STANDING ORDERS (Hansard, 12 May 1998)

§ Mr. Canavan
I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 10, line 5, at end insert—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 125, in clause 79, page 36, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 37.

§ Mr. Canavan
Clause 79 places a statutory obligation on all persons returned as Members of the Scottish Parliament to take the oath of allegiance, and forbids Members from taking part in any of the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament until such time as the Member takes that oath of allegiance. I assume that the oath of allegiance which is referred to in the Bill is the same as the one taken by Members of this House, who swear to be faithful and to bear true allegiance to the monarch, her heirs and successors.
Standing Order No. 5 of this House states: 233 Every person returned as a Member of this House may make and subscribe a solemn affirmation in the form prescribed by statute instead of taking an oath. In other words, if people have religious or other convictions whereby they feel that they cannot take the oath of allegiance, it is open to them to make an affirmation rather than to take that oath—although, of course, to make that affirmation is also solemnly to declare to be faithful and to bear true allegiance to the monarch, her heirs and successors.
The amendment would ensure that there was no statutory requirement on any elected Member of the Scottish Parliament to take any oath or, indeed, to make any affirmation. It would include in the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament a request—I emphasise that—that all Members make an affirmation. The wording of that affirmation would be the same as that of the Claim of Right, acknowledging the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. That Claim of Right was signed by members of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, including those Labour and Liberal Democrat Members of the House of Commons representing Scottish constituencies who took part in the convention's inaugural meeting in 1989. The sovereignty of the people is surely the basis of any genuine democracy.

§ Mr. Jenkin
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Canavan
I am pleased to hear the shadow Minister saying, "Hear, hear." We are Members of the House because we were elected by the people. Therefore, our allegiance should be to the people rather than to any king or queen.

§ Mr. Jenkin
When the President of the United States takes office, he swears an oath of allegiance not to the people, but to the constitution of the United States. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the United States is not a democracy because of that?

§ Mr. Canavan
Unlike the United States, this country does not have a written constitution. In any case, the United States constitution acknowledges the sovereignty of the people.
The Scottish Parliament will, I hope, be representative of the people of Scotland as a whole; it will represent the pluralist nature of Scottish society. It may include Members who are royalist and those who are republican; it may include Members who are atheist or agnostic and those who believe in God—in that category, there may be people of different beliefs. They will have in common the fact that they were elected by the people—therefore, they should have allegiance to the people. The amendment would not place a strict obligation on Members to subscribe to the Claim of Right. If, because of royalist or Unionist convictions, Members refused to affirm the Claim of Right, they would not be prevented from taking their seats—the amendment represents a request rather than an obligation.
Nevertheless, I hope that all Members of the Scottish Parliament—and, indeed, all Members of the House of Commons—will acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best 234 suited to their needs. That was the basic democratic principle agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which did much of the preparatory work to the Bill and to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. It is, therefore, appropriate that all Members of the Scottish Parliament be requested to acknowledge that principle.

§ Mr. Jenkin
The amendments go to the heart of the likely consequences of the Bill.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar)
Ah!

§ Mr. Jenkin
I hear the Secretary of State saying, "Ah!" in a knowing way, perhaps because I am giving him satisfaction by behaving—as he would think—predictably.

§ Mr. Dewar
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Jenkin
The right hon. Gentleman seems to agree. The constitutional effects of the Bill cannot be legislated for. However much we should like to think that the legal technicalities will determine the future politics of Scotland, that will not be the case—as is nowhere better illustrated than by the amendment, which refers to the Claim of Right.
8.15 pm
The Claim of Right—unsurprisingly, given its antecedents—reflects a mediaeval view of sovereignty. Sovereignty is not a question of deciding whether the rulers or the ruled are sovereign. The sovereignty of Parliament does not negate the sovereignty of the people; it reflects an agreement between people, collectively and individually, that their sovereignty is vested in our constitution, so that laws can be made and agreed to with the authority and consent of the people.

§ Mr. Salmond
If that is the case, why are United Kingdom referendums consultative rather than binding?

§ Mr. Jenkin
That is a matter for Parliament; Parliament could make a referendum result binding rather than consultative. In any sovereign state—whether a republic or a constitutional monarchy—the authority of the people is vested in the constitution, and the rules of that constitution are the supreme law of that state. People need rules to live together in harmony, and a set of rules is needed on how to make and interpret those rules. Whether a constitution is written or unwritten, the rules of the constitution are the supreme law of the state.

§ Mr. Salmond
Would not it assist people if the rules in a constitution were written rather than—as in the United Kingdom—unwritten?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We are drifting away from the amendment.

§ Mr. Jenkin
I totally agree with your interpretation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is irrelevant whether a constitution is written or unwritten—a constitution is the supreme 235 authority of the land until it is overthrown by the people, in a revolution or through some other extra-constitutional event.
In that respect, all constitutions are sovereign. We swear allegiance to the Queen in the same way as the President of the United States swears his oath of office to the constitution. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is right to say that the constitution of the United States explicitly acknowledges the sovereignty of the people, but the British constitution operates in such a way as implicity to acknowledge the sovereignty of the people, as the laws of this country are made in Parliament—they cannot be made without at least the indirect consent of the people.
The Queen is at the heart of our constitution. Indeed, the question at the heart of the Bill is, "Who are the people?" The Claim of Right is inherently nationalist, not because it sets the people against the Westminster Parliament—that dualism does not exist—but because it sets the Scottish people against the peoples of the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is interesting to note that the only individuals elected to this Parliament who refuse to swear an oath acknowledging the sovereignty of Her Majesty are Sinn Fein Members, who cannot take their seats. That exposes their real intention: up to now, they have wanted to overthrow the constitutional order in which they refuse to participate.
The Bill assumes that the seats of those who refuse to take the oath of allegiance will fall vacant. That allows the dangerous possibility that those who refuse to swear allegiance to the democratic constitution of this Union, by swearing allegiance to the Queen, may be repeatedly unseated and re-elected. That is a flaw in the Bill. We should have a system whereby people who refuse to swear allegiance to Her Majesty are prevented from taking their seats, but those seats are not available to be contested unless they resign.
The Secretary of State and his colleagues will tell us that the Claim of Right need not be a nationalistic claim, and that that is demonstrated by the fact that the Scottish people voted for a Scottish Parliament in a Unionist settlement. That is the premise on which all Unionists will seek to build in the future but, as the amendments demonstrate, that view is not universally held by those who are likely to take part in the Scottish Parliament.
In the final analysis, although sovereignty can technically be legislated for, power flows where it will, and in a constitution in which sovereignty derives from the people, the process and flux of politics will determine whether the Scottish people will regard the continuing sovereignty of this Parliament as legitimate or whether the new legal supremacy of Parliament will become an empty shell. The amendments could make Parliament's sovereignty a supremacy that it dare not exercise in defiance of the Scottish Parliament.
For the Union to continue to work—for Holyrood and Westminster to operate effectively together—the Scottish Parliament will need to acknowledge the sovereignty of this Parliament, which is reaffirmed by clause 27(7), but by signing the Claim of Right Ministers have created an expectation of something different. The logic of clause 27(7) is allegiance to the Crown but, by supping with nationalism and aiding and abetting its resentments, Ministers have given credibility to the suggestion that sovereignty permanently lies elsewhere.
236 If the Claim of Right was right for the Scottish Constitutional Convention when the Secretary of State signed it, why is it not right for the oath of allegiance in the Bill? The answer is that the Claim of Right is not compatible with this Parliament's sovereignty or with the Unionism that Ministers claim to espouse.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I have the feeling that Ministers are not exuding gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for having tabled the amendment, because it means that they have to answer the question whether they believe in the Claim of Right, and that is a very direct question. As one who failed to sign the Claim of Right, I am entitled to ask that important question. I notice that the co-signatory to the amendment is the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the black bitch himself, who called me a scarecrow and, what is worse, an old scarecrow. This old scarecrow is entitled to ask precisely what is Her Majesty's Ministers' updated position on the Claim of Right.

