“SCOTS’ FOLLY”

Evening Star, Issue 19760, 10 January 1928, Page 10

“SCOTS’ FOLLY”

HOME RULE ADVOCATED NEGLECT OF NEEDS PASSING OF A NATION. Five men of Harris seized land at Scaristaveg. It is the old tale—the failure of Scotland’s bureaucratic rulers to fulfil promises repeatedly given, writes lan Gillies, in the ‘Scots Independent.’ Desperate necessity to save their dependents from semi-starvation drove the men to act on their own behalf; they were imprisoned. Now they are out again, and, we understand, are back on the land they raided. They are “ still otx the laud—cannot starve,’’ and because the men have followed the natural low of self-preservation, because they would keep their families from distress, “ the only result,” wo are assured by Sir John Gilmour, ‘‘will bo t'rat they will be freshly imprisoned.” Most of these men served in the recent war “ for the rights of small nations”; they had “fought for their homes.” Admittedly, this fact has little to do with the case. They are Scotsmen —men who want but the chance to live and labor in their own land among their own people—and are denied this right by the system of Scotland’s government. The only assistance the rulers of our country will give them is to clear out—these are the facts that matter.

Only five men, a few women, and children —a small and relatively unimportant affair to the five millions of Sects people? No! it is more than the concern of four or five Scottish families. It is a further indictment of the manner of Scotland’s present Administration. another instance which illustrates fine tragic folly of a people who allow their affairs to be mismanaged by an alien Parliament. It is a call to the Scottish people to unite in withstanding the menace of the policy consciously' followed by successive English Governments —a policy which threatens the national EXTINCTION OF SCOTLAND.

This is no alarmist statement, it is a truth evident to every thinking Scot who knows the facts—a truth that is made clear not alone by the facts of Scottish land settlement, but no less by the state of affairs in every section of Scottish life and administration.

Witnessing the shutting down of Rosyth dockyard, the removal of the Scots Pensions Office from Edinburgh to London, and the general policy of English Government to turn the few remaining Scottish administrative boards into sections of the respective London departments—witnessing these, can any Scot fail to realise the obvious intention of our English rulers to destroy even the last vestiges of Scotland’s political existence? Scottish law is flouted, and English lawyers complain that Scotland’s separate legal institutions and customs arc irksome, and should be done away with. What right, indeed, has onr country to retain her individuality, thus being a nuisance to John Bull?

Side by side with the deliberate pursuit of this policy there is the studied neglect of Scottish needs. Scotland’s social problems become worse year by year, and economic distress is intensified, forcing Scots in thousands to leave their country to find, or attempt to found, homes in other lands., ft is not love of adventure or hatred of their own country that has forced over 360,00 U Scots men and women to emigrate in the last eight years. This vital drain on Scotland will continue so long as the present system of government exists. If it is allowed to continue, if Scots arc to be driven from their native land while strangers fill their place, there is the end in sight—the end of Scotland, the inglorious passing of a nation once honored among the nations of the West.

The inconsiderable emigration from England is worthy of notice. The preferential treatment of England at every turn makes a significant contrast which Scots should mark. Surely knowledge of the tacts is to every Scot an urge to do something, and that quickly, to help in the struggle to withdraw Scottish affairs from the blighting influence of England’s Parliament? Scots men and women who now, in the hour of their country’s need, remain passive arc assisting in a NATIONAL SUICIDE.

The Scaristavcg raid is a.small affair, but if the Scots people would realise its meaning it is an episode that will mark a turning point in our national history. What is its significance? lb is a cry of the land-hungry—the protest, though feeble, against the monstrous neglect that is forcing an unwilling people from their native land. Sohstuffp Yes, sohstuff. And what are the facts? —undeniable facts that may ho verified from unofficial sources: facts that clearly show that London Government lias neither the imagination to conceive nor the will to put into effect any adequate policy for the repeopling of Scotland. Whilst there are still over 10,000 applicants waiting for holdings—not to mention those who have since 1918 withdrawn their names through despair of ever getting land—there are to-day fewer small holdings than in 1913. Less than 5,000 applicants have been settled in fifteen years.

Is there no land available? The Royal Commission in 1895 reported that no less than 1,782,785 acres in the seven crofting counties alone were suitable for cultivation. Since this -date the area devoted to purposes of “sport” and grazing lias increased, and over 180,000 acres of Scottish land have gone out of cultivation since 1918.

LAND SETTLEMENT

No one will deny that the question of hind settlement to Scotland is a. ticklish job. We are continually urging that settlement cannot properly be considered apart from the problem of transport—and of afforestation, fishing, and home industry. A comprehensive scheme of national development is needed—one that could not only be set on foot by a Scottish-Parliament conscious of Scotland’s needs and unhindered by London interference—a Parliament, moreover, which had full control over the spending of Scottish money. But more,could be done, even in existing circumstances, to get fairplay for Scotland if some of the bone which encases the thick skulls of our Westminster representatives could be transferred to prop up their weak spines. Whilst thumb-twiddling London officials deny Scotland the money necessary to successful land settlement, how is England treated? Under the Small' Holdings Act of 1926 financial assistance is given to tenants in England who wish to purchase holdings, hut no portion of such purchase money is allowed, to Scottish small-hoiders. Further, the Treasury, to encourage land settlement in England, guarantees to cover up to 75 per cent, of any losses incurred by English local authorities in promoting such schemes. Thus Scottish money is used to subsidise English small-holders while Scotsmen go to Canada—or to gaol. Can Scotland afford this charity?

If Scotland finds it difficult to get back part of her own money once it has been grasped in the sticky paws of the London Treasury, John Bull is prodigal in one respect at least. There can never be too'many Commissions of inquiry for finding out how expenditure on Scotland can be further cut down. It is not surprising, therefore, to find England’s Secretary of State for Scotland complaining that he has not heard “ a single word in favor of economy,” and, in the debate at Westminster on the Scottish Agriculture Vote assuring the House that he lias set tip a commjtteo of three to inquire into the question of whether Scotland’s rulers “can continue the machinery” of Scottish land settlement at all. It

is sufficient_ to say that the committee has as chairman a former prominent London banking official, and that one of the other members is a decided opponent of small holdings. It is thus clear that the intention is to cut down topnothing all effort to settle Scotland. Scotsmen may clear out; Government money will ever Ire provided for schemes of emigration, despite the fact that such plans have produced ten times as raa’ny failures as even the paltry settlement schemes in Scotland.

And what are Scotland’s “representatives ” doing about it at Westminster? Nothing, but

FUTILE TALK

In the debate on the Board of Agriculture Vote there was a deal of party propaganda, and plenty of petty personal advertisement. Some constructive criticisms were put forward from various quarters in a spiritless fashion; realising that nothing would be done was apparent. Of any sign that something would be doue there was none. There could -be none. If there was any hopeful sign it was the admission by some of the Scots members that the whole game was futile. Hear their own words:— “This great sham fight that takes place every yearl I have listened for years to the same debate, the same speeches, and same replies. . . . Will this night’s debate result in anything for our neople?”—James Brown, M.P. “ We do not really get down to the question of Scottish necessities and interests. . . . There is a want of reality in our debates, a failure to realise the depths of the troubles which beset Scotland as a whole. ... It is no good going on merely making recitations and quoting figures in this House. We can do nothing.”—-Edwin Scrymgeour,_ M.P. Just nothing. The debate ends and the Scots Conservative goes off to vote in support of the Government whose policy he has condemned; the Liberal and Labor representatives _ automatically file into the Opposition lobby—whilst the whole Scottish vote is overwhelmed, and the state of affairs approved, by the votes of a mass of English members who have not even listened to the discussion. So the game goes on.