| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Donald Gorrie (Edinburgh, West): Is it the case that, in recent history, the House has passed more laws relating to Scotland against the will of the majority of Scottish Members than laws affecting England against the will of the majority of English Members?
Mr. Dalyell: That is certainly right. Frankly, there is one answer to that: a separate Scottish state. Anybody
who thinks that an Assembly in Edinburgh could have protected us from Margaret Thatcher's poll tax is wrong. There is no way that an Assembly--
Mr. Dalyell: There is no way that an Assembly could have protected us.
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman will be able to speak later and I must be careful about time. I want to ask some specific questions.
One item in the White Paper which bothers me greatly is the statement:
I turn to the precise questions of the Law Society of Scotland. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench have the document to which I am referring. The first question has already been put. The second group of questions is:
I turn briefly to money. I shall read out an unsolicited and short letter from Mr. Robert Hislop of 79, Belsyde court, Linlithgow. It says:
I should like to ask about the role of the Secretary of State. Who will be responsible for oil taxation? This is of vital concern to Scotland. It will be decided around the Cabinet table in London, where Scotland's voice might be rather weaker than it has been hitherto. A Parliament may be more representative of Scottish opinion than any one Minister, but what use will that be when it cannot always make representations where it counts? There is considerable worry on matters of great consequence to our electors that it will be rather different when it comes to the Cabinet table, where key decisions are made.
My hon. Friends will have seen the concerns of Scottish and Newcastle in the business section of today's edition of The Scotsman. That company represents many employees, some of whom are in the Linlithgow constituency. I hope that there will be some response to the concerns that it has raised. There is a problem when an economy that is interlinked and has come together over all this time is in some sense, to use the phrase of Mr. Iain MacWhirter, "dewired". The dewiring of an economy is a real problem.
There are those of us who have taken and are taking a different view on a whole number of matters. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) last night. He is, as he put it courteously, a real friend. His speech was indistinguishable from that of someone who wanted something that was tantamount to a separate Scotland. I hardly think that he would deny that. He is an honourable man. I do not know whether he is here. Ah, I see that he is. The position that he took is absolutely honourable, but we cannot have our cake and eat it; we cannot ride two horses.
Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East):
My hon. Friend says that we cannot ride two horses. Does he remember the famous expression of Jimmy Maxton: "If you can't ride two horses, you shouldn't be in a bloody circus."
Mr. Dalyell:
I do not think that the situation is a bloody circus. I think that it is extremely serious for people in Scotland. We may take some things light-heartedly, but the unintended consequences of what we do will be with us for a very long time.
I fear that, on 11 September, the Scottish people and people in Scotland have to choose between something that is very like the present British position, with all its shortcomings, and is indistinguishable from the present British state--some of us think that it is worth while in general terms, although there are of course shortcomings--and something that has been described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) as a "mystery tour". The mystery tour would end up very much along the lines of what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) would like. If that is the decision of the people in Scotland, so be it.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), because he touched on the theme that I wish to develop today. It arises from the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the glossy White Paper:
It is bizarre to debate the future of the United Kingdom when the voice of the people who are the bulk of that United Kingdom is silent. The people of England are assumed to be compliant in what is going on. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow that the proposed solution is incomplete or partial, because it is not firmly founded. If the Scottish people, who have been given a voice, vote on 11 September for a Parliament with its tax-raising powers, we will know what they have to say, but we will still know nothing about how the English people feel.
Mr. Salmond:
That cannot be true. During the election campaign, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the then Prime Minister, said that the devolution issue transcended the election. If that is true, did not the people of England speak on the issue--and many others--in the election, according to the former Prime Minister?
Mr. Forth:
That is the mandate approach. It is often claimed by Labour Members, and indeed by other hon. Members, that we know what people want from the outcome of the general election. All that the people said in the general election was that they no longer wanted a Conservative Government; they wanted a Labour Government. That is clear and I accept that verdict--I can do no less. However, I am not sure that we know what the people of England think about proposals for a Parliament in Scotland.
"There will be provision for transferring further matters to and from the reserve list by Order in Council, which would be approved by both Parliaments."
That might sound harmless enough, but in simple, straightforward language those 25 words mean that, at any time, areas reserved for Westminster in the 1997 White Paper can be picked up at will by the Scottish Parliament. I do not envisage a Government in London feeling that there would be any point in challenging Edinburgh on such demands, but they will inevitably arise and, sooner rather than later, there will be more and more. Every shortcoming will, of course, be ascribed to a shortage of money from Westminster. We are on a motorway without exit to a destination that may not have been intended but is indistinguishable from a separate state.
"Why are the judicial appointments of the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk being dealt with on a different basis from other judicial appointments (paragraph 2.4)? Is there room for a judicial appointments commission in the devolved scheme?"
The third group of questions is:
"What solution is proposed in the event that the advice given to the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Executive Law Officers (the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General) and that given to the UK Parliament by the Scottish Law Officer, is different? What will the status of the Scottish Law Officer be? To which Department will he be accountable?"
There are other questions, such as:
"Will the convention that two Scottish Lords of Appeal in Ordinary should sit on Scottish cases apply to the proposal?"
Those questions are in the possession of the Scottish Office. It is important that they are answered before the referendum.
"Dear Mr. Dalyell,
31 Jul 1997 : Column 487
I am an employee of Hewlett Packard and based in South Queensferry, but since I work for Sales and Service, the head office is in Bracknell.
My tax office is therefore in Southampton and not in Scotland.
My concern is regarding tax and devolution.
Like everybody else I pay UK tax, but if devolved powers ever arise does that mean I will be required to pay an extra 'Scottish' tax over and above the UK tax?
I would like some kind of response to that letter, because there are many like it. There is widespread concern. At some stage, the nine questions on tax that I asked in the debate yesterday, reported in Hansard at columns 414 to 416, should be answered.
Personally I cannot see myself being better off than I am at the moment and will probably be financially worse off. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure, extra civil servants, MPs, etc. I think the man in the street, and I include myself, is ignorant of what the true cost will be if the vote on September 11 is Yes Yes."
"The Government's aim is a . . . settlement which will be good both for Scotland and the United Kingdom."
The debate has been incomplete up to now--both today and previously. It has been incomplete because the voice of the bulk of the United Kingdom--the people of England, of course--has been silent. We have heard endlessly about what the people of Scotland may want and, in a different context, about what the people of Wales may want, but when will the people of England be asked what they think?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |