The Current Scottish Situation

MR. KARN:

Reverend Sir, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: When local representatives of the Scottish National Party Association asked last April whether or not the Empire Club would be able to provide a forum for their parliamentary leader from Westminster during his visit to Canada this fall, my curiosity was aroused. Being mindful of the great contribution made by our Scottish ancestors to the economic and political development of Canada and the creation of our parliamentary system of government, having been born and raised in that Scottish community of Zorra, over in Oxford County, and having visited in Scotland, I was interested in learning more about contemporary Scottish politics.

I also felt that the Empire Club would be adhering to its nonpartisan tradition by hearing a speaker explain to us the objectives of the Scottish National Party.

Hardly a day goes by without news items appearing in the press of Britain about the S.N.P. When I was there two weeks ago, I read about the success of the S.N.P. representative over the Labour candidate in a regional county by-election in Glasgow. I also noted attacks upon Winnifred Ewing, the first S.N. Member of Parliament in Westminster, elected in 1966, representing the city of Hamilton, because her son was holding a responsible position in the E.E.C. offices in Brussels.

An item of particular interest to you, ladies and gentlemen, was a report in the London Times of the statement made in Edinburgh on September 20, 1976 by Lord Home of the Hirsel, former Leader of the Conservative Party, and the guest of honour here at our Diamond Jubilee dinner in 1964. I quote:

I have always been strongly against the separation of England from Scotland but I am firmly in favour of devolution so long as it is judged by the criteria of better government.

Lest you think that this statement was an endorsement by the Conservative Party, I hasten to add that the heading for this article read: "Tories disturbed at suggestion in Home speech of proportional voting for a Scottish Assembly."

Delving further into the use of the term "devolution" as it applies to the decentralization of power, I discovered that Gladstone, when a member of the Liberal opposition, referred to this concept in his speech in Parliament on February 28, 1880--96 years ago--as follows:

. . . the day when there may be wisely devised and successfully carried through the House an important and effectual measure for the devolution of such portions of its powers as may be safely devolved, with the view of lightening its duties.

Later, in 1886 and 1894, Gladstone's third and fourth ministries were defeated largely over his bills on Home Rule for Ireland. In the modern context, devolution may be almost synonymous with Home Rule for Scotland.

I recall a favourite pronouncement of a retired General in Ottawa who said: "We Scots may suffer, but never in silence."

Our guest of honour today began his political career when he was elected Provost of Stornoway in 1958, an office to which he was re-elected in 1961 and 1968. In addition, he was appointed Honorary Sheriff in 1960. He commenced to take an active part in the S.N.P. in 1966, and won the Western Isles seat in 1970. Because Winnifred Ewing was defeated that year, he was the sole representative of the party in Westminster.

In the February, 1974 election he and six others of his party were elected, and our guest was chosen their Parliamentary Leader. Again in October 1974, he was re-elected along with ten other S.N.P. candidates. By this time the S.N.P. had become Scotland's second party, with over 31 % of the votes cast.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure for me to give you Mr. Donald Stewart, M.P., Parliamentary Leader in Westminster of the Scottish National Party.

MR. STEWART:

Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: It is a great honour for me to have been invited to speak to the Empire Club and to know that a speech of mine will be added to the long record of addresses to the club. It is particularly gratifying on my first visit to Canada, in view of the many associations with my part of Scotland and your country.

Let me mention some of these briefly. Our people have been coming to Canada over many generations. I have just spent a week in Nova Scotia with a sister who lives there and I have been tremendously impressed at the similarities to the Highlands, in the names of people, place-names, and the number of Gaelic-speakers. Of course, you have trees, which we lack in the Scottish islands, although there is an old Norse saga which describes how the Vikings set all the trees ablaze. An unkind person to whom I related this fact said to me "The only thing wrong with that story is that the trees were never dry enough to burn."

Sir Alexander Mackenzie, who traced your great river to the sea, was a fellow townsman of mine. A plaque in Stornoway marks the site of the house where he was born. The town of Ripley, Ontario was founded by folk from Stornoway and when I was a member of Stornoway Town Council, we had the pleasure of giving them a vellum scroll to mark their hundredth anniversary. In the 1920s, C.P.R. ships carried three thousand Highlanders to Canada. I am called after an uncle who served with the Canadian Infantry Battalion in France in the First World War and whose name is among the dead on the Memorial at Vimy Ridge. So these are some of the developments which cement the close ties.

It will come as no surprise to you, then, that my remarks today are on the subject of "The Current Scottish Situation". Most of you will also be interested in the British situation in view of the recent news about the pound, but all I will say on that today is that I do not believe that there is anything there that cannot be put right given the will and the right decisions.

Now I am speaking as a politician committed to a certain cause but I am not trying to convert anyone. I would be very pleased to undertake that elsewhere, but if anyone detects any such attempt I will be as surprised as the cannibal who was eaten by the missionary. I hope my facts will be accurate and where I state my opinions I hope it will be clear that they are opinions.

The people of Scotland successfully maintained their separate independent state for sixteen centuries against aggressors, from the Romans to the Tudor kings. Then the Treaty of Union with England was signed in 1707. This 270 years of union has led people to say that it has lasted too long to be broken. But Norway and Sweden were one country for six hundred years and only separated around 1906. They have prospered and lived as good neighbours ever since and I see no reason why, when Scotland has resumed her own government, we cannot do the same with our English neighbours.

