have
amounted in all to exactly 12 columns. I have never spoken for more than
10 minutes at a time, although I have no doubt I shall speak on various
occasions longer than that, but I hope I shall never inflict myself on
this House for so long that I shall be regarded by my fellow Members as
having outstayed my welcome.
§
Mr. JAMES REID
In view of the lateness of the hour, I will restrict myself
to certain practical points which I wish to put forward, and cut very
short indeed any general remarks which I may have to make. I do not
think any hon. Member up to date, apart from the Secretary of State, has
touched upon the statement in the Gracious Speech that we are to have a
Court of Session Bill this Session. I think the whole legal profession,
and indeed the whole public of Scotland, welcome that announcement,
because the procedure of the Court of Session has not been overhauled
since 1874, and one of the main reasons for which this Measure
331
is being introduced is the avoidance of delay. In this
connection, I desire to say a word about a matter with which it is in
the immediate power of the Government to deal, but about which there
seems to be some hitch. I am glad to see the Lord Advocate in his place,
and I would like to say, and to say with a little emphasis, that there
is at present a vacancy on the judicial bench in Scotland. That vacancy
occurred before the beginning of the present session, which has now run a
pretty large part of its course, and we have heard no reason why that
vacancy should not be filled. That is leading directly to delay and to
the prevention of litigants getting prompt justice, and I would ask the
Lord Advocate, whatever the obstacles may be—I do not need to specify
them—to use his most earnest endeavours to remove those obstacles, so
that the vacancy may be speedily filled. Whereas England has had
numerous additions to her judiciary during the last half century, the
number of judges in Scotland has remained constant for the last 100
years, in spite of our population being at least six times what it was
100 years ago.
I am unable to understand how the right hon. and gallant
Member for Caithness reconciles his Liberal antecedents, and indeed his
present Liberal views,
332
with either his desire to set up a Parliament to interfere
in matters which are not political at all, or his desire to spend money
and apparently introduce a spate of legislation. As I understood him,
the main reasons put forward as justifying the setting up of another
Parliament are, in the first place, that they would be able to spend
more money than this Parliament will spend on matters like land
settlement, and, in the second place, that they would be able to pass a
larger number of Acts of Parliament. I do not think either of those
things is desirable in itself, and, in so far as they are used as
arguments for Home Rule, it seems to me that they can only succeed with
persons of Socialistic leanings.
Let me come now to the economic aspect of the question. The
main difficulty about the present world situation is the growth of
economic nationalism of the narrowest description, and surely the remedy
is to keep your economic unit as large as possible. It is impossible
that Scotland should exist as a separate economic unit, any more than
any of the European units which have proved so disastrous both to
themselves and to their neighbours. Accordingly, I can see no
justification on the economic side for the setting up of a separate
Parliament. All that we have heard, either in this House or outside,
have been resounding generalities. Will somebody who advocates Home Rule
tell us a single Measure which a Scottish Parliament can pass that this
Parliament will not pass and which is going to be of benefit to
Scotland in an economic sense? I do not want to delay on that matter but
to pass for a few moments to the question of administration. I have
mentioned culture and economics, but there is this third group in which
there is a sense of grievance, which is justified, and that is the
matter of Scottish administration. I do not think it is this
Government's fault or that of the Governments which have preceded it
since the War.
There is no doubt that at present the administration of
Scotland does leave a good deal to be desired. There is no doubt it is
quite wrong that it should be necessary for deputations to come from
local authorities to London in order to get their problems attended to.
It is quite wrong that civil servants and others who have to administer
day to day Government in Scotland should live in
333
London out of touch with Scottish sentiment and opinion. It
is true that they do their best to keep in touch, but it is impossible
to anyone who lives and works in London to keep in real close touch with
what Scotland thinks and wants. I do hope that the Secretary of State
will take a bold line in the proposals he has outlined and see to it
that the heads of the Civil Service are settled permanently in
Edinburgh, and that all that is left in London is an office sufficient
to keep him informed in the course of his Parliamentary duties and in
touch with the English Departments.
I do beg the Secretary of State to use his most earnest
endeavours with the Government to get the building of Scottish national
Government buildings started at the earliest possible moment. I think
there ought to appear in this year's Estimates a sum sufficient to cover
the preliminary work. It is not a matter where national economy can be
allowed to stand in the way indefinitely. It is a matter where delay
means extravagance and expense. It means expense to the Government,
because as long as you get Departments scattered about in London and all
over Edinburgh, a far larger annual expense is necessary, and, in
addition, means that valuable sites in Edinburgh are taken up which
might be realised at a profit to the Government. I do submit that the
immediate commencement of a really large and handsome building for the
Scottish national Government would be an economy to the Government and a
great economy to the country. It would mean that administration would
be speedier and more efficient, and one knows how much matters of this
sort count in local administration.
There is only one other matter I would like to mention in
this connection. In passing, I would submit that a second
Under-Secretary of State is very urgently called for. Although it may
not be absolutely essential when the Scottish Office is centred here, if
it is to be in Edinburgh a second representative of the Government
should be there always. It would therefore be essential, as part of the
reorganisation, that a second Under-Secretary should be appointed. Then I
would venture to submit that Departments like the Office of Works and
the Home Office should shed their Scottish functions, which should be
put immediately under the care of the Scottish
334
Office. It is rather ridiculous that the ancient monuments
of Scotland should be under the jurisdiction of a London office. I see
no reason whatever why matters of this sort should not be under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of State and managed from Edinburgh. I
quite see that it is undesirable to split up such Departments as the
Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour. It is, possibly, also
undesirable to split up the Ministry of Mines or the Ministry of
Transport, but I do happen to know that the absence of branches of those
Departments in Edinburgh causes a considerable amount of inconvenience.
I suggest that as part of the shift from London to Edinburgh there
ought to be provision for the establishment of branches, with
responsible individuals in Edinburgh, of such Departments as are to
remain unified for the whole United Kingdom. If that were done, and
these branches were put under the Scottish Office in a proper building
in Edinburgh, the legitimate needs of Scotland would be amply met, and I
feel sure that any ground there may be for any demand for a measure of
Home Rule for Scotland would disappear if a reform of this character
were promptly introduced.
In conclusion, I would say that the longer the Government
delay giving full effect to thorough-going constructive proposals of the
type I have mentioned, the more danger there will be that these
proposals, when introduced, will not satisfy the Scottish national
demand. If the Government will move promptly, I have no doubt whatever
that the type of proposal I have suggested will be entirely
satisfactory. If they will not, nobody knows what may happen, and both
from the point of view of practical politics and also of economy, I
would beg the Government to make the speediest possible movement in the
direction I have indicated.
§
Miss HORSBRUGH
I have listened to the Debate, being particularly interested
to hear any suggestions which might be made for helping the people of
Scotland to-day and bringing back to our native land greater prosperity
than we know at present, but I have listened in vain. There have been
many surprises during this Debate. I look along the bench now vacant in
front of me—the bench that is generally filled or occupied
335
by that section of the Liberal party who have told us that
one of the planks in their platform is Scottish Home Rule. To-day one is
almost led to believe that they think their plank so fragile that they
dare not trust themselves on it. I think they are right. We have
listened, at any rate, to one speech from one Member of that section of
the Liberal party, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for
Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). We heard first about the
glorious future for Scotland, when men and women would be in happiness
and would have found contentment for their souls upon what is now in
some parts the barren soil of Scotland. No scheme was put forward for
bringing them there. Money was needed, it was suggested, but there was
no suggestion as to how the money was to be found when a Parliament
assembled in Edinburgh. Perhaps when my right hon. Friend and these
Scottish Members meet together and debate somewhere in Edinburgh or
elsewhere, the soil of Scotland will become more fertile, and the bogs,
moors and deer forests of the north will no longer be difficult to
cultivate. Then it is quite certain the people of Scotland will be
working the soil, because they will be working at a profit.
One of the difficulties in this Home Rule question is that
speakers are apt in the emphasis of a subject to suggest various things
in passing which they do not really believe would be brought about by
Scottish Home Rule. In his speech the right hon. and gallant Member for
Caithness and Sutherland mentioned the closing down of the Rosyth
Dockyard. Does he suggest that, if there were a Parliament in Edinburgh,
it would be opened once more '? It has been arranged that international
affairs and the defence forces would be entirely under the Imperial
Government. Why the Imperial Government should open Rosyth Dockyard
simply because there is a Parliament in Edinburgh I do not know. We have
been told that such a Parliament would save us from losing our Scottish
characteristics and our Scottish type. The Debate this afternoon has
proved that we are in no danger of losing our Scottish characteristics.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) seemed to
think that, though the Scottish flag is the lion rampant, it is no
longer the best symbol for Scotland. Did not the hon. Member's very
speech show that the lion rampant is a, very good symbol? We heard a
speech from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), which showed
that the Scottish people are true to type today as they were in years
gone by. Why should we go about with this inferiority
337
complex, saying that we have lost our Scottish
characteristics, seeing how Scottish Members have sat here from the
early hours of this afternoon with tenacity and patience in order to put
the views of Scotland before the House? We are told that we are
trampled on and that the views of Scotland are not listened to at all.
All I can say, if that is so, is that they are put uncommonly badly.
Every time I have addressed the House I have realised the patience and
attention which Members have given to anything that is said, even by
such a newcomer as myself.
The other point that is put to us beside the loss of
Scottish characteristics, is that if we had a Scottish Parliament we
should have a decrease in unemployment and that our industries would be
more flourishing. We should deal very seriously with this question
because the severing of the trade and industry of Scotland from that of
England is an extremely dangerous suggestion. It is not to be dealt with
lightly, because, should such a change take place, the figures of
unemployment in Scotland would be increased. I am not going to touch on
many of the subjects dealing with unemployment which hon. Members have
already mentioned, but I would point out that in our trade agreements
with other countries we are trying to bargain for a better market for
our goods. If Scotland and England were separated, could we have that
same bargaining power? Could we have so much to offer foreign countries
in return for their markets? If I may allude to a part of the industries
of Scotland in which I am interested, namely, the jute industry, I have
visited Denmark lately partly to look into the subject of the sale of
jute bacon wrappers for Denmark. I found in many cases that Danish bacon
was still being sent to this country in foreign wrappers. In one
particular factory, I saw Belgian wrappers and asked the manager if the
bacon was being sent into Belgium. I was told that it was not, and I
said: "Why should you put it in Belgian wrappers and not British?" Our
power of bargaining in that country on that subject is surely this: "If
we buy bacon from you, you can at any rate put it in wrappers made in
our country." The power of bargaining is very great,
338
and it would be lost to Scotland if this severance were made.
I notice in another part of the propaganda put forward on
behalf of Home Rule for Scotland that they talk of the fishing industry
and the foreign trawlers. Surely it has been decided in the propaganda
that foreign affairs would be entirely under the control of the Imperial
Parliament. How then can we say that if a Parliament were instituted in
Edinburgh the foreign trawlers would not be near our coasts? How can we
deal with a foreign nation when it would be dealt with by the Imperial
Parliament and not by the men and women who were sitting dealing with
domestic affairs in the Parliament at Edinburgh? We are to have two
Ministries of Labour and two different schemes of pensions in the two
countries. That will create chaos and unfairness. We have found in the
House over and over again what an unfair state of affairs exists under
the public assistance authorities when a man in one part of the country
is receiving a certain pension and a man in another part is receiving
less. Surely we would increase that state of affairs if we had different
schemes in the two countries. Workmen going from one country to another
would have all sorts of difficulties. See the difficulties which the
countries of Europe are having in the arrangement of their frontiers,
and how, over and over again, it has proved to be impossible to arrange a
frontier except on a geographical basis. When one comes back to this
country one is thankful to live in an island whose frontier is the great
frontier of the sea.
I would remind hon. Members that in the old days we heard a
great deal of walls that were built in the north of England to keep away
from England certain tribes of the north. Walls were built and were
found to be of no use. Further walls were built, but still the
population of the north scaled them. I believe that whatever wall or
harrier people tried to put up, we of the Scottish race would scale it.
It is not merely a case of being fit to govern themselves. We think we
are fit to govern all the world. I would ask those who advocate this
scheme of Home Rule if they are willing to see Members who sit for
Scottish constituencies shut out from Cabinet rank in the Imperial
Parliament? Are they willing to give up for ever the idea
339
that a Member for a Scottish constituency can be Prime
Minister of Great Britain? I for one am not willing to give up that
idea. Are they willing to shut out Scotsmen and Scotswomen from taking
the biggest positions arid from being able to do the largest amount of
work not only for Britain but for the British Empire? If they are
willing to do that, then we will say that they have lost their Scottish
characteristics. Not till then will I believe that they would abandon
this scheme of union with England which has brought prosperity in great
measure to both countries; not till I have heard that they wish to stick
inside their own island and take no part in the government of the
world, will I believe that they are going to turn their backs on the
Union. This scheme is dangerous, because I believe it will be of
detriment both to England and to Scotland. I believe that the Scottish
people as a whole do not want it, and that the Scottish people will not
have it.
§
Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN
The hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) has
another fine speech to her credit, and the House cannot wonder how it
was that she won for our party such a notable victory at the last
election. I want to make the shortest speech on record, and I think that
for me to do so will be in accord with the feeling of the House at this
moment. The issue of the Debate has been focussed very ably and very
accurately by two of my hon. Friends from the Clydeside—work and wages.
They said that a Parliament in Scotland, if it was to be of any use at
all, ought to provide work and wages; if it did not, it was no use for
anything. I am very sorry to have to mention it in this way, but I am
the only individual here representing Scotland who has brought four new
industries to Scotland in the last five or six years—not that it is any
virtue, but I happen to be in the textile business, and know the
Continent well, as well as we know Perth and Aberdeen and Edinburgh.
People happen to know me and made a bee-line for me when this policy of
the Government was initiated.
There are many industries we can develop for ourselves in
this country, and that is what we ought to do first of all;
340
but there are certain industries which have not grown up in
this country but have developed on the Continent. One of those
industries used to be a flourishing one, to a certain extent, in this
country a century or two centuries ago. I refer to the real silk
industry. I happen to know something about it. Seven to 10 years ago
£18,000,000 or £20,000,000 worth of manufactured silk was brought into
this country. The Leader of the Opposition pictured the other day the
gay scene at the opening of Parliament. All the fineries seen on such an
occasion used to come from the Continent. The women of Scotland and the
women of England kept the populations of Como, of Lyons, of Zurich and
other places in a state of prosperity. The new policy of this country
was started originally in 1923 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer
putting on the silk duties. At that time there came to me four of the
biggest industrialists on the Continent. They asked me "What is the
meaning of this?" I said, "It is the beginning of a new era, my
friends." "Oh, well," they replied, "we have had a very good time, we
have had four generations of prosperity in Zurich"—this was from a
gentleman from Zurich—"and we must just do the best we can. We shall
have to come over to this country and make the same stuff here as we
have been making abroad." I said, "Thank you. Then you will be employing
our own people, Scottish people or English people, and giving them a
chance to make a class of goods which has hitherto been made on the
Continent." To that they said "Yes," quite good naturedly.
Since that time three silk factories and one dye works have
been established here. I should explain that first of all the material
has to be woven and then dyed. I am getting down to realities. Then
these gentlemen came to me and said, "Where shall we go?" I replied,
"There are many great manufacturing places in this country, but before
you come to a conclusion do come and see dear old Scotland. They said,
"Yes, we will," and one of them came to Dunfermline. I consulted with
Mr. William Adamson—I was not doing it from a party point of view—and he
came down from Dunfermline and I came down from Edinburgh and we met
this gentleman in the
341
Midland Hotel in Manchester, and we plastered him with plans
of all the factories we could find. He said, "People who take the
trouble to send us these plans deserve recognition," and he went by the
next train to Edinburgh. We could not fix him up in Edinburgh, and he
went on to Dunfermline and bought there a factory which has been working
for six years and is now employing about 300 people. He was the decoy.
When the new Government came into power I went to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and we had a nice little meeting. I told the
Chancellor of the Exchequer just as much as I am telling the House at
this moment. He was very reticent, but he gave us reasonable further
facilities with regard to the silk duty. Then what happened? Within 24
hours the biggest firm in Switzerland made up their minds to leave
Switzerland and to come to this country. It is not altogether a foreign
firm, because there are Englishmen in it, and there are English
directors. They thought, "Where shall we go?" and again they came to
me—I do not know why, but they came. I said, "Go down to Dunfermline;
there are four mills standing empty." That is the kind of thing we must
do in Scotland. We have to find other industries in the place of dying
industries. That is what our predecessors always did. If the linen trade
goes, it is the duty of any individual who has any influence anywhere
to get another industry to put in its place. I said to those gentlemen,
"Look at those mills. Carnegie—£40,000 a year for all time—a beautiful
garden city." They bought a factory. Then I must mention Loch Lomond. An
hon Member opposite made a rampant speech to-night, as one of my lion.
Friends called it, but let me thank him publicly in this House for what
he did for me about three or four years ago in helping me with that
factory on the side of Loch Lomond. It was no stunt of mine. Everyone
whom I could get hold of came in to help. There is another factory in
Paisley—now four altogether. This is all I have to say. I am sorry to
have to read this letter because it refers to me personally. [Interruption.]
I am going to read it, and then I am going to sit down. The point is
that it focusses the whole of this Debate on the one point of work and
342
wages. The House will see what I mean in a minute. The letter was as follows:
As you will remember,"—
This is addressed to me—
we consulted you last Autumn, as soon as the National
Government was formed, as to the possibility of reasonable arrangements
being made with regard to the protection of the silk industry"—
That was the time when I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
and asked your opinion as to what you thought might be
the trend of events under the National Government. After prolonged
consideration, and following the suggestion which you made, that before
we came to a conclusion, we should visit Scotland and particularly
Ditmlermline,"—
[Interruption.] I have always said Dunfermline. If you cannot go to Edinburgh go to Dunfermline
in order to see if we might establish a factory so far
north, we decided to transfer our manufacturing business from
Winterthur"—
that is about 18 miles from Zurich—
in Switzerland to Dunfermline. We bought property there,
reconstructed it, and in the process have spent many thousands of pounds
in making a thoroughly up-to-date factory. The building has been
completed and we have, during the last few weeks, installed 150 looms,
in order to immediately commence manufacturing, and of course, we do not
intend to rest here, but look forward to running the factory on a large
scale. My directors in Switzerland have been in constant touch, and
have recently visited Scotland."—
I want the House to mark this.
They have been a good deal perturbed, however, on hearing
of a movement for the establishment of a separate Parliament for
Scotland. A year or more ago, when we decided to go to Dunfermline, in
preference to England, where we had more or less decided to start
operations, there was no suggestion of Home Rule for Scotland, and I
write to tell you that had we been aware of any movement of this nature,
we would certainly not hove started manufacturing in Scotland. Could
you give me your opinion as to what you think is the real likelihood of
this movement, as we are very much afraid that if it should find the
necessary support it might easily lead to separate commercial laws for
both countries, friction between the Governments, and the uncertainty of
commerce, which would make business even more difficult than it is at
present?
We have had many eloquent speeches, but that is down to the
bedrock of business. This movement is not going to encourage business to
come to Scotland, because business people look all round the sides of a
question. It is a very difficult and
343
delicate matter to direct their attention to any part of
these islands, and they are very sensitive. If this organisation were to
gain an impetus, it would inevitably damage the chances of more
industries coming to Scotland.
I could give the House much more information on this point. I
thank the House for kindly listening to me. It is a most serious
matter, and I am only too glad of the opportunity of telling this House,
as I told my friends from the Continent, that I believe that the people
of Scotland had too much common sense to allow this movement to go any
further than it has at the moment, and that they need fear no danger in
coming to Scotland and starting new industries.
§
Mr. LEONARD
I am at a loss at times to determine to what extent the
Debates in this House can proceed. As a comparatively new Member, I
certainly am surprised that the Debate on the Speech from the Throne has
taken the trend that it has. I do not know whether this is becoming a
Scottish day, because of the actions of what are termed "the usual
channels," but I am inclined to think that the tendency displayed in the
speeches were given direction by the right hon. and learned Gentleman
the Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne) who certainly made Scottish Home
Rule one of the main -topics of his speech, and of course, attacked the
proposal. I am also surprised that the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss
Horsbrugh) should only count three organisations among those that are
striving for what is, from many points of view, a desirable end. I have
in my hand a manifesto which has the Union Jack placed upon it, the
Scottish flag with the St. Andrew's Cross and the flag with the lion
rampant. It comes from the Imperial Committee of the Unionist
Association of Cathcart.
§
Miss HORSBRUGH
I said that the people in favour of Scottish Home Rule could
be divided into three sections, the extremists, who want to go the
whole way, the moderates who only want a certain scheme of devolution,
and the new party that has been formed.
§
Mr. LEONARD
I was under the impression that the hon. Member referred specifically to organisations.
344
§
Miss HORSBRUGH
I think the hon. Member will find that I did not use the word "organisation."
§
Mr. LEONARD
In any case, I want to refer to this manifesto which was issued by the Cathcart Association.
§
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE
Not by the Cathcart Unionist Association.
§
Mr. TRAIN
By the Imperial Committee.
§
Mr. LEONARD
I am interested to see that the Liberal party is not the only party that has splits in it.
§
Mr. TRAIN
Read it, as you have it before you.
§
Mr. LEONARD
Yes. I referred to the Imperial Committee on the previous
occasion, but I omitted it in my second reference. I beg pardon for
that. I know that this manifesto comes from a part of Glasgow that has
been loyal to the Tory organisation, but which has sufficient numbers in
it to produce this rather formidable manifesto. It states:
The development of the Empire is now such that the
Dominions and Colonies, as members of the British Commonwealth of
Nations, ought, and are entitled, to have direct representation in a
British Imperial Government.
Naturally, they go on to say:
Scotland, in particular, urgently requires more intensive
development by government than the British Parliament, as at present
constituted, can adequately give. Measures of Dominion government to
Scotland, England and Wales are accordingly essential for the better
government of these nations.
I am not a believer in Home Rule if such is intended to
separate the peoples of this or any other country, but I am a believer
in Home Rule that will give a little more intimacy to the common people
in Scotland and in other countries than they have in the large
controlling units such as this. In order to make the position of the
trade unionists of Scotland quite clear on that point, I would like to
state that they have considered the matter and that, while they may or
may not consider Home Rule desirable, they are definitely of the opinion
that in their industrial organisations they are not going to be
separated from organisations south of the Border.
The speech of the hon. Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) I thoroughly en-
345
joyed, although I could not just get his opinion to coincide
with those of the hon. Member for the Partick Division (Lieut.-Colonel
MacAndrew). The speech of the hon. Member for Lanark, if I received it
correctly, was inclined to follow the policy of insular units in order
to have countries as self-contained as possible. That did not coincide
with the definite statement of the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr.
Train)—with which, by the way, I agree—that more and more
interdependence is required, as is recognised in every part of the
world. As to the statement of the hon. Member for Lanark, I should like
to relate his opinions, if I caught them aright, with his statement
regarding unemployment. He stated that in the main unemployment in
Scotland is confined to coal, iron and steel, engineering and
shipbuilding, and that, if the problems were disposed of in those four
activities, Scotland would be practically clear of unemployment. I am
prepared to accept that, but I cannot see coal, iron and steel,
engineering and shipbuilding being Lettered by the policy adopted by the
present Government in regard to the restriction of trade by the
imposition of tariffs. If it be the case that the settlement of the
problem in these four items of activity would break the back of
unemployment, what we want is more freedom of trade, because these
activities thrive according to the extent to which commodities are moved
about the world.
My last point with regard to unemployment is that which was
raised specifically by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs
(Mr. J. Reid). He is in favour of the application of a form of
devolution to administration in Scotland, but, if that be required in
administration, it is, in my opinion, required in regard to the control
of administration. I have been informed that administration is
three-quarters of Government, and, if it be necessary that the
administration of Scottish affairs should be in Scotland, and that a
Member of the Government should be continually in Scotland, we may as
well have a Government in Scotland looking over the administration,
especially in view of the recent memorandum submitted to the Government
by the Town Clerk of Glasgow, which stated quite clearly, in reference
to certain benefits to the City of Glasgow by taking men from the
parish,
346
that the administrative action of the chief insurance
official took away practically immediately all such benefits as might
have been conferred in that way.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead appears to
be rather anxious about this question in Scotland, and I think that the
attitude which is being adopted by Tory Members opposite has been
dictated and fostered because of the meeting held in the Merchants'
House on the 14th November, when one Lord and 17 Scottish Knights
commenced a campaign against this insidious movement in Scotland. We now
see visible evidence in this House of the action that is being taken.
The points contained in the Speech from the Throne are all
of considerable importance, and, undoubtedly, there is a grave
difference of opinion as to the viewpoint from which we should look at
it. I should like to refer earnestly to the contribution of the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who dealt with the
League of Nations and matters affecting the Geneva and other
international conferences. I regret very much his reference to the
gullibility of the League of Nations. If there is one body of men and
women of all countries who have striven with courage might and main to
see that peace may be brought to this world, it is the organisation
known as the League of Nations—[HON. MEMBERS: "The League of Nations
Union"] —the League of Nations Union. Therefore, I regret very much the
sneering attitude towards those who compose that Union. It is true, as
was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, that there
is more hatred in the world than there was before, but the League of
Nations Union is not the cause of that. It is true, also, that rivalry
has increased in the world, but the League of Nations Union is not the
cause of that. If it be the case, as the right hon. Gentleman stated,
that the war mentality has increased, there again I say that, if anyone
has worked against that increase in war mentality, it has been the
League of Nations Union. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping
asked us to look below and see the ferment of nationalism and so forth
that is making it impossible for their work to fructify, but, if you
look still further underneath, you will see that the cause of the lack
of success that has attended their efforts
347
is the fact that we are not prepared to co-operate nation
with nation in accepting the real spirit of mutual aid. Every one of the
capitalist nations of the world is endeavouring to see how much profit
it can get from other parts of the world, and, until that is altered,
and the spirit of mutual aid is introduced, we shall never have the
advantages that would accrue from lasting peace.
Russia always crops up in discussions on this matter. The
right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping and the Noble Lady the Member
for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) referred specially to Russia. They
are not, however, afraid of the armaments in Russia; that is not what
worries them. What worries them is that a new concept of life is growing
up in Russia. They understand that the schoolmaster has been abroad in
Russia in a way in which he never was before. They know that there are
children to-day in Russia who look upon a civilisation as being
civilisation if it is based on the common people, children who do not
conceive of a civilisation that only displays its advantages at the top
of the scale. That is the reason why they are afraid of the movement
which is taking place in Russia.
I say quite sincerely that I enjoyed the speech of the Mover
of the Address the other day, and I join with him in saying that the
will to peace is one of the great factors. But what is the use of
willing peace when we are living in war? Without doubt, there is no
peace in the world to-day. A simple illustration should prove the point.
Not a man or a woman goes into a factory in this country or in any part
of the world to-day who does not enter into war with his or her
brothers and sisters who are working in another factory in the same
street. The measure of success of their employer is taken to be the
extent that he forges ahead and leaves his competitors behind no matter
how many employer are placed in the street. Father fights son if they
are in different establishments, and, while you have that condition in
the industrial and commercial life of this or any other nation, you can
never expect to have a peace which will give satisfaction. We must
really take co-operation in the sense of each and everyone being capable
of having a greater degree of equality than at present and the vicious
circle of de-
348
pression will go. The circle of depression is caused through
the mad stampede for profits, and, once that stampede for profits goes,
the vicious circle of depression will go. We cannot wait. We have got
to have something done as quickly as possible. We have been told that
the Government are taking the long view. I am not foolish enough to deny
that that long view must be taken, but there are people in the country
who cannot wait on the long view.
I wonder if hon. Members opposite have paid attention to the
recent investigations of Mr. Seebohm Rowntree. He has investigated the
matter on many occasions before, and he now tells us that, for a man
with a, wife and three children, 31s. 6d. will only provide a dietary
more rigid than is given in the workhouses, and yet this makes no
provision for rent or rates. How can people in those conditions take the
long view? How can they wait on a long drawn-out policy? I know
reference will be made to the Labour Government, but they were hampered,
though they did the best that they could. There is power on the other
side. Your great leader, Disraeli, said that power has only one duty,
and that is to attend to the requirements of the people. You have the
power and I ask you to apply it a little more intimately to the common
people. Mr. Seebohm Rowntree said:
If one makes economic provision to cover the difference
between mere physical subsistence and a very moderate standard of life
one arrives for the same family at a figure of 43s. 8d. a week.
I am going to ask that this be taken into consideration as
something connected with the desire expressed in the King's Speech,
something that cannot wait on a long policy, something that you have the
power to do something for at present. It may be that the march of
science is ruthless, as the Mover of the Motion said, but I do not
believe it. Science has provided the possibilities of a life that the
people never conceived would be theirs at any time. What is wrong is not
science but the fact that the owners of the power to apply that science
are ruthless. You find the captains of industry urging that Parliament
should not interfere so much in industry's affairs. They want a little
more freedom. They see an army of 2,000,000 people on the streets
wanting
349
to get work of any kind, and they want to take advantage of it.
