"A Claim of Right for Scotland" (Hansard, 21 December 1988)

§ 2. Mr. Galloway
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received a copy of the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly document, "Claim of Right for Scotland"; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards the matters raised in the document.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)
I have received a copy of the document. The Government are deeply committed to the unity of the United Kingdom, and we do not believe that Scotland would benefit from an additional layer of government. The purpose of the meeting proposed by the campaign is simply to discuss how to carry forward certain conclusions which have already been reached by the organisers. Since it is not intended as a genuine debate on the merits and demerits of the constitutional changes which they have in mind I consider that it would not be appropriate for the Government to be represented.

§ Mr. Galloway
Is the Secretary of State aware of the dismay and disappointment with which his reply will be met in Scotland? In the light of last evening's events and his undoubted scrutiny of the media this morning, is the Secretary of State aware of just how isolated he and his Government are becoming on this question? With all the respect to which his great office is entitled, I ask him whether he will begin to put his country before his party?

§ Mr. Rifkind
If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Conservative party is isolated, it appears that he also believes that his Front Bench is isolated because on 12 November this year he was quoted as saying: It is the leadership that chose the Front Bench. They dictate the key policies and the strategy. We tried it their way —and it has gone devastatingly wrong.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
The question refers to rights, but it makes no mention of duties, responsibilities or accountability. It is important that any measure that any Government in this Chamber thinks that they can get through Parliament takes into acount the fact that more than nine of 10 of the people living in the United Kingdom live outside of Scotland. Ministers on every Front Bench who are responsible to this unitary Parliament must take that into account before they bring forward measures to change the unitary system.

§ Mr. Rifkind
My hon. Friend is certainly correct. I believe that any constitutional reform within the United Kingdom must be of a type that would strengthen the United Kingdom as a whole. The proposals for unilateral devolution are unlikely to achieve that result.

§ Mr. Sillars
May I refer the Governor-General to his earlier reply—

An Hon. Member
You should regard him as a friend.

§ Mr. Sillars
On a personal level, but not politically.
He said that the reason the Tory party will not be represented at the potential convention organised by the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly is that the Government believe that the outcome is pre-determined. Why will he not give an affirmative answer to the request for the Government to support an elected constitutional convention that would be open to every point of view and would not have a pre-determined outcome? Why are the Government afraid to give the Scottish people the opportunity to decide their own future?

§ Mr. Rifkind
We have a continuing debate on these matters and there is no need for pressure groups to organise meetings to which they give grandiose titles. It is possible for such debates to take place in this Chamber and in Scotland as they have for many years. The idea that some new meeting is required to achieve a purpose that has already been identified by the organisers of the meeting shows how bogus the exercise is.

§ Mr. Barry Field
My right hon. and learned Friend should answer the sterile arguments that we are hearing from the Opposition about English Members being involved in Scottish Questions by pointing out that only two offshore islands are administered by the English Civil Service—I represent one and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) represents the other. We want to know why it is that the Scottish Highlands and Islands Development Board has such a main line into the pockets of the British taxpayer and why it does so well through the generosity of the Government?

§ Mr. Rifkind
The Highlands and Islands Development Board—

§ Mr. Sillars
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Does the point of order arise out of the question?

§ Mr. Sillars
Yes. If you, Mr. Speaker, are to call English Members of Parliament, could we have an interpreter because, quite frequently, I cannot understand them.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman's question was in order.

§ Mr. Buchan
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been in this House for more than 20 years and I have attempted, on occasions, to raise a point of order during Question Time. This is the first time that I have known you to allow a point of order at this time. Is this now the custom of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman had been hear earlier this week he would have heard my ruling when I said that matters needing immediate attention should always be raised at once.

§ Mr. Buchan
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That has always been the position and, as the House well knows, that is the position in debates as well.

§ Mr. Buchan
rose—

§ Mr. Rifkind
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Rifkind
If I may respond to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), the Highlands and Islands Development Board has received generous treatment from the Government because we have always recognised that the needs of the north of Scotland are specific to that area and that the area has a fragile economy. It is a matter of great pleasure that over the past 20 years the population of the Highlands and Islands has for the first time for a century begun to increase.

§ Mr. Dewar
May I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I thought that his initial response was a series of rather arrogant assumptions about the motives of those involved in the constitutional convention. That response did him little credit. Is it not the duty of responsible politicians in Scotland to examine the possibilities and argue their corner in the very lively and important debate on the future Government of this country? While I recognise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has a personal difficulty in that he is trapped by the policies of his party, does he accept that it is time that he broke out of the trap and recognised the very strong wish of Scots to have a greater say in their own affairs and in the framework of the United Kingdom? Can I take it from his earlier reply—and I would be sorry if this were so —that he has departed from the position that he has outlined in the past, that his main objection to some form of devolution of power is simply that he is unconvinced that the majority of the people of Scotland want it?

§ Mr. Rifkind
The duty of hon. Members in this House is to take part in the debates of this House and not, like the grand old Duke of York, lead their hon. Friends out and then lead them back in again—

§ Mr. Canavan
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. No. We are in the middle of the answer.

§ Mr. Rifkind
The hon. Gentleman supports the so-called convention organised by the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly and the document which it produced. As a Unionist is he not occasionally uncomfortable associating himself with the campaign document which refers to the Union in the following terms: The United Kingdom has been an anomaly from its inception and is a glaring anomaly now. I can understand why Nationalist hon. Members support that analysis. However, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is playing with fire if he associates with that kind of analysis.