IT is a measure of the electorate's disenchantment with New Labour that every Cabinet heavyweight has been deployed this weekend in a major political offensive against the Scottish Nationalists and its independence agenda.
Home Secretary John Reid w
as the latest Minister to enter the fray, warning that this country will be unable to face the challenges of the 21st century if the United Kingdom is broken up.
However, this onslaught must be placed in perspective. It is the forerunner to next May's elections to the Scottish Parliament where Labour is already fearful of losing its grip on power, with the SNP being the chief beneficiaries.
Furthermore, there is every possibility, if this carefully-orchestrated campaign fails to turn the tide of public opinion, that the Government will propose other measures – possibly financial – to placate the increasingly restless Scots, and halt the constitutional chaos which would be triggered by any referendum vote on Scottish independence.
Yet, here is the rub. If the Government further panders to the wishes of voters north of the border, they will only fuel further resentment among English voters who already feel shortchanged by New Labour's devolution policies.
This is no longer an idle threat. Nearly 70 per cent of English people want their own parliament. Meanwhile half, according to the latest opinion polls, favour a complete breakaway from the remainder of the UK.
Ministers cannot ignore the growing momentum behind this trend. For what is driving the views of voters in England, in reality, is not a deep-seated desire for independence, but a desire for fairness.
They see their taxes being poured into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but what do they get in return? A supposedly National Health Service which denies potentially lifesaving drugs, like Herceptin, to the English. And a Westminster Parliament where the votes of Scottish MPs determine the outcome of legislation which will only be enacted in England.
It is resentment that will only increase if the Government continues to put the interests of Scotland before those of the United Kingdom as a whole.
A duty to all
Law overrides personal beliefs
MANY will, understandably, admire the stand taken by longstanding magistrate Andrew McClintock who has resigned from a South Yorkshire family law panel because some of its potential rulings, he argues, are incompatible with his own Christian beliefs.
They will also regard Mr McClintock's position as further evidence that traditional family values are being undermined by Britain's culture of political correctness, in particular the fact that vulnerable children can now be placed into the guardianship of same-sex couples.
Yet, even though this legislation was only enacted last year, and that Mr McClintock has served on the family panel for 15 years, a dangerous precedent would be created if his legal action against the Government, on the grounds of discrimination, subsequently proves to be successful.
The reason is straight-
forward. Justices of the Peace are required to uphold the law "without fear or favour, affection or ill will" when they swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen. In other words a magistrate's primary responsibility is to implement the law of the land – and not their personal feelings, however strongly held.
If this doctrine was to be undermined, even by one well-meaning individual, it could open the floodgates and allow, for example, a magistrate opposed to hunting to refuse to preside over a case that involves a saboteur.
This is just one example. The list is endless. Yet, it demonstrates why magistrates, just like the police, cannot be allowed to "cherry pick" specific cases. They have an obligation to be fair to all, and that duty must always over-ride any personal considerations.
Gesture politics
Blair's apology over slavery
IT has become fashionable for political leaders to "apologise" for past events that have no bearing on their own actions. The latest such example is Tony Blair and his expression of "deep sorrow" for Britain's role in the slave trade more than 200 years ago.
The Prime Minister's statement falls short of the full apology demanded by some human rights campaigners. But, either way, this is little more than gesture politics designed to mask Mr Blair's own failings. In doing so, this argument over semantics also threatens to overshadow next year's bi-centenary celebrations to mark the towering work of Hull-born William Wilberforce, one of Britain's greatest ever social consciences, that successfully brought about the abolition of slavery.
Wilberforce's legacy stands to this day. It will also be marked by a major new biography. However, it would be deeply regrettable if it was to become blurred by the words of Mr Blair who is still seeking, after more than nine years in office, a defining achievement that will stand the test of time.
For, if he is now in the business of issuing apologies, the Prime Minister should, perhaps, being saying sorry for Labour's mismanagement of the NHS, or the Iraq war, instead of hijacking events to celebrate the life of William Wilberforce, a political colossus, and man of conviction, who would deplore the culture of convenience that so prevails in modern-day politics.