Sir Allan Smith, one of the great leaders of industry, has
gone far in protesting at Parliamentary interference. He desires that
the evolution of sentiment and the development of public opinion should
be the guide to the industrial conditions of the country. I do not think
there is any Member of the Tory party who would be prepared to admit
that even Sir Allan Smith, or the most humane individual controlling
industry to-day, should be allowed to do in his factory what the
evolution of sentiment and the development of public opinion would
allow. We have had to interfere through the medium of our inspectors. We
have had to guide industry, and we shall have to do it more than in the
past. Reference is made in the Gracious Speech to the effects of
unemployment and the need to continue material assistance. It states
that that is not sufficient and that the moral of the people must be
protected. I am sorry that that recognition has come so late. Your
effort has been lost to a great section of the young men and young women
of the country. When I talk about the means test, I do not look at it
in terms of pounds, shillings and pence at all. I realise that many of
the young men and women who come to me in difficulties feel that they
are losing their manhood and womanhood. If you want to save the moral of
the people, take away the stigma that is on us and allow the young men
and women who are able to work, if work is provided, to stand in their
lives as men and women, as they are.
The Seconder of the Motion stated, I believe truly, that no
farmer desires to pay low wages. I am quite prepared to admit that. But
no farmer wants to pay high rents, and I do not understand why the
Government, with the power that they have, have not paid a little
attention to the rents that farmers have to pay. I turn to the last
published report of the Inland Revenue Department, and in Table 47, not
dealing with gross income but with the actual income liable to Income
Tax, I find that the income from the ownership—not the working of land
because that is dealt with separately—of land and houses has increased
since 1921, which was the first year that Southern
350
Ireland was kept out of the figures, by £78,922,000. If the
farmers are to receive any support, let us turn our attention to that
comparatively small body of men who control land and houses and have
increased their yearly incomes since 1924 by no less than close upon
£79,000,000, and then we shall not require to tax the people who buy
their bread and meat in the shops of the country.
With regard to prices, I, like most Members of the House,
looked at the newspapers this morning. I found, quoting at least one
paper—the "News, Chronicle"—that there is no hope of prices being
stabilised. The tendency is definitely on the upgrade, and I have the
table for lamb, mutton and beef showing the comparative increases of the
various types. In general, it shows a definite increase, as a result of
the policy of the Government in regard to meat, of no less than a penny
to l½d. a 1b., and in some cases in the retail shops the best cuts have
definitely increased. In order to save time and not merely to give my
own view, I will put before the House the opinion of the Secretary of
the National Federation of Meat Traders Associations who stated in
"Reynolds" on the 13th of this month that:
any increase in the wholesale price would be passed on to
the consumer. We need look for no sensational leap upwards but rather
for a slow steady rise with no limit only the point at which the public
can no longer afford to buy meat. How British agriculture can be helped
by raising the price of meat to a point where people cannot afford it is
beyond my comprehension.
That is the opinion of a man who, I presume, knows something
about the trade. At one time it was possible for people of the country,
when meat became too dear, to turn to bacon, but the door shut them, As
has already been stated from the Front Bench, the price of bacon has
gone up by 9s. a cwt. Again, we find a representative of the
metropolitan grocers stating that only the best cuts have gone up and
that future prices are problematic. Even if you give the British
producer an advantage of 20s. a cwt. against the Danish price of 52s. to
54s. a cwt. it will not come near to what the British pig producer
demands. He says that at least it will take from 80s. to 84s. in order
to make pig production pay. If bacon is increasing in price as a result
of the comparatively small increase applied at the present time, what
will
351
the price have to be if you are to satisfy the desires of
the pig producers and bring the figure up to 80s. or 84s. I do not wish
to appear to be bitter towards any Member on the Front Bench, but I
should like to remind hon. Members of the fact that in the early days of
the first National Government they gave a promise to this country
through the medium of the Food Prices (Prevention of Exploitation) Act, which is still in being because it was renewed. I will read the Preamble:
An Act to authorise the Board of Trade in case of need to
take exceptional measures for preventing or remedying shortages in, or
any reasonable increase in the price of, certain articles of food or
drink.
That Act is still in force. I do not sea any action pending
against the Minister of Agriculture or the President of the Board of
Trade because they are doing what this Act was brought into being to
prevent. It is perhaps well that it is one of the prerogatives of the
President of the Board of Trade to initiate action before any
prosecution can take place; but I think the only appropriate thing he
can do is to permit the Public Prosecutor to proceed against himself and
the Minister of Agriculture for outraging an Act brought into being by
the Government, and increasing prices and restricting trade in that way.
I will keep my promise to sit down before the half hour. I
am sorry that no indication has been given in the King's Speech as to
the use of the Agricultural Utilisation Act.
Every hon. or right hon. Member who has touched on the land question
to-day has given recognition of the possibilities of putting more people
on to the land. We have had certain detailed speeches and if they are
favourably considered by the responsible members of the Government, I
would suggest that the Agricultural Utilisation Act
might be brought into operation to a greater extent than it is at the
present time. My last point is in regard to Rent Restriction
legislation. If any alteration takes place it should be an extension and
not a lessening of control, because it must be patent to every hon.
Member that there is a widening degree of distress not touching people
who at one time were looked upon as being of the working class as
regards ability to pay rent. Therefore, instead of restricting the
element of control, it should be widened.
352
Further, I am of opinion that private enterprise can never
again cope with the housing conditions of this country, and the sooner
the Government realise that that need can only be met by bringing into
operation the municipalities and direct labour, the better. Only by
those means can we get the housing needs of the community met, with
perhaps a possibility of doing away eventually with rent control, which
is felt to be so irksome by the people who are the sufferers. I will not
touch on other points because of the promise that I made, but I suggest
that the references in the King's Speech are not sufficient to satisfy
the immediate requirements of the people, and I suggest that the
Government, with all their powers, should take their courage in both
hands in effecting some improvement in regard to the matters with which I
have dealt, thereby helping to relieve the anxieties of the people.
§
Mr. SKELTON
I think the House will agree with me that the hon. Member
who has just spoken has, within the limits of time that he set himself,
put with the greatest force, terseness and clearness the matters with
which he dealt. If I do not follow him into all of them, every one of
which in its nature and its importance is well worthy to be discussed,
it is because I propose to deal with what has been the main topic of
Debate to-day, namely, affairs in Scotland. Speaking I think on behalf
of the Government as a whole, and particularly on behalf of my right
hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, I may say that we welcome
most sincerely the opportunity which this Debate has given, at the very
beginning of a new Session of Parliament, of a general review of
Scottish affairs. Two generations ago a favourite topic was "the
condition of England." I am glad that in our generation the first
country which has had its condition definitely and particularly
inspected by this House in this new Session is my own country of
Scotland. Under the Rules of the House we are generally confined to
Debates which arise on the Estimates and which are usually restricted,
and therefore I think it is a most valuable innovation that we should
have this opportunity so early in the Session of debating general
affairs in Scotland. Much, of course, has been said on the question of
Home Rule for Scot-
353
land, but we should be greatly in error if we thought that
the only topic of importance raised is the question of Home Rule. My
right hon. Friend and I attach the greatest importance to the
suggestions which have been made on the general question of Scottish
government and legislation, and it is on this that I want to say a word
or two.
I am not convinced that there is any force in the suggestion that because you
354
develop the administration north of the Tweed you must
develop a separate Parliament. I have had administrative connection with
the affairs of Scotland only for a year, but I have an hereditary
connection with Scottish administration and have been brought up in the
atmosphere of administration, and to some extent that interest is in my
blood. Let me give an illustration of what is in my mind. When a county
clerk or town clerk wishes to discuss with the central authority a
housing scheme which presents no such difficulties as make the direct
intervention of the Secretary of State or the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary necessary, he can carry on all the discussion with the
permanent head of the Department of Health in Edinburgh. If there is any
very special question raised it may have to be referred to my right
hon. Friend or myself. But when the same local government official
wishes to discuss some other matter of local government which is within
the purview of the Scottish Office and not of the Department of Health,
he finds no one in Edinburgh with whom he can discuss the matter. I
could add to the examples.
It is clear that we would ease the administration of the
local authorities if we could make intercourse between them and the
central authority more ready and easy, not on one or two topics of
administration but on all. The extra burdens which modern legislation
and the conditions of modern public life have placed upon local
authorities are very great. The great bulk of local administration is
done by men and women who receive no remuneration. Everything that we
can do to make the work of local administration in Scotland easy, ready
and comfortable, this House and the Government should do.
I do not wish, because the matter has been much canvassed
and discussed, to deal fully with the speech of my right hon. Friend the
Member for ('aithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), but if he had
been in his place I would have said this to him: He knows, and some of
my friends know, that the present Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
is greatly interested in questions of land settlement. I want to tell
my right hon. Friend something that I know he does not know, and that is
that my present Chief is just as interested in land settle
355
ment as was my late Chief. I am able to tell him that with
the frankness of a junior Minister and the frankness of an enthusiast
for land settlement. Upon that score my right hon. Friend the late
Secretary of State need not have any anxiety.
It is remarkable, I think, that on a day which has been
almost entirely devoted to Scottish matters there have not been many
suggestions made for reforms and improvements, nor any very novel
matters which need immediate remedy brought before the House, yet I take
it that this comprehensive Debate has enabled almost every question to
be discussed. I would undertake to say that apart from the suggestion
made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne) and
referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there are
not many matters of public importance or public controversy remaining in
the store house of any hon. Member's mind which he has not brought
forward. Therefore I feel at liberty to turn for a moment to the
question of Home Rule.
In my 10 years' experience of the House of Commons I have
formed the view that the duties and the positions of a Scottish Member
of Parliament in this united Parliament are not precisely the same as
those of an English Member. We are a minority. We are out of Scotland,
and we have a special duty while we are here to pay attention to the
needs of Scotland. I am speaking of Private Members. I think that
Scottish Private Members on all sides of the House keep that in mind and
feel that their first duty in the united Parliament is to Scotland.
Further, I have always thought and have said it on public platforms and
elsewhere that the test for Scotsmen as to whether the Union ought to be
continued or not, is whether it has been successful from a Scottish
point of view or not. If, as Scotsmen, we were satisfied that the Union
had been a failure, then as Scotsmen it would be necessary for us to
review the situation and see what ought to take its place. I am sure
that that is the right line of approach to this question for every
Scotsman in the House.
I am satisfied, for what my opinion is worth, that the
Union, far from being a failure from the point of view of Scot-
356
land, has been a very great success and so remains. Most
impressive observations have been made on the subject of its effects and
on the value of the united Parliament and the united system from an
industrial and economic point of view. I do not think that we can
exaggerate the importance of the considerations which have been put
forward by none better than by my Noble Friend the Member for North
Lanark (Lord Dunglass). In the modern world for this country one of the
great markets must be the home market, and it is of immense importance
to Scotland, as an industrial and agricultural country which exports
largely to England, that we should not begin a course of constitutional
action, which, however narrow and apparently harmless in its beginnings,
may start to work a centrifugal force the end of which one cannot
foretell and in the course of which we may get into a position of
considerable economic friction as between England and Scotland. Such
economic friction would be a tragedy for England but it would be fatal
for Scotland.
We produce one-third of the home beef supplies of this
country. We export large quantities of woollen goods, coal, steel and
iron to England. I do not myself see how Scotland as an industrial
country can have any secure foundation for its industries if there is
any question of the English market being in jeopardy, and I commend that
line of thought, so ably put by my Noble Friend, to the most serious
consideration of those interested in the question of self-government for
Scotland. I will not go into the various brews of Home Rule which have
been suggested, but I cannot forbear from thanking the hon. Member for
Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) for her description of the new party, the "vague
postponists" of which we have had the first statement of policy from my
right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
I never heard, I think, either in this House or elsewhere,
any proposal put forward with less enthusiasm and with a greater
proportion of cold water, because after the elaborate, nay passionate,
description of the glories of self-government, my right hon. and gallant
Friend concluded by saying that anyway—I have not got him textually
correct, but we
357
shall see it in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow—we might at all
events have a Parliament for home affairs without any serious results,
and that one could picture a Scottish Parliament which would not
dismember the Empire. These are not the arguments with which you
approach a revolutionary constitutional change. Unless you have better
arguments than to say, in a time like this, that you are going to devote
your national thought to constitutional rather than to economic
problems, or that there are certain things you can do without grievous
damage, then I think the question is blown sky-high.
There is the other party, the party which wishes to have
what is most briefly described as Dominion status. One hon. Member, I
think it was the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), said that in
his view—and again I am not quoting him textually—of the various
parties, it was the extreme party which was developing most force and
life. I agree. I do not believe that you can make constitutional
alterations upon a false historic basis, and no historic basis could be
more false than one which regarded Scotland as a Dominion. Scotland is
an ancient kingdom which, partly by chance, by the turn of fortune's
wheel, gave its Royal family to England and which for over 100 years had
a Parliament of its own. But when you come to these deeper national
things, the fires burn for a long time, as this House knows well. Anyone
who remembers the Debates on the Prayer Book knows how subjects which
seemed to have become as cold as the ashes of yesterday's fire blaze up
when they are approached again in this House.
It is my firm conviction that if you were to set Scotland on
the path of separation, however tentative and hesitating were the steps
taken to begin with, you would be rousing ancient fires, you would be
touching feelings, you would be putting in motion centrifugal forces
which, once set in motion, you could not control; and I believe that,
take it long or take it short, if you give up the Union between England
and Scotland, you are taking a course of action which leads you to
complete separation. In any ease, it is not a convenient place for
Scotland to stop at, because Scotland is riot a Dominion. The House
knows, and it has been well brought before us
358
by Members on the Labour benches, how tremendously engrossed
this era and generation are in economic questions. We all know it, but I
am satisfied, none the less, that if you were to rouse these ancient
national feelings in Scotland, you would stir forces the strength of
which you do not realise. Further I say, and I say with all the force
that I can command, there is no halting place in logic, in history or in
the genius of a people, once you leave Union, to complete separation.
It is well that those who are flirting with these ideas should clearly
see that such, at all events, is the probability.
It is unnecessary for me to refer to the case of Ireland,
which is a special case, but take the case of Norway and Sweden. They
were two countries living apparently in complete harmony, but ancient
feelings of separate nationality burst out and, for reasons which are
very hard for a foreigner to understand, they felt separation was the
only course. It was easy enough, and I do not suppose anyone would
maintain that Sweden or Norway or the world suffered particularly from.
Norway becoming a separate Kingdom. But nobody can contemplate with
patience the idea of such an event happening within our own shores. The
effect upon Scotland, as a Scotsman I hesitate to contemplate, but I say
the effect on England would be very serious too, and the effect on the
Empire would be extremely serious as well. The House has to recollect
that Scotland has played a considerable part in the development of this
great Imperial structure and not only that, but I think no Member, not a
Scotsman, will disagree or think I am blowing the national trumpet when
I say that the Scottish people do add a definite flavour and strength
to the Imperial centre, namely, the United Kingdom. If you deprived
England of the assistance of Scotland in its work and task as the centre
of the Empire you would weaken England. I know one's own experience
with the peoples of the Dominions has been that they keep a specially
warm corner in their hearts for Scotsmen, and I do believe it would be
dangerous to the Empire to take any step which would run the risk of
breaking up the United Kingdom.
359
As to the effect on Scotland, I hesitate to think what it
would be, but do not let the House suppose that Scotland is not capable
of having a Parliament of its own. I think this Debate has shown that we
could probably put up a pretty good debating body, and do not let
anybody propose either in this House or out of it, that if Scotland
desired and clearly shows its desire for a Parliament of its own that
she would not get it. I will not go into that but it has long been clear
that if Scotland desired a Parliament of its own nobody in England
would prevent it. Let me say this in that connection to those who seek
Parliamentary powers for Scotland. I notice that even the Duke of
Montrose's scheme, the moderate scheme, contained a suggestion as to the
way in which foreign affairs and matters of trade and commerce should
be managed and suggested that there should be some form of Joint
Commission with England. On that I would say that though Scotland has a
perfect right to ask for self-government, if it so desires, it has no
right, in my judgment, while asking for it, to suggest that the
concomitant of that self-government is a complete alteration in English
constitution. That is a separate step and one which I do not think even
the keenest Nationalist has any right to take.
Finally, I should like to make this observation. I see no
appreciation, in the proposals of either the moderates, the extremists
or even the vague postponists, if Scotland had a Parliament of its own,
covering only, let us say, the scope of local affairs, of the difficulty
of decidciding what that scope should be. This difficulty was
brilliantly analysed in the speech of the right hon. Member for
Hillhead. Even a Parliament of local affairs only would necessarily have
the result that there could be no Secretary of State in the British
Cabinet. He would have no function. All the local affairs would be done
by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government in Scotland. All
other affairs would have in the British Cabinet a Minister of their own,
and if there were to be a Scottish Secretary of State in the British
Cabinet and a Scottish Government and Parliament in Edinburgh, the
Secretary of State could take no step without treading upon the toes of
another Minister because he would have no Department and no sphere of
360
action of his own. The result would be that in the general
affairs of the United Kingdom, in all the larger questions, there would
be in the Cabinet nobody definitely representing the Scottish point of
view.
It is my sincere belief that even assuming that Scotland
gained something from a separate legislature—and I think the Debate has
shown how doubtful that proposition is—what Scotland gained it would
lose by having no Minister in the Cabinet of Great Britain. That would
also have the most deleterious effect upon the position of private
Members in this House from Scotland. I am satisfied that the value, the
weight and the importance of private Members in the House of Commons
depends largely upon their having a Minister who is specially
responsible for affairs connected with their constituencies. You would
find that private Scottish Members without a Secretary of State, of whom
they could ask questions and who was the executive officer in whom they
were all interested, would be Members of Parliament with a far less
definite function than the English Members. I venture to put before the
House these considerations; that the loss of a Scottish Secretary of
State in the United Kingdom Cabinet would be serious, that it would
greatly jeopardise the value of private Members, and that, looked at
either from the narrow constitutional point of view, or from the wide
national point of view, the institution of a Scottish Parliament would
be a danger to Scotland, to England and to the Empire; it would, as my
right hon. Friend said in his own view, be a retrograde step. It would. I
am sure, rouse those ancient fires of national feeling which are
dormant now and have been dormant these last 200 years. But they have in
their time burned strongly, and he would be a rash man who said that
the embers were now cold.
Posts
