When Scotland voted in 1997 for devolution and the creation of a Scottish Parliament, the thought occurred that the law of unintended consequences was bound to follow. The Scots celebrated as power and the attached money began to be controlled north of the Border, but little attention was paid to the effect on England and the UK Parliament.
Tam Dalyell’s famous question about Scottish MPs was never answered but it missed the real truth anyway. As power moved from London to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the UK Parliament had to become, in many ways, the Parliament for England only. Not quite Billy Connolly’s ‘wee pretendy Parliament’, but certainly a lesser place.
At the time, I penned a letter to a newspaper, the Daily Telegraph no less. Under the heading ‘Diminished Parliament’, I pointed out that a large proportion of the UK Cabinet were becoming ministers whose writ only ran in England and not even the whole of England at that. Police powers, for example, were devolved to London. One can judge the impact of a letter from other readers’ response. Mine sank without trace.
The UK Cabinet continued on its way (no-one took a pay cut for lesser responsibility) and new ministries and ministers were created. Recently, dear Michael Gove took charge of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Community Services. As the small print makes clear, the housing and community are in England. The levelling up is a policy and one is not sure if it stops at the Border. One thing is sure, Michael Gove will never admit to being diminished and nor will any of his colleagues.
Diminished they are, however, and it is a fact which the English have found hard to accept. They are not aided by their news organisations. The BBC, of whom one is a lifelong fan, stumbles daily with its so-called national news. Frequently, the lead is a story about health matters. Briefly, the first paragraph will refer to it being relevant to England only but thereafter it evolves like a national story. The same goes for news about housing, education, even law. Â
When asked about the importance of the French Revolution, Mao Tse Tung famously replied that it was too early to say. One suspects it is the same for Devolution and its effect on England and the London Parliament. The Mother of all parliaments may rise to new international heights. But it may become a pension-offed Grandma…
David Donald
Anyone else think that selling alcohol at petrol stations is akin to those malevolent gambling machines in bookmakers? I was walking home from my sister’s house in Balerno, last week, on my way to EH10 and came across such an establishment. I bought some orange juice and, still shaking my head as I exited, I crossed the road. As I walked along the dark pavement, I noticed a person half-striding, part-stumbling, toward me. Unsteady on their feet and considerably bigger than me, I at once felt acutely aware that this part of the street was starkly quiet and said person was behaving in a mildly threatening manner.
‘Ahngmh’, was what he mumbled as he approached, bearing down on me a little too close for my comfort. I stepped to the side, which if anything seemed to offend him, as he screwed up his face and pointed ahead into the distance, adding a little more clearly this time (but still not in a coherent sentence) ‘a pub, any good’. ‘I don’t come from here’, was my response, as I moved away in the opposite direction from him, confident that I had the advantage, with my having a low centre of gravity and his bulk working against him.
However, that is not always the case.
While it is heartening to see a lot of the old bias, bigotry, tropes and outmoded expressions being eradicated and consigned to the dustbin of history, there are still some forms of discrimination that have clung on and are proving very hard to shift. Paramount for me and, no pun intended, among these continuing prejudices, is that of heightism. And while I cannot compare this form of discrimination against we, wee people, to some of the more important and debilitating social prejudice and discrimination that exists, I have to say for us, it is still pretty shit.
It seems that the wee angry guy and Napoleon complex, whatever that is supposed to mean, myth, still prevails. Look at them/he/she/they are not the size of tuppence ha’penny is a phrase that used to abound when I was young, used to put shortys in their place. Ironically, in most cases, they were simply defending themselves against a past slight around their physical demeanour and simply standing up for themselves. And yes, I do know that some people would snigger at that particular phrasing.
There is one television person, I won’t say personality as that would simply be misusing the word, who seems to have a particular problem with smaller people. They wrote a few years ago that they had never met a small man who wasn’t aggressive towards them. I can only guess that they had never met any tall or even average-sized people, or understood the term ‘common denominator’.
Just in case you wondered, I am deliberately using they and them as pronouns, as I am sure the person being referred to would hate it. When the article in question was published, a friend called seeking my reaction. My response was instant: ‘I’m glad as I would be really disappointed to think they would ever like me’. I added that I appreciated said person was tall, as that way there was more of them to dislike.
Frank Eardley
If you would like to contribute to the Cafe, please email your comments to islay@scottishreview.net