Airson an deicheamh ceann-bliadhna de referendum na neo-eisimeileachd a chomharrachadh, bha mi ag iarraidh sùil a thoirt air ais air tùsan a’ ghluasaid nàiseanta. Gu h-ìseal, gheibhear iomradh uabhasach tràth air ‘Féin-riaghladh na h-Alba’ ann an Gàidhlig. Nochd e ann an Tìm an Òbain air 17 Sultain 1887 – .i. 137 bliadhna air ais bhon latha an-dè! B’ ann a bha an sgrìobhadair a’ toirt cunntas air co-labhairt Chomann an Fhearainn (The Highland Land League) anns an Òban. Bhruidhneadh air Dihaoine 16 Sultain 1887 air Fèin-riaghladh na h-Alba aig a’ cho-labhairt agus bhòt na bha cruinn gu h-aona-ghuthach airson gluasad a bha a’ cur taic ris.
Ged a leughar ann an eachdraidhean san dol seachad gun robh gluasad nan croitearan, agus fir bhuadhach leithid Iain MhicMhuirich, airson Fèin-riaghladh, mar as àbhaist cha tèid cus a ràdh mu dheidhinn. Tha e anabarrach inntinneach, ma-thà, a bhith a’ sgrùdadh bheachdan agus deasbad taobh a-staigh a’ ghluasaid air a’ chuspair.
Tha fios gun do thachair a leithid de chnuasachadh ri linn na h-iomairt mhòir airson Fèin-riaghladh na h-Èireann agus mar a ghabh an ceannard Libearalach, Uilleam Gladstone, seasamh airson sin agus airson bun-reachd Bhreatainn atharrachadh gus am biodh, mar a chanadh iad, ‘Home Rule All Round’ aig na diofar nàiseanan ann am Breatann. Cha b’ ann gu 1886, ma-thà, a dh’fhàs Fèin-riaghladh, no ath-stèidheachadh Pàrlamaid ann an Alba, gu bhith na iarrtas ann an da-rìribh am measg Libearalach agus radaigeach san dùthaich.
Mar a chì sinn, bha an neach-naidheachd ann an Tìm an Òbain – ’s dòcha Eanraig MacGilleBhàin (Fionn) – a’ cur làn-taic e fhèin ri Fèin-riaghladh. Chleachd e cuid de na prìomh phuingean a chluinnte aig na Liberalaich: cha robh Pàrlamaid Westminster èifeachdach; bhiodh e na b’ fheàrr nan dèiligeadh luchd-poileataigs Albannach ri gnothaichean a bhuineadh ri Alba agus nach tuigeadh Buill-Phàrlamaid Shasannach. Tha e reusanta agus chan eil e gu làidir nàiseantach no a’ cur an cèill poileataigs an aghaidh Bhreatainn fhèin.
Anns an dàrna tùs a tha againn, gheibhear geàrr-chunntas air a’ choinneimh fhèin anns an Drill Hall san Òban. B’ fhiach e an rud air fad a thar-sgrìobhadh ged a tha e ann am Beurla. Chì sinn na h-ainmean, cuid dhiubh gu math ainmeil ann an eachdraidh na Gàidhealtachd, a ghabh pàirt innte: m.e., An Dr G. B. Clark, Dòmhnall MacPhàrlain BP, Iain MacMhuirich, Alasdair MacCoinnich (A’ Chlach) is eile. Chì sinn na diofar bhuidhnean a ghabh gnothach ris a’ cho-labhairt a bharrachd air Comann an Fhearainn fhèin: m.e., an Scottish Home Rule Association (Dùn Èideann), agus riochdairean bho na mèinneadairean! (Cha b’ urrainn do Keir Hardie fhèin a bhith an làthair.) Ach, nas ùidheile buileach, ’s e na diofar bheachdan a bha aca mu Fhèin-riaghladh agus na dh’fhaodadh a bhith ann. Tha Sir Seòras Caimbeul BP a’ faighinn droinneadh airson an t-seasaimh lag, lapach aige air cumhachdan do dh’Alba agus – rudeigin nach eil a’ cur iongnadh sam bith ormsa – tha an curaidh, Iain MacMhuirich, a’ putadh airson deamocrasaidh brìgheil: ‘[he] expressed disapproval of the suggestions of Sir George Campbell, and said they must not rest satisfied until they got a thoroughly national system of Home Rule’. Tha puingean Alasdair MhicCoinnich cuideachd gu math làidir.
Cha b’ e seo a’ chiad turas a chuir Comann an Fhearainn taic ri Fèin-riaghladh. Bha iad air co-dhùnadh a dhèanamh air a shon san Ògmhios 1886 ann an co-labhairt aig Drochaid a’ Bhanna. Chuireadh Clark gluasadan air adhart air a shon anns a’ Phàrlamaid, agus chuireadh daoine ann an Comann an Fhearainn an cèill an taic ris tro na bliadhnaichean. Thuirt Iain MacRath, a bha air comataidh-ghnìomha an eagrachaidh, ann an 1893 nach fhaighte fuasgladh air ceist an fhearainn gus am biodh Fèin-riaghladh aig Alba.[1]
Tha coltas rudeigin gorm air cuid de na daoine a bhruidhinn aig a’ cho-labhairt mu cho furasta ’s a bhitheadh e siostam feadarail a stèidheachadh ann am Breatann. Thug e 112 bliadhna airson Pàrlamaid na h-Alba a bhith a’ fosgladh ann an Dùn Èideann – agus chan e idir ‘Fèin-riaghladh’ a bha seo anns an t-seagh a thuigeadh cuid bhon toiseach: gum biodh làn-smachd aig muinntir na h-Alba air gnothaichean Albannach. Chan eil siostam feadarail againn, agus tha Holyrood cuingealaichte, lag, gun treòir. Ged a gheall iad dhuinn tòrr a bharrachd chumhachdan nam bhòtamaid an aghaidh Neo-eisimeileachd, cha d’ fhuair sinn sgath.
Agus ceist an fhearainn? Tha Alba fhathast comharraichte anns an Roinn Eòrpa airson cho mì-ionnan ’s a tha seilbh air fearann: ann an 2014, bha 50% de dh’fhearann prìobhaideach air an dùthaich ann an làmhan 432 duine – 0.008% de shluagh na h-Alba.[2] Chì sinn dè an diofar a nì am Bile ùr air Ath-leasachadh Fearainn.
~~~
(1)
FEIN-RIAGHLADH NA H-ALBA – Tha na comuin a tha cruinn air an t-seachduin so ’san Oban a’ toirt am beachd air féin-riaghladh air son na h-Alba. Tha mòran am beachd nach bu chòir do na h-uile nithe mu riaghladh na dùthcha a bhi an làmhan ciorramach aineolach luchd-dreuchd ann an Lunnuin. Cha mhòr gu ’m faigh nithean Albannach eisdeachd ’sam bith anns a’ Phàrlamaid an drasd; tha iad cho suarach an sùilean nan Sasunnach; agus cha-’n’eil ann ach àireamh bheag do bhuill á Albain. Cha bhi guth deich ’s trì fichead ach fann an aghaidh còrr is ceithir cheud. A bharrachd air a so tha mòran do chùisean Albannach nach urrain an Sasunnach gle’ mhath a thuigsinn; ged tha cuid do na buill Shasunnach a tha ni’s càirdeile ris na daoine bochda na mòran a chuireadh á Albain féin. ’Se cuideachadh Shasunnach do’n t-seòrsa so agus nan Eirionnach a thug a mach an t-Achd fearainn air son croiteirean. Ach tha e nis soilleir do na h-uile nach ’eil e comasach do’n àrd-Phàrlamaid gnothuichean coitchionn na h-Alba agus na h-Eirionn a ghiùlan air aghaidh[.] Cha’n’eil an ùine ann. Faigheamaid, uime sin, féin-riaghladh agus bidh cùisean ni’s feàrr.
Tùs: The Oban Times (Disathairne, 17 Sultain, 1887), 5.
(2)
THE LAND LEAGUE CONFERENCE.
HOME RULE FOR SCOTLAND.
The conference, which took place in the Drill Hall, on Friday, was held under the auspices of the Scottish Home Rule Association, the Highland Land League, the Scottish Reform Alliance, the Argyllshire Reform League, the Scottish Miners’ Associations, the Skye Land League, the Highland Reform League of Glasgow, and the Edinburgh Land Law Reform Association. There was a fair attendance, and Dr Clark, M.P., presided. Among the other gentlemen present were Sir George Campbell, M.P.; Mr Findlater, president of the Scottish Farmers’ Alliance; Mr D. H. MacFarlane, president of the Highland Land League; Mr Stuart Glennie, chairman of the Celtic League; Mr H. G. Reid, Liberal Candidate for the Inverness Burghs; Mr A. MacDonald, Morar; Mr Alex. MacKenzie, Inverness; Mr J. Stuart MaCaig, Oban; Councillor Romanes, Eidnburgh Home Rule Association; Rev. Malcolm MacCallum[,] M[u]ckairn; Rev. Mr MacDonald, Easdale; Mr MacPhail, Aberdeen Radical Association; Bailie MacIsaac, Oban Liberal Association; Rev. Mr MacLean, Oban Congregational Church; Mr John Campbell, Glasgow Reform League; Mr John MacLeod, Sutherlandshire Association; Mr Neil Brown, Greenock Reform League; Mr MacNeish, Dunoon Liberal Association; Mr A. Waddie, Edinburgh Home Rule Association; Mr K. MacLean, Skye Land League; Mr John Murdoch, Scottish Land Restoration League; Mr John MacDonald, Buckie Liberal Association; Mr Sinclair, Ross & Cromarty Land Law Reform Association, &c.
ANOTHER “SCOTSMAN” MISREPRESENTATION.
Mr Donald MacLean, Gairloch, said—I have a matter to bring before the conference before the business is entered on– namely, the report of yesterday’s demonstration in to-day’s Scotsman. (“No, no,” and cries of “Order.”) You will find it stated in that report that at the demonstration there were only thirty-eight people, including boys. I think the most of the gentlemen who were here yesterday would come to the conclusion that there were close upon five hundred people present.
The Chairman—We cannot trouble ourselves with the Scotsman. We allowed reporters to be present—
Mr MacLean—I move that the Scotsman reporter be excluded from this meeting. (Cries of “No, no.”)
The Chairman—We allowed reporters because we found that our previous conferences reporters got admittance as delegates, and perverted reports were published. If, notwithstanding that there were 300 or 400 in the hall, the Scotsman says there were only 30, there are other papers, and we can leave it to public opinion.
Mr Duncan Sinclair, Lochalsh—I second the motion that the reporter of the Scotsman be excluded from this conference. (“No, no.”) If the wild spirits from the islands had not gone home to-day with the Claymore, the reporter would have been tarred and feathered in Oban. (Laughter.)
Mr Alex. MacKenzie, Inverness—Nobody believes what the Scotsman says about Highland matters. (Applause.)
A Voice—The landlords believe it.
The Chairman—If all the other Scotsman facts are on the same level with this one, we can utterly disregard it. (Applause).
Mr MacPhail, Aberdeen—I think it must have been a misprint for 380. (Laughter.) I therefore think the motion should be withdrawn.
Mr MacLean–Well, I will withdraw the motion.
SCOTTISH HOME RULE.
The Chairman said the question the conference had got to consider was by what means they could begin a really thorough agitation throughout the whole of Scotland to have a Scottish National Parliament to administer purely Scotch affairs. (Applause.)
Mr Donald Murray, the secretary, intimated letters of apology for absence from Dr Cameron, M. P.; Mr W. A. Hunter, M. P.; Mr A. L. Brown, M. P.; Sir Geo. Trevelyan, M. P.; Mr Provand, M. P.; Mr Macdonald Cameron, M. P.; Mr Esslemont, M. P.; Mr Gilbert Beith, Mr John Weir, secretary to the Fife Miners’ Association; Mr J. Keir Hardie, secretary to the Ayrshire Miners’ Association; and Mr Chisholm Robertson, secretary to the Stirlingshire Miners’ Association; Lady Florence Dixie; and the Rev. David Macrae, Dundee, all of whom sympathised with the object of the conference.
Sir George Campbell, M. P., said that while they wished Home Rule for Scotland he wa sure they did not desire anything of the nature of the Home Rule which was proposed for Ireland in the last Parliament. He was convinced that they had no hankering after separation from the British Parliament. They wanted to be a branch – a subordinate branch – of the British Parliament; they did not desire in any respect to be separated from it. He doubted whether the Irish would be content with the kind of Home Rule that would suit them in Scotland, but he had no doubt whatever that the Home Rule they desired to have must be something of the nature of a federal arrangement. (Applause.) In the meantime they ought to take what little improvement they could get, and go in for Grand Committees. While they were waiting for more complete Home Rule, they should have a Scotch Grand Committee, before which Scotch affairs would be thrashed out and then presented to the British Parliament, which would no longer be in doubt as to what was the wish of the people of Scotland. Permission might be got for the meeting of that Grand Committee in Edinburgh, and from this they might have a Scottish Council, giving decisions in certain national matters that should be final, with English and Welsh Councils to correspond. That point being reached, they would be very near to what they all desired. It was immaterial under this system of local government, with an Imperial Parliament, whether there was a queen or a president at the head. (Applause.) If they had an efficient federal system, efficient local government, and an efficient Imperial Parliament, then he thought there would be no place left for the House of Lords. (Applause.) He thought it would be absolutely necessary that they should get rid of that effete and most ridiculous institution. (Applause.)
Mr Findlater, president of the Farmers’ Alliance, said he entirely disagreed with the proposals of Sir George Campbell. He thought that the Scotch people should take care that no member was returned to Parliament who did not go in for thorough national Home Rule for Scotland, without, at the same time, breaking away from the Imperial Parliament. (Applause.)
Mr D. H. MacFarlane said he did not rise to define precisely the nature of the Home Rule required by Scotland. It was not competent for such a meeting to enter into so complicated a question. The question they had to consider was, how were they to proceed in order to bring about the consummation they all devoutly desired – the control of Scottish affairs by the Scottish people. (Applause.) He thought they could only bring it about by returning members who were pledged to make themselves a nuisance to the Imperial Parliament. (Cheers and laughter.) He had been a member of Parliament for seven years, and he believed that he never could have succeeded in gaining a hearing on any subject whatever, except by making himself more or less of a nuisance. (Laughter and applause.) Each member desired to have his own affairs attended to at the expense of other people’s. He did not deny that some good might be done by Grand Committees, but they were very unpopular in the House of Commons. The only way in which the people would succeed in getting their demands was by sending seventy-two members to Parliament, who were determined to work day and night, and on every possible occasion, to obtain for their country the right to manage its own affairs. (Applause.) By defective laws, he maintained, the people were cheated out of the advantages sought to be conveyed to them by means of the extended franchise. Until a poor man was allowed to vote for a candidate, whether he had paid his poor-rates or not, it would be very difficult for Scottish people to be properly represented in Parliament. Let them proceed upon the determined principle that a certain thing was to be obtained; and the higher they aimed the higher they would hit. (Cheers.)
Bailie MacIsaac, Oban, remarked that the feeling throughout the Oban Liberal Association, of which he was chairman, was thoroughly in favour of Home Rule.
Mr John Murdoch, Glasgow, in the course of his remarks, expressed disapproval of the suggestions of Sir George Campbell, and said they must not rest satisfied until they got a thoroughly national system of Home Rule. (Applause.)
Mr Alex. MacKenzie, Inverness, was surprised that an advanced Liberal like Sir George Campbell should have made the speech he did. He was perfectly satisfied from what he knew of the Highland people that the proposals of Sir George would not be listened to for one moment in the Highlands. They wanted Home Rule of a definite, tangible character. They wanted the Scottish people to be able, if they thought proper, to deal finally and completely with the land question, the Church question, and many others. (Applause.)
Mr Stuart-Glennie, London, argued in favour of the formation of a Scottish National League, which he thought would be very instrumental in promoting the cause of Home Rule.
Mr Stuart MacCaig, Oban, said that what was most wanted was not national, but County Home Rule. (“No, no.”) He thought the expense of getting matters settled in Edinburgh would be quite as great as it was in London. (“No, no.”)
Mr John MacLeod, Gartymore, thought there was no necessity for the establishment of such a league as had been suggested by Mr Glennie. The existing Liberal Associations were quite able to agitate the question.
Rev. Mr MacLean, Oban, also spoke in favour of the Scottish people having the management of their own affairs. Every one of the nationalities that constituted Great Britain required Home Rule to bind them together, and the sooner this Home Rule came the better. (Applause.)
The Chairman thought the best thing the conference could do was to appoint a committee to co-operate with the committee of the Scottish Home Rule Association in convening a conference in Edinburgh some time before Parliament met. To that conference they should ask all the trades’ societies, all the Liberal Associations, and all other public representative bodies, in order to fully discuss this question. They would ask nothing else than to have a National Parliament or National Council meeting in Scotland to transact Scotch business, and men responsible to that Parliament who would conduct the executive work of the country. (Applause.)
Mr H. G. Reid moved – “That this meeting approves of the principle of Home Rule for Scotland, and agrees to appoint a committee to consider the best means of giving effect to it in co-operation with the Scottish Home Rule Association.” (Applause.) In supporting the resolution, he said that having had for 25 years taken an active part in political work amongst the working men of England, he should like to say emphatically that whenever they were made to understand Scottish questions, he found the English democracy in active and earnest sympathy with them. (Applause.) A meeting, representing 200,000 trades’ unionists was to be held shortly in England, and if he got back in time to attend it, he would put the Highland grievances before it. (Applause.) He referred to the manner in which local measures were dealt with in the Imperial Parliament, and stated that nine-tenths of the English members had no knowledge of them. He remembered on one occasion Mr MacFarlane proposing an amendment. There were only eleven English members present during the debate upon it; but when the division came some two hundred came trooping into the House, and the amendment was lost. He pointed out that there was a greater lack of unity of action in Scotland than in England, and hoped that out of the meetings held in Oban there would come a new determination to organise, and by making themselves strong, make their members a greater power in the House of Commons. (Applause.) Having declared for the principle of restoring the land to the people, having declared for clear and unequivocal Home Rule for Scotland, and having their hands to the plough – ah, he would say to them, sink personal differences and petty jealousies, and as one man, looking to their common rights, go forward to assert themselves, and make themselves strong to win in the conflict upon which they had entered. (Loud applause.)
Mr Waddie, Edinburgh, hon. secretary of the Scottish Home Rule Association, seconded the motion. He was afraid Sir George had made a mistake. Let them consider his proposal. Suppose the Scottish members met in Grand Committee. They thrashed out a question, and came to the conclusion that a certain Bill was necessary for Scotland. Then they went immediately and submitted that Bill to 465 Englishmen. Why, that would be a degradation to Scotland. It was allowing them to have a review of our opinions, and he objected to Englishmen reviewing questions relating to Scotland. (Applause.) Scotchmen were quite competent to look after their own affairs.
Sir George Campbell thought he had failed to make himself understood. He wished to say, what he had repeated to his constituents over and over again, that in the first place he would give to a Scottish Parliament the control of the land, the church, and the liquor traffic. (Applause.)
The motion was then put to the meeting, when it was unanimously adopted. A large committee was then appointed, after which, a vote of thanks having been awarded to Dr Clark for presiding, the Conference terminated.
Tùs: The Oban Times (Disathairne, 24 Sultain, 1887), 2.
[1] Fhuaireadh am fiosrachadh sa pharagraf seo uile ann an Nathan Kane, ‘A Study of the Debate on Scottish Home Rule, 1886–1914’ (Tràchdas PhD neo-fhoillsichte, Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, 2015), tdd 28–29.
[2] Land Reform Review Group, The land of Scotland and the common good: report (Riaghaltas na h-Alba, 23 Cèitean 2014), ri fhaotainn aig https://www.gov.scot/publications/land-reform-review-group-final-report-land-scotland-common-good/pages/61/
A’ Cheàrdach 