SCOTTISH HOME RULE

Evening Star, Issue 18021, 15 July 1922, Page 14

SCOTTISH HOME RULE

•short shrift for a bill. “ SCOTLAND not'AN OPPRESSED NATION.” The House of Commons was not unduly excited when, on, May 26, Mr Wallace (Dunfermline Burghs, C.L.) moved the second reading of the Government pf Scotland Bill, providing for tho establishment in Scotland of a single-Charaber Parliament, subordinate to tho Imperial Parliament, and consisting of 148 members, representing the existing constituencies and returned by the parliamentary electors, with the addition of peers. Ho said the majority of Scottish members wore not only in favor of the principle of Home Rule for Scotland, but were definitely pledged to their constituents to push it forward. Behind the movement there was a rising tide of well-informed and resolute Scottish opinion, irrespective of party, and it was certain that at tho next Genera] Election a Parliament for Scotland' would be the test question for Scottish candidates. The Bill was proposed on the two grounds of national sentiment and legislative efficioncy. If there was any nation under heaven peculiarly fitted to govern itself, it was the nation north of the Tweed. The thistle had steadfastly refused' to become a rose, and Scots claimed the right to govern themselves along the lines of their own history and tradition. Mr A. Shaw (Kilmarnock, C.L.) seconded the motion. He said Scotland was represented in tho Government by the Secretary for Scotland, and this Bill was his Bill. He thought they might look forward with some confidence to tho adoption of the Bill by the Government at no distant date. There was no desire in Scotland for separation, except among half a dozen hotheads. Post Ofiico, coinage, and currency would remain common services, the Army and Navy, tho collection of Imperial taxes, Customs and excise, and external relations would continue under the control of the Parliament at Westminster. He had no sympathy with the purely sentimental talk about Scottish Home Rule. Some people talked as if Scotland was Armenia or Ireland, quite oblivious of the fact that Scotland was neither an oppressed nation, nor had) it ever been a conquered nation. Scotland was not annexed by England. It was Scotland that annexed England. (Laughter and cheers.) He deplored this slavish copying ot the language and ideas of Sinn Fein. This was a msasute of justice to England as well as to Scotland, because until they had some measure of devolution no English business or Imperial business would obtain proper attention. Sir H. Craik {Scottish Universities, C.U.) said, that tire Bill would follow its many predecessors into oblivion. Their fate'reminded him of the catalogue of the deaths of the Kings in ‘Richard 11. Some have been depos’d, some slain in war; Some haunted by the ghosts they have depos’d; . , . some sleeping kill’d;

All murder’d. They had. all alike gone to their fate without the slightest lamentation. Hero they had the aspirations of a nation embodied in a BilS which was to' redress the wrongs of centuries, and the Scottish members present could be counted on one hand. The proposal would involve the expenditure of several millions sterling, and would cause much trouble and irritation. Dio the supporters of the Bill think that the ambition, eagerness, and keenness of Scotsmen would be confined within the borders of their own land ? The cry of Home Bale for Scotland, raised by artificial and camouflaged methods, might have dire effects, such as had followed the Irish demand for Home Rule. Sir D. Maclean (Peebles, L.) contended that tbs proposal embodied in the Bill was necessary if Scottish interests were to receive anything approaching adequate legislative and administrative attention. There had been a remarkable change of opinion in Scotland in regard to the principle of the measure, and the genera] feeling there now, irrespective of party, was in favor of a devolution of power to a Legislative Assembly in Edinburgh. Colonel J. Ward C.L.) said that if a clause were inserted m the Bill to confine Scotsmen to Scottish business in the Imperial Parliament, or to keep them out of England, he would vote for the Bill as many times as were required to make it law. (Laughter and cheers.) He hoped one effect of the discussion of this Scottish Bill would be to instill into Englishmen a similar nationalism, so that they would begin to think of England, of controlling England themselves, and keeping Scotsmen out of the best positions in England.’ (Laughter.) But apparently Englishmen could think of nothing but the Empire and the British race, to which all its peoples belonged. (A Scottish member: “ Who made the Empire?”) Why, Englishmen, of course. (Cheers and laughter.) As a rule, Scotsmen looked upon the Empire as something to exploit. The Empire was built up by English enterprise and adventure, (Cheers.) Englishmen had none of those narrow nationalist prejudices. They did not trouble what nationality a man belonged to so long as ho was the best man for the purpose in hand. The cry with Welshmen and Scotsmen always was: “Is he a Scotsman!”, “Is he a Welshman?” That was mere tribalism. (Cheers.) Lord E. Percy (Hastings, C.U.) said the Bill seemed to bo a somewhat slavish imitation of the Home Rule measure of 1914, and suffered from the defect of providing no constitutional connection between the Scottish and the Imperial Parliaments. A general federal system could not bo established on such a basis, and he would vote against the Bill, though he thought ho was still a Homo Ruler all round, if a practical scheme could be put forward. Dr Murray (Western Isles, Ind.) urged the House not to wait until the bombs were thrown and the torches were applied before granting this measure of justice to Scotland. Sir R. Thomas (Wrexham, C.L.) said that on the advice of the Prime Minister a joint measure of devolution for Scotland and Wales had been introduced. He asked for an assurance that time would bo given for its discussion. Mr Johnstone (Renfrew, E., C.L.) urged that the House would play into the hands of extremists if It disregarded the desire of moderate men in Scotland that the Scottish people should he brought more closely into contact with the administration of their own public affairs. Mr Murray, Lord Advocate (Edinburgh, B. C.U.), replying to Sir R. Thomas, said •ha had no authority on behalf of either the Secretary for Scotland or the Government to give the assurance asked for. Mr G. Murray (St. Rollox, C.) said that he had been a convinced devolutionist for a long time; but, in view of present financial conditions and of the relations between Great Britain and Ireland, he could not support the Bill now. Captain Elliot (Lanark, C.U.) denounced the measure as containing more of the poison of nationalism which had caused so much mischief during the last few years. The proposal was ridiculous and retrograde. The hon. member continued speaking until 4 o’clock, when the debate stood adjourned. '