§ Mr. Salmond
I am sure that I called the hon. Gentleman a scaremonger, not a scarecrow, but I know that he never says anything that he does not believe to be true. Yesterday, I was called on by the Edinburgh Evening News to respond to his suggestion that there should be another referendum in Scotland and that the question should be: "Are you sure that you want to vote for a Scottish Parliament?" For the first time in my political career, I was speechless; but he knows that I respect his integrity. He was indeed the only Labour Member not to sign the Claim of Right, which is encapsulated in the splendid amendment.
I am somewhat bemused by the line taken by the official Opposition. All my political life I have been taught and have believed that there is a tension between the concept of popular sovereignty—sovereignty of the people—and the uniquely British concept of the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) started his speech by saying that there was no such tension, and finished it by saying that there was a tension between the Claim of Right asserting popular sovereignty in Scotland and the concept of the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament.
There has been a continuing thread through Scottish political thought that emphasises the sovereignty of the people, which is not necessarily in conflict with the monarchy. Many would argue that the declaration of Arbroath promulgated the concept of an elective monarchy. It said, and I paraphrase because I do not have it off by heart, that if good King Robert did not defend the rights and responsibilities of the community of the realm, we could get rid of him and have someone else as the monarch. Monarchy and popular sovereignty are not necessarily in conflict. The question is which has primacy.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and I believe that the sovereignty of the people should have primacy, so the oath of affirmation and the fundamental loyalty of the Members of the Scottish Parliament should be to the well-being of the Scottish people, from whom they derive whatever authority and responsibility they have.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I am led to believe that they may do so by the answer that the Secretary of State gave me almost a year ago. He said: 237 Even though the hon. Gentleman"— he was talking about me— and I may have differences of interpretation, I hope that he will accept that I should be the last to challenge the sovereignty of the people or deny them the right to opt for any solution to the constitutional question that they wish."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 725.] That is a solid affirmation in support of the affirmation called for in the amendment.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West is splendidly consistent and has argued robustly for many years for a particular position on the constitutional question. There are those in his party who tell me that the nearest that he will get to being a Member of the Scottish Parliament is the visitors' gallery. That would be a great pity for that Parliament. I hope that whoever determines such matters in his party will find the wisdom to allow him to stand. Having argued the cause for many years, he has the right to be there. Whatever happens to this splendid, small but critical amendment, we can be certain that he will affirm the values for which he has stood consistently in Scottish politics for many years. Would that others had his consistency of position on the sovereignty of the people of Scotland.

§ Mr. Swayne
I have great difficulty even with the language of the amendment. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that the oath was to be voluntary. The amendment says: every member elected to the Scottish Parliament to be requested to make the following affirmation", but that is preceded by the phrase, The standing orders shall include a requirement for". There is merely a requirement that everyone should be asked to take the oath. However, the phrase that follows the oath reads: and no other affirmation or oath shall be required of members of the Scottish Parliament. In other words, that oath is "required". There seems to be a contradiction between the two halves of the amendment.
It strikes me as extraordinary that an oath should be required to be put to Members of the Scottish Parliament, but that they should not be required to take it. What is the purpose of an oath? It is similar to the purpose of a creed. If one goes to church and says the creed, one expresses one's identity and membership of that institution. If one cannot say the creed, one by definition excludes oneself from the Church.
8.30 pm
By specifying an oath for Members of the Scottish Parliament, we are asking them to subscribe to fundamental propositions inherent in the nature of that Parliament. If they cannot do that, they will disqualify themselves, just as hon. Members who refuse to take the oath in the House disqualify themselves from sitting here. They are unable to subscribe to the fundamental consensus that underpins this institution. I fail to see why that should be different in Scotland.
I will go further. To put a proposition to Members of the Scottish Parliament that is fundamentally different from the one put to hon. Members here would be most 238 unsatisfactory. The Bill was put to us on the basis that we would remain a united kingdom. The Bill was supposed to protect the Union. As far as I am concerned, nothing could be more symbolic of the Union than the fact that the two Parliaments would remain united under the Crown, which would be symbolised by having Members of both Parliaments take the same oath.
Giving Members of the Scottish Parliament a very different oath—whether or not it is voluntary—would be most regrettable, although I fear that it may merely be a recognition of the true state of affairs.

§ Mr. Gorrie
The amendment raises two points. One is an issue that affects the House. Perfectly worthy citizens who hold republican views must, in effect, perjure themselves by swearing an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty. That strikes me as extraordinarily demeaning, and we should address it.

§ Mr. Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman should not regard it as demeaning. It is not a religion to swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen; it is simply a recognition that that state of affairs has the broad consent of the population. The hon. Gentleman may wish to change that, but it is the framework within which to seek to pursue change. To swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen is not to declare that one is a royalist.

§ Mr. Gorrie
With respect, I think that it is. Compelling people to swear things that they do not believe is not the sort of thing that we should do. It does not affect me, but I feel for those for whom it matters.

§ Mr. Alasdair Morgan
Has the hon. Gentleman reflected on why an oath is necessary at all? No elected councillor or Member of the European Parliament swears an oath, yet they seem perfectly capable of carrying out their functions. What difference does it make?

§ Mr. Gorrie
I agree. I do not think that an oath is necessary. Either one behaves well, or one does not; no oath will make any difference.
Some Conservative Members seem to feel that the amendment is an independence amendment. They feel that one can sign the Claim of Right only if one favours independence, but that is not true. The people have sovereign power; even the Conservative party accepts that, and numerous Conservatives have said over the years that if the Scottish people vote for independence, they will have independence. The concept of the sovereignty of the people is accepted, but the Conservatives seem to have extraordinary difficulty with devolution, which seems to be a sort of gastric block somewhere in their tubes. That is their problem, and they must deal with it.
The Conservatives accept the sovereignty of the people. Those who signed the Claim of Right, and believe in it, feel that the Scottish people have clearly said that they want a Parliament of their own, but in the United Kingdom. If at some future date a majority say that they want an independent Parliament, that will doubtless happen, but for now the Claim of Right seems reasonable.
Whether the best way in which to proceed is to have a requested oath, I do not know, but the motives behind it are admirable. I do not see why people should have to swear oaths, but if they do, an acknowledgement of the sovereign rights of the Scottish people is a good thing.

§ Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest)
Some hon. Members have suggested that the Government might 239 consider accepting the amendment. I sincerely hope that they do not, for three good reasons. First, the Government cannot accept, or even consider accepting, the amendment if they insist that their plans for devolution are designed to strengthen, not weaken, the Union.

§ Mr. Salmond
Will the hon. Lady give way?

§ Mrs. Laing
I have hardly started, but I will stop and start again.

§ Mr. Salmond
The hon. Lady may hardly have started, but she has made an important point. Is she aware that Ministers, including the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, have already signed such a declaration, in the Claim of Right? Why on earth should they refuse to accept it in the Bill?

§ Mr. Collins
That is their problem.

§ Mrs. Laing
That is indeed their problem, but I take the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I believe that it was irresponsible and short-sighted for any hon. Member to sign the so-called Claim of Right—except for members of his party, who really believe in republicanism and a separate Scotland. If, however, the Government insist, as they do, that their plans for devolution are intended to strengthen the Union, they cannot—no matter what they have signed, under whatever misapprehension—accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Salmond
Perhaps I can tell the hon. Lady a little bit of history. The Scottish National party did not, in fact, sign the Claim of Right, although we believed in it; the question is whether those who did sign it believed in it.

§ Mrs. Laing
I thank the hon. Gentleman for enlightening us with that little bit of history, as he called it, but we are discussing the serious matter of what will actually be in the Bill. What may or may not have been signed in the past—and I know that we can go all the way back to the declaration of Arbroath and so on and so forth—is very interesting in its historical context, but it is not relevant to the future of Scotland. We are discussing that future, and what will actually be in the Bill.
The amendment is ludicrous for three reasons. First, it would be a complete negation of the United Kingdom. I know that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan would like that to happen, but I did not know that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) had aligned himself to such an extent with the Scottish National party. That is entirely up to him, of course, and I accept that he believes in his arguments. However, the rest of his party cannot possibly believe in them. Not only is the amendment a negation of the Union; it negates the position of Her Majesty the Queen as the sovereign in whom we, as an elected Parliament, vest our democratic and constitutional rights.

§ Mr. Salmond
One last intervention. In her memoirs, "The Downing Street Years", Lady Thatcher said that if the Scottish people were to determine on independence, no English politician, certainly not herself, would gainsay 240 that decision. I paraphrase, but is that not an affirmation from the great Lady Thatcher of the right of sovereignty of the Scottish people?

§ Mrs. Laing
I appreciate that that is a paraphrase and not exactly what she said, but it is close. I accept that, and, of course, I entirely agree with it. There is nothing wrong with that, but that is not what we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman strays from the point, and I am being too generous in accepting his interventions. Naturally, Lady Thatcher was right. I choose my words carefully. That is why I agree with her and that is why we are not in principle against devolution because it is the will of the Scottish people.
The first reason why the amendment cannot be accepted is that it negates the sovereignty of Her Majesty the Queen, which we vest in her as an elected parliamentary body.

§ Mr. Collins
My hon. Friend is making a wonderful speech and demonstrating that there is another Conservative woman who is naturally always right. Will she focus on why it is beneficial to those who believe in democracy to vest sovereignty in the monarch? Dictators across the years, from Hitler to Stalin to Saddam Hussein, have all paid lip service to popular sovereignty. Only by having a sovereign above and outside politics can we ensure that we have smooth-running, democratic politics and no risk of dictatorship.

§ Mrs. Laing
My hon. Friend is right. It is because of the risk of dictatorship and other forms of republicanism that we are proud of our heritage and our constitution, which has at its head Her Majesty the Queen as the sovereign in Parliament. She is not the sovereign alone, but the sovereign in Parliament in making the laws of our country. My hon. Friend's other remarks are probably the nicest thing that anyone has ever said to me.

§ Mr. Salmond
That will not get you anywhere these days.

§ Mrs. Laing
That is all I am admitting to anyway.
Secondly, the amendment is an atheist's charter. I respect the rights of anyone who wishes to be an atheist. It is up to each of us personally whether and how we believe in God, or which god we believe in. However, if the amendment were accepted, Members of the Scottish Parliament would have no choice but to make the affirmation. That is out of character with our democratic system. When Members come to this House, they are given the choice of swearing the oath of allegiance by almighty God or affirming. The amendment would mean that MSPs had no choice.
When I took the oath of allegiance a year ago, I heard two new lady Members of the Labour party discussing whether to swear or affirm. One said that she would not swear because she did not believe in God, but the other said that she was not sure whether she would affirm or swear. It amazed me that someone could go so far in life as to become an elected Labour Member without knowing whether she believed in God. Presumably, she was waiting for her bleeper to tell her whether she was supposed to swear or affirm. She had been here for three days, but she had to wait for the "voice of Mr. Mandelson".
241 Thirdly, some MSPs would not be able to say the words in the amendment. I could not if I became an MSP, not that that is possible because I will not stand. The oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen is what binds the United Kingdom together. Members who support this amendment are merely showing, once and for all, that they are bent on the destruction of the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. McLeish
I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has finished, because, the more I listened to her, the more I might have been tempted to go astray on the amendment. I will resist that temptation.
We have to return to the pragmatic decision before us on the two amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), whose sincerity is never in doubt. I acknowledge the consistency with which he tabled certain amendments. The Government ask the House to resist amendments Nos. 106 and 125.
Provision has already been made in the Bill for all Members of the Scottish Parliament to take the oath of allegiance provided for by the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 or to make the corresponding affirmation. Members of the Executive will also be required to take the official oath under the 1868 Act and the oath of allegiance, where they have not already taken it as MSPs. That is in line with current practice at Westminster and recognises the relationship between the Parliament and Her Majesty, as has been noted in the debate.
Hon. Members will agree that clause 79 does nothing contentious. It simply makes a similar provision for the taking of the oath for Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive as is required of Members of this House and Ministers, which is entirely appropriate.

§ Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute)
The Minister talks about what happens when new Members are elected to the House of Commons. Will he confirm that the practice here whereby the oath can be taken in English, Gaelic or Welsh will be extended to allow the oath to be taken in English or Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament? I was the only Member who took it in Gaelic after the last general election. I hope that the practice will apply to the Scottish Parliament.

§ Mr. McLeish
That is interesting. We have established a constitutional consultative steering group and done considerable work on identifying virtually every issue that we need to discuss, but I am not sure that that is on the agenda. I assure the hon. Lady that that will happen. We need that consistency. It is a valid point. I will find out whether the point is covered in the deliberations; if it is not, it will be.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend. For clarity's sake, does this not mean, to use his word "simply", that the Government, rightly or wrongly, have recanted on the Claim of Right?

§ Mr. McLeish
Not at all. We have had a rich and heady mix of constitutional, governmental and parliamentary theory, but there is no inconsistency about the comments 242 of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the sovereignty of the people, to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) alluded. Nor is the signature of the Claim of Right inconsistent with the points that we are making this evening, in the context of Parliament and of taking the oath.
Hon. Members would no doubt also agree that it is proper that MSPs and members of the Executive take an oath that is symbolic of the relationship between the Parliament, the Executive and Her Majesty.

§ Mr. Jenkin
I asked the Minister two specific questions, neither of which he has troubled to answer. First, if it was right to sign the Claim of Right as a member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, why is not the Claim of Right the right oath for a Member of the Scottish Parliament? The Minister has not squared that circle. Does he want to deal with that first before I come back on my second point?

§ Mr. McLeish
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Jenkin
I generally dislike long interventions, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My second question refers to clause 79(3), which amendment No. 125 would delete and which states that, if an MSP has not taken the oath within the period of two months beginning with the day on which he was returned, or such longer period … he shall cease to be a member of the Parliament (so that his seat is vacant). Does the Minister understand what a crisis that provision would cause if it applied to this Parliament, with Sinn Fein Members refusing to take the oath and being re-elected again and again on a platform that was designed to undermine the constitution?

