Tom Peterkin: An object lesson on hown the long road to independence is paved with a whole series of misguided intentions

THE visit of that well-known Old Etonian David Cameron to Edinburgh last week awakened memories of a contribution to the Scottish constitutional debate made by another Tory who learned his politics on the playing fields of England’s most famous public school.

Cameron’s offer of more powers for Holyrood after a “No” vote to independence, saw the SNP cast its mind back three decades to a speech made by the former prime minister Alec Douglas-Home. For those of us to whom the minutiae of the 1979 devolution referendum is a bit of mystery, the reference to this Old Etonian of a previous vintage came as something of a surprise.

But for those who, like Alex Salmond, have lived and breathed every twist and turn on the constitutional path it was an obvious comparison. The SNP leader lost no time in recalling a speech made by Douglas-Home in February 1979, just before Scotland voted in a referendum that ended in bitter disappointment for the Nationalists.

“The shadow of Sir Alec Douglas-Home, I think, is cast very large over this,” the First Minister said. Seeking to cast some light on the shadow that Douglas-Home is now supposed to cast over contemporary Scottish politics, I consulted a book titled A Diverse Assembly: The Debate on a Scottish Parliament by Lindsay Paterson. Paterson quotes an extract from the relevant speech, which was made at Edinburgh University. Then Douglas-Home urged the electorate to vote “No”, because he disagreed with the type of Scottish Assembly that was proposed.

“It is unfortunate that the only way to be certain that these flaws can be revisited is to vote ‘No’, but that is how the question has been put by the government. But a ‘No’ vote does not and need not imply any disloyalty to the principle of devolution,” Douglas-Home said.

The parallels with David Cameron’s offer of more devolution in return for a “No” vote are pretty clear.

It has become part of the SNP narrative that despite the promise of devolution tomorrow it took a further 18-years for the Scottish Parliament to be established. It was inevitable that ghosts of grievances past would be dug up as soon as Cameron opened up the Pandora’s box of offering more Holyrood powers.

There is another reason traditionally-minded Conservatives may wish that Cameron had kept the box closed. There are those in the party who have always had difficulty with more power for Scotland. Labour politicians on the other hand went full steam ahead for a Scottish Parliament because they thought it would kill independence and give Labour unchallenged control over Scotland forever.

The irony is that for an explanation of Conservative suspicions one need look no further than a third Old Etonian. Labour grandee Tam Dalyell, who described devolution as a “motorway to independence with no exits and no U-turns”.