| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Salmond: The benefit was ours, yes. The Conservative party will have to acknowledge that the cost
of the poll tax in administrative terms and in transitional relief was £1,000 million. If Conservative Members are worried about the cost of the Scottish Parliament, they might dwell on the fact that it would be possible to run a Scottish Parliament for half a century for the cost of one bad, undemocratic, unresponsive decision forced upon the Scottish people by the Conservative party.
Nor does a Unionist party make a good case when it argues that constitutional change must take place on the same day in different countries. According to that argument, Wales could not have joined the Union until Scotland did, and Scotland presumably could not have joined until Ireland did. It is a farcical argument. If one accepts that Scotland and Wales are nations, surely they have the right to decide, whether on one day or another. The peoples of Scotland and Wales are adult enough to make up their own independent minds, on whatever day the referendums are held.
A much more substantial argument about the referendum is why there will be two questions in Scotland. It is farcical. Why will there be no independence question on the ballot paper? It seems passing strange that, in the debate on the Lords amendments, instead of discussing and reflecting on matters of substance, we are involved in a debate of little matter.
Although I caution the Conservative party that it should not continue in the vein that it has adopted, I dare say that we have a party political interest in a parade of more prejudice in the Chamber tonight. Either through its own activities or through its front organisation, the think twice campaign, the Conservative party should not place itself irredeemably in antagonistic opposition to the peoples of Scotland and Wales.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
I have no difficulty in supporting my right hon. Friends on this matter, because the proposals for Scotland and Wales are totally different. I think that I was the one Scot who sat through the Welsh debate on Friday. After listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and many other colleagues, I realised yet again that the position in Wales was different.
The events of last week, study of the White Paper, the hype surrounding the White Paper, the image created by the party at Edinburgh castle and, not least, The Scotsman on Friday morning going simply overboard, confirmed my view that we are at the beginning of a motorway without exit to something indistinguishable from a separate Scottish state.
Therefore, I believe that there should be two statements in the referendum. The first should be, "I want to remain part of Britain." The second should be, "I want a Scottish
state separate from England." That is the choice, as indeed it may always have been. Any hope of an acceptable halfway house devolution solution evaporated with the decision to hold a pre-legislative referendum rather than a post-legislative one on the meaningful question, "Do you approve of the Scotland Act 1997-98, as passed by Parliament?"
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham):
I oppose the Government's proposals today, in the sense that they seek to fix a date. I would prefer not to fix a date. In other words, I should prefer to adhere to the procedure in the original Bill. Perhaps I might briefly explain the reason for that.
Devolution in Scotland can survive only if it is fair to England. I am not at the moment arguing against devolution in Scotland or Wales. I believe that it is contrary to the interests of the people of both countries, but that is a different point. Devolution can last only if it is fair to England. I believe that, if referendums are held in September--whether on the 11th or the 18th does not matter for these purposes--there will be a debate on a false understanding of the facts in Scotland and Wales. If the thing is to last, changes cannot be contemplated in Scotland and Wales which are distinct from appropriate arrangements here in England.
If we are to have devolution in Scotland and Wales, there will be a fundamental change in the way in which we govern the United Kingdom. That could take a number of forms. It could take the form of a federal constitution, with four national Parliaments and a federal Parliament. That is one way forward, which is perfectly logical.
Another way forward would be to say of Scottish Members that there must be a fundamental diminution in their number and role at Westminster and that they right to participate in the English debates needs to be reduced, so that--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as I have reminded other hon. Members, that we are debating a narrow amendment about two separate dates for the referendums. He must address his remarks to that.
Mr. Hogg:
Forgive me, but the question that I am addressing, which is in order, is whether there should be a date fixed for the Bill or whether no date is fixed, as is the case at the moment, and it is left at the discretion of the Government to fix by Order in Council.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. It is for the Chair to decide what is in order and what is not. I simply ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to address his remarks to the specific amendment before us.
Mr. Hogg:
Forgive me, but the question that the House is considering is whether there should be a fixed date or no date. That is the question before the House at the moment. I am arguing that there should be no date, because one must look at constitutional changes and arrangements in the broad. One needs to contemplate what changes will have to be made to the entire government of the United Kingdom before the peoples of Scotland and Wales decide whether they want devolution in their respective parts of the United Kingdom.
If one insists on a date, whether it be 11 September or 18 September, it is certain that those broader proposals will not be put forward and argued. In other words, the peoples of Scotland and Wales, if they are to vote in referendums on either 11 or 18 September, will not do so in the full knowledge of the long-term consequences to the constitution of devolution in those two parts of the United Kingdom.
That is precisely why I say that we should not fix a date, so that we can set a later date, be it at the end of the year, perhaps next year, or the year after--it does not matter for these purposes--when we can give proper consideration to the consequences of devolution in Scotland and Wales.
Mr. Wigley:
I am following the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument about why there should be a longer period--a much longer period, possibly, as he sees it, for a fuller debate on possible alternative solutions and the implications for the England and the United Kingdom. Would not that argument be stronger if the Conservative party had fought the general election with positive proposals for the future of Wales and Scotland, and indeed the United Kingdom, rather than arguing that a thousand-year history would come to an end, and offering a totally negative attitude towards devolution?
Mr. Hogg:
That is a matter for political debate. I am now expressing my own view. I am not hostile to the principle of devolution in Scotland and Wales if that is what the people there really want. I insist to the House on the importance of the referendums being conducted according to a full knowledge and understanding of the consequences of devolution in Scotland and Wales on the overall structures of the United Kingdom.
That debate has not been opened up, and will not be started before the referendums in September. That is a powerful argument against fixing a date in September.
Mr. Hanson:
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that I and the other 33 Labour Members elected on 1 May should break our promise to the electorate to hold an Assembly vote within the first year of the Parliament? That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking for. His party offered to maintain the status quo, and it was overwhelmingly defeated at the election .
Mr. Hogg:
The hon. Gentleman has an obligation to speak truthfully to his constituents and to the people of Wales. I am sure that he will do so, and I am not suggesting for a moment that he would not. If he agrees with me, however, that the proposals now before the House in broad form in the White Papers for Scotland and Wales cannot be the end of the story because they do not address the problem of England and fairness of treatment for it, it follows inevitably that profound changes to the way in which we will have to govern the United Kingdom will be down the track--for example, a federal structure.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |