Full text of DOI:10.1093/pa/53.3.542

Designing the Scottish Parliament
BY ALICE BROWN
When the newly elected members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs)
took their seats soon after the first Scottish parliamentary elections in
May 1999, they operated on the basis of standing orders and procedures
recommended by a Consultative Steering Group. To a large extent, the
Group’s recommendations reflected the outcome of a broad movement
for constitutional change in the 1980s and 1990s involving the Cam-
paign for a Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Constitutional Convention,
the Civic Assembly and other campaign bodies such as Common Cause,
Scotland United, Democracy for Scotland and the Women’s Coordina-
tion Group. The demands for a parliament in Scotland were always
closely connected to a vision of how it would operate. Understanding
the development of parliamentary procedures is, therefore, integral to
understanding the debates about the nature of the democratic process
and political system and the future governance of Scotland. In exploring
the process of making the Scottish Parliament, the technical cannot be
divorced from the political. The final report of the Scottish Constitu-
tional Convention, published in 1995, acknowledges this relationship:
‘From this process we have emerged with the powerful hope that the
coming of a Scottish Parliament will usher in a way of politics that is
radically different from the rituals of Westminster; more participative,
more creative, less confrontational . . . a culture of openness which will
enable the people to see how decisions are being taken in their name,
and why. The Parliament we propose is much more than a mere
institutional adjustment. It is a means, not an end.’
This article sets the work and recommendations of the Consultative
Steering Group within the context of the campaign for a Scottish
Parliament. It draws on interviews with some of the key actors involved.
including home rule campaigners, politicians, representatives from civic
groups, civil servants and parliamentary staff. Their perceptions illus-
trate some of the potential tensions between the values of campaigners
and the aspirations of those outwith the Parliament; the desire for
technical efficiency on the part of those charged with this operation;
and interests of politicians keen to make their mark there.
Historical foundations
The parliamentary arrangements now operating have their foundation
in debates surrounding the campaign for a Scottish Parliament. This
has a long history but the pressures for constitutional change in the
Ą Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government 2000
Parliamentary Affairs (2000), 53, 542–556

Designing the Scottish Parliament
543
1980s and 1990s are most relevant for the present discussion. Analysing
the process over the past twenty years, commentators have described
what are effectively push and pull factors. The former include the
growing sense of Scottish identity and the continuation of distinct
institutions in Scotland, which have created what has been described as
‘a world of dense Scottishness’.1 Feelings of difference and identity took
on an added resonance in the years of the Conservative government
1979–97, as voting patterns between Scotland and England continued
to diverge. The majority of people in Scotland voted for parties other
than the Conservatives and for parties that supported constitutional
change. The arguments for a new parliament were based on a critique
of the centralisation of power into the hands of the Westminster
government, a voting system which favoured the two main political
parties in British politics, giving power to a government with only
minority support in Scotland, and a political system that was seen as
increasingly unrepresentative, indeed alien to the lives of most people.
As summarised in one campaign document: ‘Scotland has a distin-
guished and distinctive structural heritage, evident in its legal system,
its educational system, its social, cultural and religious traditions. These
things are the very fabric of Scottish society, yet Scotland has come to
lack democratic control over them. Their conduct is determined by a
government for which few Scots voted. This is a democratic deficit,
which runs contrary to Scotland’s distinct political identity.’2 External
pull factors also operated over this period which saw a transnational
demand for a shift to ‘subsidiarity’ and decisions taken close to the
people. It was accompanied by a debate about ways to improve
democratic participation and enhance citizenship. To some extent it
was supported by a reorientation of Scotland towards the European
Union and away from Britain. These push and pull factors combined to
create the conditions of change but there are also key events in the
devolutionary process of the recent past.
After the failure of the 1979 referendum to deliver an assembly for
Scotland and the election of the first Thatcher government, the Cam-
paign for a Scottish Assembly (later called the Campaign for a Scottish
Parliament) was established. Describing itself as an ‘all-party, non-party
organisation, independent of all political parties’, its aim was ‘the
creation of a directly elected legislative assembly or parliament for
Scotland with such powers as may be desired by the people’.3 The
Campaign brought together a group of prominent people to assess the
country’s future. They produced A Claim of Right for Scotland, in
which they set out the case for an assembly.4 Its significance for
understanding the development of the underlying principles of a parlia-
ment is threefold: the historical resonance of the title, alluding directly
to two previous occasions when the ‘Scots have acted against misgov-
ernment by issuing a Claim of Right, in 1689 and 1842; its critique of
an unrepresentative and unaccountable Westminster government which

544
Parliamentary Affairs
creates an ‘illusion of democracy’; and its proposals for a Constitutional
Convention to draw up a scheme for an assembly, mobilising Scottish
opinion behind it and securing approval of it.
A Constitutional Convention was established and began its work
in 1989. At its inaugural meeting, the formal Claim of Right docu-
ment was signed by all members, asserting the sovereign right of the
Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to
their needs. Its members were drawn from the Scottish Labour Party,
the Scottish Liberal Democrats and other smaller political parties in
Scotland, as well as a range of organisations including trade unions,
business, local government, churches, voluntary sector and women’s
groups. Rejecting the claims of a ‘democratic deficit’ and arguments
for a new parliament, the Scottish Conservative Party did not join.
The Scottish National Party attended the first meeting but then with-
drew under pressure from some activists who believed it would be
dominated by the Labour Party and compromise the goal of full
independence.
At the end of 1990, the Convention produced Towards Scotland’s
Parliament, subtitled A Report to the Scottish People by the Scottish
Constitutional Convention.5 It set out what it described as its own
consensual working methods and outlined proposals for a devolved
parliament. Focus was on four areas: constitutional issues and structures
of government, including proposals for a directly elected parliament
with entrenched powers; powers and responsibilities of the parliament;
financial issues, including a system of assigned revenues and tax–varying
powers; and the case for a new electoral system based on principles of
representativeness, equality and simplicity. Working groups developed
these proposals. The remit of the group concerned with parliamentary
procedures was ‘to prepare for efficient constitutional change and an
open, accessible and accountable Scottish Parliament’. In submitting its
report to the Convention in February 1992, it set out five principles
which guided its thinking: accountability, balance, efficiency, participa-
tion and subsidiarity.
The re-election of the Conservative government to power in 1992,
committed to the status quo, meant that a parliament for Scotland
would not be delivered in the immediate future. As one way of keeping
the broad alliance for constitutional change together, the Convention
established a Commission in 1993 to make recommendations on the
electoral system and gender balance provisions, as well as the constitu-
tional implications at UK level and for local government of the estab-
lishment of a parliament. When this reported in 1994, it supported the
Conventions’ preference for a form of Additional Member electoral
system and recommended a target for the representation of women and
ethnic minorities. It also recommended parliamentary practices that
reflected and promoted the best traditions of constructive and consen-
sual debate, avoiding the development of what it described as the

Designing the Scottish Parliament
545
intensely adversarial, partisan and aggressive manner of UK politics. In
other words, the demand was not just for a new legislative body but for
one which had a specific ethos and ways of working.
Aware that more detailed work on parliamentary procedures would
be useful, one of Scotland’s think tanks, the John Wheatley Centre
(later renamed Centre for Scottish Public Policy) commissioned Bernard
Crick and David Millar to prepare draft standing orders for submission
to the Constitutional Convention.6 Subsequently revised, the document
To Make the Parliament of Scotland a Model for Democracy set out
operational arrangements, including the election of officers, the struc-
ture and function of committees, the legislative process, the order of
business and the role of political parties. The authors argued that there
was a need to break away from the Westminster parliamentary mould
and ‘to invent and adapt procedures and working practices better suited
to and arising from Scotland’s more democratic civic tradition’. Key
themes in the document relate to the aspiration or expectation of a
consensual style of working and decision-making within the Parliament;
a balance between the power of the executive and of the Parliament,
including a powerful role for parliamentary committees; and greater
public participation and involvement.
When the Scottish Constitutional Convention published its final
report in 1995, Scotland’s Parliament, Scotland’s Right,7 it very much
reflected the work that had been carried out in its Working Groups, in
the Commission and by Crick and Millar. In presenting their final
document to the people of Scotland they described it as a ‘practical
scheme for bringing the Parliament into existence’ which had been
based on a ‘resolute search for consensus’ among the different actors
involved. The document set out the powers and responsibilities of the
parliament and how it was anticipated these would work. It proposed
a parliament of 129 members elected under AMS, it endorsed an
Electoral Agreement signed by the Scottish Labour Party and the
Scottish Liberal Democrats accepting the principle that there should be
equal numbers of men and women members in the first Scottish
Parliament, and proposed a means for long-term financing, including
the power to vary taxation. Specifically in the context of how the
parliament would function, the document describes how it ‘expects that
the parliament will provide, through its practices and procedures a form
of government in whose accountability, accessibility, openness and
responsiveness the people of Scotland will have confidence and pride’.8
Again, the stress was on seeking a model very different from Westmin-
ster and on the greatest possible involvement of the people of Scotland.
It was also argued that to achieve these objectives a number of matters
would need to be enshrined in law, while others would be established
through standing orders. The scheme not only sets out proposals on
what the parliament should do, but also on how it should go about its
tasks: direct participation of the people in the parliamentary process,

546
Parliamentary Affairs
sharing of power between the executive and the legislature, and a
consensual, non-confrontational style of debate.
Throughout the period in which the Constitutional Convention was
developing its proposals, the Conservative government proved consis-
tently hostile to the idea of a parliament. Although the then Secretary
for State, Michael Forsyth, did announce some minor constitutional
changes to the Scottish Office which coincided with the launch of the
Convention’s document on St Andrew’s Day, in 1995, Iain Macwhirter
noted that ‘what Michael Forsyth’s St Andrews Day spoiler emphati-
cally does not do is bridge the democratic deficit’ (The Scotsman,
30.11.95). However, the momentum for change continued and new
campaign groups emerged, including Scotland United, Common Cause,
Democracy for Scotland and the Women’s Coordination Group. In
addition, a Scottish Civic Assembly was formed in 1995 under the
auspices of the Coalition for Scottish Democracy, bringing together a
number of civic bodies and declaring as one of its aims the ‘democratic
renewal of the system of governance in Scotland’. Described by com-
mentators as seeking to be a ‘shadow parliament’ representing a ‘civil-
society conscience’, the Civic Assembly aspired to be both a model for
citizen participation and a conduit for informing policy. Lindsay Pater-
son9 makes the important point that these groups were not dominated
by political elites from the political parties but involved a bottom-up
pressure for change from civic Scotland. The groups did, however, share
overlapping memberships and they also shared the aspiration not only
for a parliament but for one that could, as one person put it, be
described as ‘a democracy that’s a real democracy’.
Apart from campaign groups the expectation of change is suggested
by the publication of a report in 1996 by the Constitution Unit at
University College London, concerned with The Fundamentals of a
Scotland Act.10 Drawing on lessons learned from the 1978 Scotland Act
and covering similar issues to those addressed in the Constitutional
Convention’s 1995 document, it discusses the policy issues associated
with entrenchment, the powers of the parliament, financial arrange-
ments, relationships between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster,
the European Union and local government, and industrial and economic
policy. It also addresses the business to be conducted at the first meeting
of the Parliament, and the procedures for the development and adoption
of standing orders (including the suggestion that a draft set might be
drawn up by core specialist staff for consideration by a specially
appointed committee prior to formal adoption by the Parliament).
In summary, it is clear from the above that a considerable amount of
discussion and political campaigning, constitution building and plan-
ning had taken place in the years since the failure of the 1979 referen-
dum to deliver constitutional change for Scotland. Long years in
opposition provided time for some old rivalries to be relegated in favour
of a broad alliance that could make the case and develop the plans for

Designing the Scottish Parliament
547
a Scottish Parliament. Similar aspirations are articulated in the various
documents for a parliament different from Westminster, elected with a
closer correspondence between votes cast and seats gained, and
grounded in enhancing the democratic and representative process. The
desire for it to be open, accessible and accountable to the people of
Scotland is a common feature. Crucially, this planning process has not
been the preserve of the political parties but has involved non-party
individuals and groups and different organisations representing the wide
spectrum of Scottish civil society. Those involved in the process helped
legitimise the project and gather support for it; they are also claiming
ownership of the process. This factor will be important in assessing the
prospects of the parliament and its relationship with civic Scotland in
the future.
The new political context
The key opportunity for change arose when the political context altered
dramatically in 1997 and the Labour government was elected with a
programme including wide-ranging constitutional change. Drawing les-
sons from the past, some were sceptical about Labour’s commitment to
delivering on its promise, with particular concerns about the decision
to hold a two-question referendum.11 In the event, little time was lost
by the new government in publishing a White Paper in July 1997. In
his introduction to Scotland’s Parliament, the then Secretary of State
for Scotland, Donald Dewar, drew on the campaigns to put the case,
stating that ‘the Scottish Parliament will strengthen democratic control
and make government more accountable to the people of Scotland’.12
Reference is made to the work of the Scottish Constitutional Conven-
tion and many of its recommendations are to be found in the White
Paper. The main difference is one proposed by the Constitution Unit,
namely that instead of defining the legislative competence of the new
Parliament in terms of its devolved powers, those reserved to Westmin-
ster should be specified. Although it was anticipated that the Scottish
Parliament would be responsible for its own standing orders, the White
Paper refers to the need for these to address issues beyond the purely
technical: ‘The government expect that the Scottish Parliament will
adopt modern methods of working; that it will be accessible, open and
responsive to the needs of the public; that participation by organisations
and individuals in decision-making be encouraged; and that the views
and advice from specialists be sought as appropriate.’13 The key role to
be played by parliamentary committees is also flagged up.
Following a cross-party and civic campaign organised by Scotland
Forward, this time including the SNP as one of the three main parties
arguing for constitutional change, the scheme proposed in the White
Paper obtained endorsement in the referendum of September 1997.
Around 74% of voters in Scotland agreed that there should be a
Parliament and more than 63% also agreed that it should have tax–

548
Parliamentary Affairs
varying powers. The scene was then set for the publication of the
Scotland Bill in 1997, which received Royal Assent in 1998. The
Scotland Act proposed a Parliament of 129 members elected on a form
of the Additional Member System, with 73 to represent constituencies
and the additional 56 from party lists (seven from each of Scotland’s
then eight European constituencies). Although not strictly proportional,
this went some way to meet the arguments of those who had cam-
paigned for a fairer system, reflecting support for the different political
parties in Scotland.
The Consultative Steering Group
The changing political context following the 1997 general election
offered the possibility of implementing plans developed during the
previous twenty years. Concerned that some of the aspirations of the
Scottish Constitutional Convention might be lost in the detailed writing
of the Scotland Act and the Parliament’s Standing Orders, a group of
people from civic organisations met to discuss ways in which its work
could inform the next stages of planning. They wrote to Henry McLeish
in his capacity as Minister for Devolution in the new government.
Within the Scottish Office, a team of civil servants had already been
formed as a Constitution Group to help prepare the necessary legisla-
tion. While the White Paper had stated the government’s wish to leave
decisions about how the Parliament should operate to its members, it
became clear that it was not practicable to postpone drafting the
detailed operating rules until the new MSPs were elected. To save the
fledgling Parliament from having to develop a set of Standing Orders
from scratch, the Consultative Steering Group was set up to work with
civil servants by the then Secretary of State, Donald Dewar, in Novem-
ber 1997, and first met in January of 1998. Its remit was threefold:
consider the operational needs and working methods of the Scottish
Parliament; develop proposals for the rules of procedure and Standing
Orders that it might be invited to adopt; and prepare a report to the
Secretary of State by the end of 1998 on the matter.
Chaired by the Minister for Devolution, the core group had 12
members, including representatives from the four major Scottish politi-
cal parties, local authorities, business, civic groups and interests, and an
academic. Some had previous involvement in campaigns, particularly
through the Scottish Constitutional Convention and its Commission. It
received advice from expert panels on Procedures and Standing Orders,
Financial Issues, and Information and Communications Technology. A
Media Issues panel and Code of Conduct working group were set up
later. Research was commissioned on the experience of government and
governance in several foreign countries, and the Consultative Steering
Group embarked on a process of wide consultation, distributing a
consultative document, holding public forum meetings in different parts
of Scotland and running focus groups for young people. Its report,

Designing the Scottish Parliament
549
Shaping Scotland’s Parliament, was published in December 1998 with
reports from the Media Issues and Code of Conduct groups following
in March 1999.14
At a very early stage in the process the Group agreed four key
principles that were to inform its work. Sharing of Power: ‘The Parlia-
ment should embody and reflect the sharing of power between the
people of Scotland, the legislators and the Scottish Executive’; Account-
ability: ‘The Scottish Executive should be accountable to the Scottish
Parliament and the Parliament and Executive should be accountable to
the people of Scotland’; Access and Participation: ‘The Scottish Parlia-
ment should be accessible, open, responsive and develop procedures
which make possible a participative approach to the development,
consideration and scrutiny of policy and legislation’; Equal Opportun-
ities: ‘The Scottish Parliament in its operation and its appointments
should recognise the need to promote equal opportunities for all’.15 The
language reflects the thread of ideas weaving through the earlier cam-
paigns. The four principles were subsequently endorsed by those who
participated in the consultation process and formed the basis of the
standing orders and procedures that were then recommended to the
Secretary of State.
Power-sharing involved appointing an independent Presiding Officer
and an all-party Business Committee, as well as establishing all-purpose
parliamentary committees with power to initiate, scrutinise and investi-
gate legislation, and with a central role in the legislative process.
Membership of committees was to reflect the political composition of
the Parliament itself, so that no single party could dominate. Civic
organisations were also to be involved in the policy process and
arrangements were made for Public Petitions. To ensure greater
accountability, the Steering Group recommended a Code of Conduct
for MSPs, a Standards Committee, as well as mechanisms such as
parliamentary questions, and giving committees the power to conduct
enquiries and take evidence from ministers and civil servants. Powerful
Finance and Audit Committees were also proposed. Greater access and
participation were to be achieved through an open, simple and modern
style of operating, and parliamentary times which coincide with normal
working hours and with Scottish school holidays. Plenary and commit-
tees meetings were to be held in public, with translation facilities for
Gaelic and the publication of short reports and bulletins in several
languages. To encourage wide participation, it was recommended that
the legislative process should allow maximum time for consultation and
committees should meet regularly outside Edinburgh; consideration
should also be given to basing some committees outside the capital.
New ways of consulting the public and new initiatives in education for
citizenship were proposed, and information technology was presented
as another way in which access and participation could be widened. To
meet the Equal Opportunities objective, there was to be an Equality

550
Parliamentary Affairs
Unit in the Scottish Office and an Equal Opportunities Committee in
the Parliament. The mainstreaming of equal opportunities throughout
the work of the Parliament and the policies of the government was also
recommended.16 The working hours of the Parliament were to be
‘family friendly’, with the programme of business designed to allow the
combination of parliamentary work and family life.
In recommending acceptance of the Group’s report, its chair, Henry
McLeish, stated: ‘The establishment of the Scottish Parliament offers
the opportunity to put in place a new sort of democracy in Scotland,
closer to the people and more in tune with Scottish needs. We envisage
an open accessible Parliament: a Parliament where power is shared with
the people; where people are encouraged to participate in the policy-
making process which affects all our lives; an accountable visible
Parliament; and a Parliament which promotes equal opportunities for
all.’17
A number of cross-cutting themes can be identified from the above
discussion which relate to issues of process and of substance. In terms
of process, what characterises the campaigns over the period is the
central role of civic society. The question to be addressed later is how
the sense of civic ownership that has developed will affect parliamentary
operation, in particular the imperatives of party politics. Another key
point is the overlapping memberships between the campaign groups
and the extension of this into formally constituted bodies such as the
Consultative Steering Group. The apparent commonality of ideas may
to some extent reflect a commonality of people. The question raised is
the degree to which outwith these close-knit circles such ideas carry the
same legitimacy. Finally, the process was characterised by its exponents
as one of consensus-working or alliance-building. This method of
working was seen as a model for the Scottish Parliament: its feasibility
in parliamentary ‘realpolitik’ is still open to question.
As regards the substance of the campaigns, there are a number of key
motifs. One relates to the notion of ‘sovereignty of the people’ and is
expressed in documents produced under the auspices of the Scottish
Constitutional Convention. Another, and flowing from this, is the desire
for a more participative democracy, a more transparent legislature, and
one which enables equality of access. The case was made for a Parlia-
ment to rectify the democratic deficit identified by constitutional cam-
paigners and a Parliament that was different. While it is too soon at
this stage of the new Parliament’s life to reach an informed judgement
on whether these aspirations have been achieved, it is possible to trace
its early experience.
Theory into practice
As anticipated, no single party gained an overall majority in the first
elections to the Scottish Parliament on 6 May 1999, although the
Scottish Labour Party obtained the largest percentage share of the vote.

Designing the Scottish Parliament
551
1. Scottish Elections 1999
Vote (%)
Seats
Reg.
18
Constituency
15.6
Regional List
15.4
Const.
Total
18
56
17
35
%
14
43
13
27
2
Conservative
Labour
Lib.Dems
SNP
0
53
12
7
38.8
14.2
28.7
2.7
33.8
12.5
27.0
11.4
3
5
28
2
Others
1
3*
Totals
73
56
129
* Independent, 1 Scottish Socialist Party and 1 Scottish Green Party.
Table 1 shows the distribution of seats between parties and between
constituency and list seats. It also demonstrates the way in which the
new electoral system provided opportunities for smaller parties and an
independent candidate. As Table 2 illustrates, the campaign by women
in Scotland, particularly the mechanism of ‘twinning’ adopted by the
Labour Party and the practice in the SNP of placing women high on
the party lists, helped return 48 women among the 129 elected MSPs.
This over 37% rate breaks all records for the representation of women
in political elites in Scotland. To some extent, therefore, the electoral
system did make advances in widening the representative nature of the
new Parliament.
Events moved quickly following the elections and the new MSPs
began work on 12 May. Transitional standing orders and procedures
governed the first meetings of the Parliament. The new parliamentarians
were able to take part in proceedings after the taking of the oath and
their first business was the election of a Presiding Officer (Sir David
Steel, a Liberal Democrat) and two Deputy Presiding Officers, one each
from the SNP and the Labour Party. Given that no single party had an
absolute majority of seats, the speculation was which party or parties
would form the government. While the most likely scenario was Labour
Party/Liberal Democrat coalition, there was a view that the Labour
Party might attempt to run a minority administration. After a few days
of uncertainty and hard negotiation, Labour and the Liberal Democrats
announced their partnership for government on 14 May.18 Donald
Dewar, leader of the Labour Party, was elected as the First Minister
and he in turn appointed Jim Wallace, leader of the Liberal Democrats,
as his Deputy.
The new executive has 11 ministers (9 Labour and 2 Liberal Demo-
crats), with an additional 11 junior ministers (9 and 2 again). They are
2. Gender Composition of the Scottish Parliament
Women
Men
Women
Men
Number
%
Conservative
Labour
Lib.Dems
SNP
Others
Totals
3
28
2
15
0
15
28
15
20
3
17
50
12
43
0
83
50
88
57
100
63
48
81
37

552
Parliamentary Affairs
supported by civil servants from the old Scottish Office.19 The execu-
tive’s programme of legislation for the first year of the Parliament
included eight bills covering education, transport, land reform, the
feudal tenure system, national parks, local government, incapable
adults, and finance and auditing. There are six departments: Justice;
Education; Enterprise and Lifelong Learning; Development; as well as
the core services of Finance, Executive Secretariat and Corporate Serv-
ices. As recommended by the Consultative Steering Group, an Equality
Unit has been set up. The Parliament established 16 committees in all,
eight mandatory committees (Europe, Equal Opportunities, Finance,
Audit, Procedures, Standards, Public Petitions, and Subordinate Legis-
lation) and eight subject committees mirroring the departments within
the executive. Reflecting the Steering Group’s recommendations, mem-
bership is based on the political balance of the Parliament itself. No
single party has overall control of a committee and convenors are not
necessarily from the governing parties. This offers the potential for a
dynamic relationship between the executive and parliamentary commit-
tees, especially when the minister heading up the department represents
one of the governing parties but the convenor of the committee is from
one of the non-executive parties. The potential for tension also exists
because committees have both standing and select functions and they
have the power not only to scrutinise and monitor government legisla-
tion but to conduct enquiries. They also have the power to initiate
legislation, but no committee has yet exercised this latter power.
At an early stage the Parliament endorsed the Steering Group’s
proposals in a motion: ‘That the Parliament records its appreciation of
the work of the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament;
acknowledges the contribution which the Group’s reports have made to
the development of the procedures of the Parliament; and agrees that
its operations should embody the spirit of the Group’s key principles.’20
A decision was taken by the executive to support the inauguration of a
Scottish Youth Parliament (an idea proposed in the course of the
Steering Group’s consultation with young people) and to continue
support for the Women’s Consultative Forum which had been estab-
lished in anticipation of the Scottish Parliament in 1997. A proposal for
a Scottish Civic Forum to facilitate discussion and to act as a gateway
for civic interests was also accepted.
In spite of these positive developments, the Parliament and the
executive soon found themselves on the receiving end of some unwanted
and often hostile reporting by the media. The Parliament got off to a
bad start with a dispute over MSPs’ allowances (with distinctions made
between constituency and list MSPs). Another was about what is
described as Short money, that is the money made available to the
official opposition to carry out its business. In a Scottish Parliament
with a coalition government operating under a more proportional
electoral system which gives six parties representation, the concept of

Designing the Scottish Parliament
553
opposition has a slightly different meaning from that at Westminster.
Other controversies covered a Private Member’s Bill on the abolition of
fox-hunting, unfounded allegations against a minister resulting in the
so-called Scottish ‘Lobbygate’ affair, and the sudden departure of some
of Labour’s Special Advisers.
The first big test for the new Parliament and for the executive was
the controversy over tuition fees for students in higher education. The
non-coalition parties supported the Liberal Democrat MSPs who
restated their pre-election pledge to abolish fees. The official Labour
Party position was against abolition. To avoid a potentially damaging
vote so early in the life of the Parliament, a Committee of Inquiry into
student finance, chaired by a Steering Group member (Andrew Cubie),
was set up and asked to report by the end of 1999. It drew on a broad
range of Scottish opinion and in various ways engaged in dialogue with
people in Scotland. The final report attracted wide support and the
executive accepted its main recommendations which effectively end
tuition fees in Scotland. While this experience was a more positive
example of dispute resolution, early in 2000 controversy arose over
another issue, the proposed repeal of Section 28 of the Local Govern-
ment Act concerning positive references to homosexuality in school
teaching.
In the early stages of the Parliament’s life, concerns were expressed
about its apparent divergence from the spirit, if not the letter, of the
Steering Group’s report. It could be argued that this view of its initial
months is unsurprising since dispute is the very meat of politics. As one
person said: ‘It hasn’t established the culture we really wanted. The
culture has got off to a terrible start, but that may be inevitable’. The
early months also witnessed the beginnings of a struggle between an
executive seeking to get its business through and powerful committees
with a remit to scrutinise and hold the executive to account. Questions
were asked about whether committees had overstepped the mark in
their cross-examination of ministers and civil servants, and doubts were
raised about the compatibility of the dual function of the standing and
select roles. However, there were also internal political dynamics at
work in the committees: firstly, in relation to their political composition
in general and the party of the convenor in particular; secondly, the
degree to which the members of committees felt able to work together
in the way that had been hoped or were splitting along party lines.
These are important issues in a system which attaches so much emphasis
on the role of the parliamentary committees in the legislative process.
As one media respondent commented: ‘If they can develop lives of their
own, then I think this will be the new politics. The difficulty is we have
some very new members, especially among Labour. If they are seeking
advancement, they are seeking it through the government. Equally, if
the opposition parties only see committees as tools with which to prise
the government’s embarrassments into the open then it will fail.’

554
Parliamentary Affairs
Other more practical issues arose in implementing the Consultative
Steering Group’s proposals and were drawn to the attention of the
Procedures Committee. These related to concern about the time avail-
able for parliamentary business, the design of question time, the large
number of parliamentary questions and the time taken to receive
answers from the executive, the time at which parliamentary voting
takes place, and the procedures for summing up in non-executive
debates. While relatively ‘technical’ such matters also have a political
dimension. In responding to these concerns, the Procedures Committee
has tried to make recommendations for change in a way that does not
sacrifice the key principles advocated by the Steering Group.
The real question here is whether in building a new institution in
Scotland the aspirations of its architects to change the political process
and even culture have been achieved in spite of some changes made to
procedures and the less positive aspects of the early months of the
Parliament. It is difficult to give a firm answer at this stage. The
Parliament is still in its infancy, still learning and experimenting.
Moreover, finding appropriate indicators to evaluate its operation is far
from straightforward. Another way of approaching the issue is to
consider the potential constraints or tensions that may be built into the
new political system and the extent to which these can be managed.
A fundamental aim of the constitutional planners was to find a
different way to ‘do politics’ and to build a different political culture in
Scotland. There are some positive conditions in Scotland which are
conducive to achieving such an aim. There is the new Parliament itself;
the opportunity to start without the difficulty of reforming an already
established institution; the new electoral system which has resulted in a
system where no party has overall control; some new politicians to the
Parliament committed to working differently, and more cooperatively
where appropriate; new procedures based on the four principles articu-
lated by the Consultative Steering Group. While these factors provide
the potential for difference, they do not themselves guarantee difference.
And while the potential for change exists, the forces of continuity are
also strong. In addition, there are factors that may be working in
opposition to declared aspirations. In other words, a new Parliament
does not guarantee new politics.
The constraints are governed by wider questions relating to the
finance or managing relations between the Scottish Parliament and
Westminster, the European Parliament and local government, that are
beyond the scope of this article. If we focus on the procedures, we can
also identify tensions that may have implications for the prospects for
achieving power-sharing, accountability, access and participation, and
equal opportunities. For example, what are the prospects for relation-
ships between the executive and the Parliament and its committees;
between the Parliament and the civil service; and between the Parlia-
ment and a civic society which expects to have a greater involvement in

Designing the Scottish Parliament
555
politics? And what about the political party system itself, which in some
senses has not yet adjusted to the new electoral system and political
conditions? While the Consultative Steering Group had much to say
about the parliamentary procedures, its remit did not cover the struc-
tures, procedures and practices of the civil service, nor did it venture
into the party-political system. And how will the potential conflict
between representative democracy and participatory democracy work
out in practice? A welcome development has been the decision by the
executive to fund a Civic Forum as one channel of interaction between
civic Scotland and the Parliament. Others have noted, however, that
there is the danger that the Forum may not include voices traditionally
excluded from the political process and may thus remain a vehicle for
the policy elite. In the wake of high expectations, the executive is
concerned to deliver tangible benefits quickly, but this may appear at
odds with a longer-term, more inclusive and considered approach to
policy-making inherent in the new structures. Even if all the forces are
in favour of change, and it cannot be assumed that they are, learning
new rules of the political game takes time and building a new political
culture cannot be achieved overnight.
Conclusion
The underlying structures of the Scottish Parliament did not emerge
fully formed but had a history and an evolution articulated through
campaigns over time. The language of openness, accountability and
participation took on a common currency and legitimacy even amongst
those who initially opposed it. While political differences exist, in some
respects it is not in the interests of any of the political parties for it to
be seen to fail. But making and developing the work of the Parliament
has always been seen as a process and not an event, and a process
which reflects different characteristics of Scottish society as well as an
expression of national identity. It is also seen as going some way to
remedy a perceived democratic deficit and as a vehicle for improved
governance. Thus a key objective of campaigns for a Scottish Parliament
was not just for a devolution of power but for that power to be
exercised and shared in particular ways. Ultimately, of course, it is
likely to be judged on whether it makes a difference to people’s lives in
terms of the policies it delivers, but that is a matter more in the hands
of the executive than the Parliament itself. Nevertheless, for the general
public there is a blurring of this distinction.
When the Parliament was officially opened in July 1999 the leaders
of the main political parties expressed their own hopes for the future.
The First Minister, Donald Dewar, made reference to ‘a new stage on a
journey begun long ago and which has no end’ and spoke of a ‘new life
for Scotland and all of her people’. His sentiments were endorsed by
the deputy leader, Jim Wallace, who stated that ‘it must be our
responsibility as members of the Scottish Parliament to make the

556
Parliamentary Affairs
Parliament succeed for all of Scotland—for the whole of our nation’,
and by Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, who pledged that ‘all our
efforts will be on the Scottish people’s behalf’. Although initially
opposed to the Parliament, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives,
David McLetchie, said that they were ‘totally committed to making this
Parliament work successfully for Scotland in a renewed partnership
within the United Kingdom’ (The Scotsman, 2.7.99).
There are also challenges for analysing the political dynamics of a
new institution and an evolving political culture. The tools offered by
rational choice theory, multi-level governance models, understanding
developments as a historical process, or through new institutionalism,
do not fully explain some of the key elements involved. As the new
Parliament begins to mature, it will provide opportunities for develop-
ing a framework that allows a more informed assessment of whether
the Scottish case provides a model of a new type of politics—a model
moving away from the adversarial, zero-sum politics associated with
Westminster to a more plural and inclusive form of politics, that
involves building alliances on key political objectives. Such a develop-
ment would have implications not just for Scottish politics but for
understanding politics more generally in these islands.
1
2
3
4
5
6
L. Paterson, The Autonomy of Modern Scotland, Edinburgh University Press, 1994.
Scottish Constitutional Convention, Scotland’s Parliament, Scotland’s Right, Cosla, 1995.
Quoted in J. Mitchell, Strategies for Self-Government, Polygon, 1996, p. 101.
Campaign for a Scottish Parliament, A Claim of Right, 1989.
Scottish Constitutional Convention, Towards Scotland’s Parliament, Cosla, 1990.
B. Crick and D. Millar, To Make the Parliament of Scotland a Model for Democracy, John Wheatley
Centre, 1995.
7
8
9
Scottish Constitutional Convention, Scotland’s Parliament, Scotland’s Right, Cosla, 1995.
Ibid, p. 24.
L. Paterson, ‘Why should we respect civic Scotland?’ in G. Hassan and C. Warhurst, A Modernisers’
Guide to Scotland, The Big Issue/Centre for Scottish Public Policy, 1999.
10 Constitution Unit, University College London, Scotland’s Parliament: Fundamentals for a New
Scotland Act 1996.
11 People in Scotland were to be asked two questions in a referendum if the Labour Party won the 1997
general election. The first was whether or not a Scottish Parliament should be established and the
second whether or not it should have tax–varying powers.
12 Scottish Office, Scotland’s Parliament, HMSO, 1997, p. vii.
13 Ibid, p. 30.
14 Consultative Steering Group, Shaping Scotland’s Parliament, Scottish Office, 1998.
15 Ibid.
16 Mainstreaming is a relatively new approach to policy making in which equal opportunities principles,
strategies and practices are integrated into the every day work of government and other public bodies
from the outset, involving policy actors in addition to equality specialists.
17 Ibid.
18 The new executive produced a document entitled Partnership Scotland. An account of the negotiations
can be found in R. Finnie and H. McLeish, ‘The Negotiation’ in Scottish Affairs, Summer 1999.
19 The gender balance of ministers is 17 men and 5 women, less than the overall representation of women
in the Parliament at 37%.
20 Scottish Parliament Official Report, 9.6.99.