The Dominion. SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1912. THE ATTITUDE OF SCOTLAND.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1425, 27 April 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1912. THE ATTITUDE OF SCOTLAND.

« ■ A few years ago the London Tunes, commenting on the somewhat nebulous, non-committal deliverances on Home Rule for Ireland 6y the Prime Minister of the day, characterised them as the "quintessence of Scottish cannieness." The phrase found a place among the many striking examples of tcrmin- ■ ology for which during recent years the British Parliament has been responsible. The other day it was employed by a well-known speaker, not to the utterances of a worried politician, but to the general attitude of Scotland to three propositions which have been once more brought before a seemingly indifferent public. The propositions are: Home Rule for Scotland, local option for Scotland, and the union of the United Free Church with the Established Church of Scotland. At almost regular intervals during the last twenty years—to go no further back —the same propositions have appeared, each sometimes under a different guise, been subjected to a shortlived discussion, and then, to all appearance, been forgotten. The separate movement which each propositi represents was new permitted to entirely collapse. From time to time—during the hibernating season—the three little bands of warmhearted Scots, who had charged thomßclvcs with the duty of preventing catantrophoa, new)red t.bo public .J-hat Dm tfrrofi auiuectfi under review

were being carefully considered by 1 tiie .Scottish people. Were these explanations the true and onlv ones available, deliberations so protracted would indeed speak of the extremity of caution, _ and justify the speaker alluded to in his contention that tho non-progress made by any pt the proposals was due to the quintessence of Scottish canuiencss." Caution undoubtedly is one prime factor: caution combined with the fact that Scotland, obviouslv, remains unimpressed. None 01 the proposals has secured the hearty support of any large section of the Scottish public—the subjects are rarely discussed in the British press. Tho monthly and quarterly reviews, always ready to discuss questions of importance and of interest, usually leave the three topics severely alone. Indifference, not caunieness, would therefore seem to be the true reason of nou-advaneement. Local option and Church union are questions which directly affect Scotland alone; but imminent, or even likely, changes would command the attention of Scotsmen the world over. Concerning both reforms the balance of opinion seems opposed to either being effected for many years to come. The British Parliament lias been long familiar with measures to confer local option on Scotland. The Permissive Bill was first rejected by tho Commons as far back as 1864. Its place was taken by the Local Veto Bill. Those legislative efforts were brought forward year after year; but all shared the same fate. Their modernised version—the Temperance in Scotland Bill lias fared better, and early this month it was read a second time m the House of Commons. One circumstancc, not without significance, has to be mentioned in connection with this Bill, as with the Home Rule for Scotland Bill. Both arc in the charge of Captain Pirie, Liberal member for Aberdeen North. Thero is an impression in Sootland that Captain Pirie is a better soldier than he is a politician. Members, however, though unable to debate can generally father any sad, forlorn Bill, indeed, two if need be, as in this instance. Should- the Temperance Bill pass there are reasons for believing that not until a lengthy period has_ elapsed will it greatly affect the life of the Scottish people —and that, after all, is the one thing to consider. _ The union of the two Churches, while not impossible, must necessarily bo by abandoning principles which both bodies now hold as inviolable. As far as this year's activity is concerned it may be noted that an inquiry by the Scotsman as to the possibility of reaching union was evidently confined to two hundred prominent individuals. Seeing that the two Churches have communicants to the number of about one million and a half, tho Scotsman s favourable opinion seems based upon a somewhat meagre basis. The appeal on behalf of union signed by the Duke of Argyll, Mk. Balfour, and others, should prove to be not without inlluence.

Home Rule for Scotland is of weak ancl puny growth compared with .Homo Itulo for _ Ireland. Whereas the latter agitation is tho outcome of widespread movement, the former is but the product of a society, and a rather obscure society at that. No formal demand for Home llule has been made by tho people of Scotland: no election has ever turned upon Home llulc. Few candidates i9r Parliament allude to the subject either in their manifestoes or their speeches. Wo aro not on this occasion dealing with the merits of the three propositions now before Scotland; we aro but attempting to point out jbhc improbability of any of them immediately entering the realm of practical politics. Mr. Asquith, in introducing his Home little for Ireland Bill, referred to the congestion of business in the House of Commons, and "the existing system of centralised impotence." This is the chief, if not the sole, argument advanced for the setting up of a new Parliament in Edinburgh And the Scottish National Oommittee appears to have difficulty iifc times in making the Scottish people understand how hardly they are used, and how their interests arc neglected by the Parliament at Westminster. _ After listening to a recital of their wrongs from a member of tho committee, Scottish audiences must frequently resemblo the slighted_ lady in the breach of promise action. She had no idea of how dreadfully she had been wronged until her counsel had addressed the •! u ,r.V- In introducing his Home Rule .Bill last year Captain Pir.ir, declared that the House of Commons had acted as a millstone to Scottish national, development. This, of course, is mere rhodomontadc • but it is typical. The London Times, while admitting congestion in the House of Commons, ridiculed the assertion that Scottish interests were neglected by Parliament. Captain' Pirib's Bill and his speech it dismissed as "legislative levity." There appears no likelihood of Home Rule being forced upon Scotland, and everything indicates that public opinion will undergo radical alteration before Homo Rule is demanded by the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom.