Paddy drew in a steadying breath, gradually feeling more comfortable as the cameras rolled.
“All the United Kingdom,” she went on, “indeed, the entire world, is now waiting to see how these events, and Mr. Trentham’s involvement in them, will affect the growing debate over the future of Scotland. No statement from Mr. Trentham has yet been released, but sources close to the Cumbrian MP suggest that a momentous announcement may be forthcoming within a few days.”
Another look followed in Andrew’s direction. This time Paddy could not prevent the edges of her lips from curling in the hint of a smile at the veiled reference to herself in her own report. Andrew smiled, then chuckled lightly at her words, as most of the cameras broke from the reporter’s to his face.
After a moment, Paddy continued.
“We will update you with more details as they become available,” she said. “According to Scotland Yard spokesman Jack Hensley, three arrests have been made thus far, and more are expected. Scotland Yard will issue a full report within forty-eight hours, Hensley said. The House of Commons, shaken as it is by the implication of its own in these events, must now prepare for debate on what may prove to be one of its most historic decisions in centuries. . . .”
The British Parliamentary System, Scottish Home Rule, and Devolution
The parliamentary system of government as practiced in the United Kingdom can be mysterious and baffling to those who have not grown up familiar with it. This extremely brief and simplified outline of a few basics related to issues in the story is merely intended to make Caledonia easier to understand for American readers, without attempting to provide a comprehensive explanation of the system.
Most of the significant legislative business of Parliament is conducted through the lower branch, the House of Commons, which at the time of this writing is comprised of 659 elected members of Parliament, or MPs. For centuries, membership in the upper House of Lords has been primarily hereditary—although moves were afoot at the end of the twentieth century to change this policy. In addition to the hereditary seats, Lords includes “life peers” appointed specifically for their lifetime. The role of the House of Lords is generally consultative, as is that of the monarchy (King or Queen.)
The role given to the party who holds a majority of seats in the House of Commons is far more significant in parliamentary affairs than is the case in the American system. In Washington, when a given bill comes before Congress for a vote, representatives and senators of both parties vote as they are inclined. Accordingly, bills either pass or are defeated no matter which party initiated the legislation or which party holds the majority of seats. Both parties are free to draw up bills and present them to Congress. Though the majority party certainly has a distinct advantage in the passage of its legislative program, the passage of its bills is not automatic. And once a bill is passed by Congress, the president may veto it, even in the face of a Congressional approval. The president is neither part of nor answerable to Congress. The distinct terms of office in the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency (two, six, and four years respectively) underscore the independence in which they all stand with respect to one another.
The United Kingdom’s legislative system is entirely different. Whereas in the United States the House, the Senate, and the president all contribute a substantially equal voice in the passage of legislation, in the UK all power toward that end essentially proceeds out of the House of Commons. Neither the House of Lords, the King or Queen, or the minority parties have any determinative power of influence.
The primiership is not a separate nonparliamentary office like the United States presidency, but is occupied by the highest-ranking MP in the Commons. He or she is not elected by the people as prime minister but as a member of Parliament from a certain constituency, along with all the other MPs. Each party votes within its membership for its own leadership, and the leader of the majority party thus becomes prime minister. Party leadership and even the office of prime minister may change without a general public election.
The majority party (in Caledonia the Labour party, or the Socialists, led by Prime Minister Richard Barraclough) is referred to as the government. The largest minority party (in Caledonia the Conservatives, or the Tories, led by Miles Ramsey) is called the opposition. As a point of historical interest, the centuries-old party known as the Whigs became the Liberal Party in 1828, shortly before the Tories became known as the Conservative Party. The Labour Party was formed in 1892 and formed its first (coalition) government in 1924. The Liberal Party held power in Britain for long periods late in the nineteenth and early years of the twentieth century, until a split in 1931. A merger between the Liberals and the Social Democratic Party in 1988 led to the title Social and Liberal Democrats. At present they are simply known as Liberal Democrats, or LibDems.
Perhaps the greatest difference between the two systems for the purposes of the story of Caledonia concerns the way legislation is passed.
In the House of Commons, the legislative agenda is entirely determined by the majority party. Only the majority party may introduce legislation. Thus, because voting is usually carried out en bloc rather than individually, passage of this legislation is virtually automatic. The minority parties occupy a role chiefly limited to adversarial debate—attempting to sway public opinion and sow seeds, both of discontent with the government’s policies and support for its own, that may be harvested during the next general election—but without much actual power, insofar as daily affairs are concerned, on the floor of the House of Commons itself.
The legislative agenda of the majority party is generally determined in advance. The prime minister gathers his or her cabinet and party leaders toward the end of each summer’s recess and into early fall in order to plan their legislative strategy for the following parliamentary session. This strategy is coalesced into a specific agenda, which is then given to the monarch.
Parliament is officially opened in late October or early November by the King or Queen, who reads a speech outlining what his or her “government” (the party in power) will seek to accomplish in the following session, as prescribed by the prime minister. The Commons “sits” for about 160 days a year, a period broken into various periods and lasting from the monarch’s speech until late July or early August. The points of a given year’s agenda, as given in the monarch’s speech, thus provide the legislative program that, in the term that follows, the majority party will proceed to carry out, bringing bills before Parliament and passing them into law.
When one party holds more than fifty percent of the total number of MPs in the House of Commons, the task of passing its agenda is relatively straightforward. If such is not the case, however, a “minority” or “coalition government” must be formed. This involves creating a coalition of two or more parties to form an absolute majority, the prime minister being the leader of the largest of these. In such a case, the coalition must be held together at every vote, or else the government falls.
In the British parliamentary system, the ruling party or coalition and the prime minister as its leader must remain capable of passing its predetermined legislation. This is one of the significant differences between the American and British systems. In the United Kingdom, bills must pass.
If the opposition calls for a vote on a given bill and manages to defeat it (because of defection within the government or within one of the coalition parties), the prime minister’s party loses the power and therefore the right to rule. The government is dissolved and elections are announced, to be held within thirty days. MPs return to their constituencies to campaign, the former prime minister included. Opponents from other parties may then enter these parliamentary races against them.
The significance of these elections lies in the total number of MPs seated by each party. Whichever party gains the majority of elected MPs from all the constituencies in the United Kingdom (based, as in the U.S. House of Representatives, on geographic distribution of population, with each member representing 6
0,000 or 70,000 voters) is formally invited by the monarch to “form a government.” That winning party—which may be the same party that was in power before or a different one altogether—must then seek to establish a majority that will be capable of ruling and passing its legislation. This may entail a change in the majority party or require a coalition realignment, and may result in a new prime minister or a shift in the numerical configuration of the parties in Parliament—any or all of which may resolve whatever conflict prevented the pre-election government from being able to pass the bill and which forced the election.
A coalition government (as is the fictional case in this book) may be able to rule effectively. If such is not the case, the prime minister may choose to call for new elections if he or she thinks it likely that another vote will increase his party’s plurality to a majority. Elections held in February of 1974 resulted in a Labour plurality of 301 seats, short of an outright majority in the 635-seat House of Commons. Labour was unable to form a coalition government from amongst the smaller parties and thus called for new elections in October of that same year. The second election supplied Labour with eighteen additional seats, bringing their total numbers to 319 and giving Labour an absolute majority. Labour was then able to rule for the entire five-year term.
A bill comes up for formal “reading” three times on the floor of the Commons. Since passage is a foregone conclusion in most cases, bills are only “voted” upon (after the second reading and debate) when called for by the opposition. A vote is called a division. When one is called, all members of Parliament rise and “divide,” exiting the Commons chamber into the lobby through one of two doors. Exiting through the door on the prime minister’s side of the aisle to his right (where the prime minister and government are seated, the prime minister and cabinet on the front bench and the rest of the majority party on the back benches behind them) signifies an aye vote. Exiting through the door on the opposition side (where the opposition leaders and shadow cabinet occupy the front bench) signifies a no.
A division usually takes about ten minutes, and there are on average one or two divisions daily. It is rare for an MP to cross the aisle and divide with the opposition. When this does occur, it may signal that a prime minister is losing the support of his own party and that his majority may be in danger.
Nationwide elections are held at least every five years, at a specific date chosen by the prime minister. He or she must call for an election at least every five years, which is the official elected “term” for MPs, though the prime minister may do so sooner, as explained above, if to do so suits his or her purpose.
The sitting prime minister may call for new elections (called “going to the country”) at any time, even if a bill has not been defeated or if the five years have not yet elapsed. He or she may do so for various reasons. For instance, the mood of the country may have become even more supportive of the prime minister’s party’s objectives and priorities since the previous election. If going to the country for new elections will return his or her party an even greater majority and enable the government to rule all the more easily without opposition, the prime minister may call for elections.
On the other hand, the prime minister may feel that support for his party is slipping. To wait another two or three years for the next scheduled election could mean serious defeat and loss of power, while an election now might enable him to retain power for an additional five years. For this very different reason, therefore, the prime minister may choose to dissolve Parliament and call for new elections.
Prior to elections (however precipitated) each party must announce to the public a five-year Manifesto, or legislative program. These Manifestos, which are published in the first week of a campaign, set forth the priorities and policies of each party and form the basis of the legislation which the victorious party will later attempt to pass.
Manifestos resemble the “Contract with America” set forth by the Republican Party prior to the 1994 U.S. Congressional elections. Unlike traditional American party “platforms,” which have always meant little or nothing, the prepublished manifestos in the United Kingdom largely determine the legislative agenda of the party that wins the elections and then establishes a government. Elections in Great Britain, therefore, can be more reflective of public sentiment than those in the United States, where image and money often weigh more heavily than specific political persuasion.
The prime minister and his cabinet, in the years following an election, will prioritize the issues, setting certain items for passage during each parliamentary session. These then form the substance of the party’s agenda, which is given to the monarch and forms the basis of his or her speech at the opening of Parliament.
To be passed into law, therefore, any bill or issue or cause (such as devolution and Scottish independence) must go through a number of important stages, each taking it one step closer to actual debate on the Commons floor. It must first be included as a Manifesto item of the majority party prior to a general election. Then it must be brought to the front burner, so to speak, by being included in the monarch’s speech for the present-session’s legislative agenda.
Yet this is only the beginning. For then the prime minister must actually bring the issue before the House of Commons for reading, debate, and passage. The setting of the specific legislative schedule is entirely determined by the prime minister. At any of these junctures, he or she may opt to let the matter lay dormant and not actively pursue its passage. All bills not completed during a given session of Parliament lapse. Unless they are reintroduced as part of the agenda for the next session, they will be abandoned.
The issue of Scottish nationalism and the political push for home rule, as related in Caledonia, is one that regularly surfaces in the parliamentary debates of the United Kingdom. It has been an issue in British politics for centuries. There are at present three specifically Scottish parties, each reflecting differing views with respect to Scotland’s future: the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Scottish Liberal Democratic Party, and the Scottish National Party.
For many years after its union with England (The Act of Union, 1707) and the dissolution of Scotland’s parliament, there was little or no discussion of Scottish independence. But thoughts of the ancient kingdom began gradually again to resurface. In 1853 was founded a National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights. In 1884 the Scottish Grand Committee was set up to consider Scottish bills, and two years later the Scottish Home Rule Association was established.
During the rule of Liberal governments in the early years of the twentieth century, frequent “government of Scotland” bills were put before Parliament. A new Home Rule Association was formed in 1917. When the Labour party rose to prominence, it gave lip service to the idea of home rule for Scotland but did nothing about its promises once it was in office.
A steady number of home rule bills were introduced through the 1920s, though without any chance of any becoming law. No others appeared thereafter until 1966. The Liberal Party was the only party to show significant interest in the Scottish home rule question, yet its influence in parliamentary affairs dwindled as the century progressed to near negligibility.
The National Party of Scotland was formed in 1928, advocating complete separation from the United Kingdom. A more moderate Scottish Party was founded in 1932. Neither made much of a showing in the general elections, however, and in 1934 they joined and became the Scottish National Party, or SNP, which has existed until the present day.
The SNP had little national impact until 1959, when it garnered over 21,000 votes, though without seating any MPs in the House of Commons. Sentiment grew quickly over the fifteen years that followed. The vote total in general elections mounted rapidly, reaching an astonishing peak, in the second election of 1974, of 839,617 total votes. That election sent eleven Scottish Nationalists to the House of Commons. SNP support dropped in the two general elections following 1974, but this downward trend proved temporary, gradually revers
ing itself over the course of the next three elections.
Support for the cause of Scottish nationalism has continued to rise since then as the world in general has witnessed a downward shift of power, or “devolution,” from centralized and/or imperial governments toward regional administrations. Prime Minister John Major’s return of the Stone of Scone to Edinburgh in 1996, on the seven hundredth anniversary of its removal to England, reflected this national shift of sentiment, as did the Devolution Referendum of 1997, which indicated a high level of popular support for local rule in Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. Seventy-four percent of those Scots who turned out for the referendum voted in favor of devolution and the establishment of a Scottish parliament.
In accordance with the clear direction of public thought, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labour government, elected in 1997, initiated a process of devolution that resulted in elected assemblies for Northern Ireland and Wales and an elected parliament for Scotland. These regional governing bodies have legislative power over all “devolved matters,” though Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland continue to seat MPs in the national Parliament in Westminster. As this book went to press, however, the specifics of jurisdiction and representation between these various legislative bodies were still being hotly debated.
The first elections for the ministers in the new Scottish parliament took place in May of 1999. In general the new parliament is expected to have power in the areas of health, education, economic development, environment, law, and local government.
There are some, however, notably in Scotland, who are far from satisfied with devolution and who continue to call for full independence from the United Kingdom. Whether their voice will grow—and whether their nationalistic cause eventually comes to represent a majority of Scots—remains for history to determine.
Notes and Bibliography
Legend of the Celtic Stone Page 60