The union was never total. Scotland retained her own state church, and the local government system; education system and legal system are entirely different from England's. This has preserved a Scottish identity which, while it may not be any better than England's, is certainly very different.

Scotland now lacks only a sovereign parliament of its own to give it back the essential apparatus of a nation-state. I have heard quite often recently the phrase "bringing back the constitution", but Scotland, or the part of it which supports my party, wishes to carve out a new constitution.

Now you will ask, what are the aims of my party. I will state these in the words we have used from the foundation of the party in 1928. These are: "Self-government for Scotland: that is, the restoration of a Scottish National Sovereignty by the establishment of a democratic Scottish Parliament, within the Commonwealth, freely elected by the Scottish People, whose authority will be limited only by such agreements as may be freely entered into by it with other nations or states or international organisations for the purpose of furthering international co-operation and world peace."

Since the 1960s the growth of my party has been substantial. We have doubled our vote at the last four general elections, going from 2 % in 1964, to 5 % in 1966, to 11 % in 1970, to 21 % in February 1974 and to over 30 % in October 1974. In local elections where candidates go forward on a party ticket we have had a phenomenal run of victories. It is my forecast that at the next general election we will make a further advance and with support for both Labour and Conservative dropping away, my party might hold the balance of power in the U.K. parliament. It goes without saying that we have brought this possibility to the notice of our English colleagues. Reverting to our support, it is a fact that we were the only party in Scotland which did not forfeit a single deposit at the last election and we were a good second in no less than 42 of the seats we have still to win.

My party has been accused of wanting to take Scotland out of a strong position as part of the United Kingdom, but we maintain that we seek to have Scotland rejoin the independent nations and make the Scottish contribution. In a recent document we said, concerning Canada, "In the case of Canada, such contacts (that is, bilateral contacts at governmental levels and through the encouragement of increased social and cultural exchanges) will be reinforced by common membership of the Commonwealth, by the close social and cultural bonds created by the exceptional and sustained level of emigration from Scotland to Canada and by the fellow feeling of two countries each of which shares a land frontier and a high level of interdependence with a disproportionately large number." I think that a Canadian audience can appreciate that point!

It is the contention of my party that Scotland is one of the fortunate countries that can largely feed its own people from its own resources. For instance, we are able to supply our total needs in beef, mutton, poultry, milk, oats and fish. As regards fish, half the landings in the U.K. are in Scottish ports. That is why the Common Market fisheries policy is unacceptable to our fishermen.

We have also to defend ourselves against the charge that Scotland is too small to be an independent nation. In fact, we are larger in area than Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark and Eire, and larger in population than many countries which take care of themselves without any problem. I do not believe that economics controls everything. If the resolution and the will exist, practically any nation could go it alone. I have heard it said that economists can prove that life could not be supported where the Eskimos live, but since they don't know many economists they manage to get by.

I would contend that smallness is an asset. There is growing evidence that the nations that will come off best in the future will be those whose land and resources are in relationship to their population such as Canada and Scotland. We also see decentralisation of economic planning -and administration as essential to a civilised society. Scotland, particularly the outlying parts, has suffered severely from the concentration at the so-called "centre". It is the aim of my party to adopt the philosophy of Norwegian governments who take action to see that communities in the far north of that country have as good a chance of economic development as Oslo.

How will Scottish independence be achieved? The Scottish National Party has committed itself to the parliamentary and democratic process for nearly fifty years, against all the odds and accepting all the difficulties which hamper a minority party in the British voting system. Now that the S.N.P. is within sight of achieving majority support through the ballot box there are suggestions that the rules should be changed, but we maintain our moral and political right to insist that if the party wins the approval and support of the only politically sovereign body it will finally recognise, the Scottish electorate, then it has the right to insist on that sovereignty. We take our stand on the rock that represents the right of the Scottish voter to determine his constitutional future. First and last we are democrats. We have rejected all suggestions of other roads in favour of winning the democratic support of the Scottish people. In no way is the S.N.P. anti-English. In fact, we have many English people in our membership. Some have been candidates, and our treasurer of many years is an Englishman. You cannot get greater tolerance than that!

As you may know, after the British parliament resumes this month, a bill for Scottish devolution is due to start on its way through parliament. The terms of this bill fall far short of what my party desires for Scotland. Nevertheless, we have undertaken to support it while at the same time maintaining our aim of independence. There are serious doubts whether this bill will be passed. Opposition to it is strong in both the Labour and Conservative parties. If it fails, then, as sections of the British press are warning the government, the next election will see the S.N.P. sweep Scotland.

There are demands too for a referendum. These come in the main from opponents who think they see a way of delaying and perhaps killing the movement for self-government. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the government will allow a referendum, although they have said there is no intention to do so. It is a fact, however, that we have asked every British Prime Minister from Churchill to Wilson for a referendum on the subject, and in every case they have replied that we should get our support at the ballot box. They said that is the way we do things in this country--and if you get it, nothing can stop you. If the rules are changed now, the reason for doing so will not be lost on our supporters nor, I believe, on the Scottish people as a whole.

It is my view that the years just ahead will be great ones for the Scottish people and particularly the young. We have a lot of leeway to make up at home; we shall be making a contribution as part of the community of nations. Victor Hugo said "Greater than the tread of mighty armies is the power of an idea whose time has come." I believe this applies to the desire on the part of an everincreasing number of Scots to resume control of their own affairs.

The appreciation of the audience was expressed by Col. R. H. Hilborn, M.V.O., M.B.E, C.D., a Past President of The Empire Club of Canada.