§ Mr. McLeish
On the second point, we have no difficulties with that whatsoever. That is a pragmatic response to a question that, in our judgment, is not relevant.
On the question of the Claim of Right, I alluded to that in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). We do not want to indulge in further political and constitutional theory, but I see no inconsistency between the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in response to comments often made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, nor do I see any inconsistency in relation to the constitutional convention. However, we are now dealing with the simple, consistent matter of taking an oath in the new Parliament, and I urge the House to reject the two amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West.

§ Mr. Canavan
I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Minister is recommending rejection of my amendments, because he and I were original signatories of the Claim of Right back in 1989, at the inaugural meeting of the Scottish Constitutional Convention in the assembly hall of the Church of Scotland in The Mound in Edinburgh. I should have thought that, for reasons of consistency if nothing else, he would support my amendment No. 106. Indeed, the Secretary of State and all the Scottish Office Ministers were co-signatories of the 243 Claim of Right and I deliberately worded my amendment so that its wording was exactly the same as that of the declaration that we all signed nine years ago.

§ Mr. Jenkin
Perhaps to be consistent with Government policy, MSPs should take both oaths of allegiance—to the Queen and to the Scottish people. I do not suggest that that is Opposition policy, but it might have tempted the Minister, as that appears to be his position.

§ Mr. Canavan
Under the terms of my amendment, there would be a choice. I would not exclude people who, because of royalist or Unionist convictions, felt that the Claim of Right stuck in their craw. I cannot understand why it should stick in their craw if they are democrats, but, if it did and they refused to take the oath, I would not be in favour of excluding them. Conservative Members appeared to suggest that the practice in the House somehow gives Members of Parliament a choice, but the only choice is to come up after being elected and either take the oath or take the affirmation. If a Member of Parliament refuses both, he or she is not allowed to take part in the proceedings of the House and I should not like to see that replicated in the Scottish Parliament.
The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) rightly referred to the possibility of a crisis—not a huge constitutional crisis, but a mini-crisis—if a Member or group of Members duly elected by their constituencies refused to take the oath. Clause 79(3) states that, if an MSP has not taken the oath within the period of two months beginning with the day on which he was returned, or such longer period as the Parliament may have allowed before the end of that period, he shall cease to be a member of the Parliament (so that his seat is vacant). In other words, he or she can then go back to the constituency that elected him or her and seek re-election through a by-election. There could be a whole group of people coming in and out of the Parliament whom the Parliament refused to allow to take their seats because they had not taken the oath. If my amendments were accepted, that would help to avoid such a crisis, so I hope that the hon. Member for North Essex and the rest of the Opposition Front-Bench team will support me.

§ Mr. Salmond
The hon. Gentleman is coming to the point that crystallises the wisdom of his amendment. Current procedures of the House have led to the state of affairs in which Ministers of the Crown cross their fingers when taking the oath. Under the arrangements in his amendments, it would be left to the Scottish people to decide the fate of anyone who refused to swear allegiance to, or to affirm, the sovereignty of the Scottish people. The hon. Gentleman's solution is a far more democratic solution and is greatly superior to the procedures of the House.

§ Mr. Canavan
I agree. The democratic principles enshrined in the Claim of Right would have more universal appeal than the principles, if they can be called principles, in the proposed oath—assuming that the proposed oath is the same as the one that we are required to take when taking our seats in the House. I know some people of a republican persuasion who, when taking the oath or affirming, simply acknowledge that the Queen is the de facto Head of State, but who would like this 244 country to have a democratically elected Head of State, rather than a Head of State who has simply inherited that position from her parent.
Some Members, especially new Members, who do not particularly believe in the monarchy might have some crisis of conscience over taking the oath or affirming. That would be avoided by doing away with the requirement completely. I realise that we are talking not about this place—although I would welcome such a development here as well—but about the Scottish Parliament and people taking their seats there.
The criticism of my amendment included the point that it posed a threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom—I believe that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said that. What is the United Kingdom? Is it, as its name suggests, simply the domain of a monarch? If so, is that really what people are defending when they defend the integrity of the United Kingdom? I should have thought that, if there is an argument for the defence of the United Kingdom, it would be in terms of the bonds of friendship and culture and the social and economic links between the different parts of the United Kingdom. I should not have thought that it was simply a matter of allegiance to the Head of State.

§ Mrs. Laing
Is not the sovereign the symbolic point of focus for those ties and friendship? It is a united kingdom, with a sovereign at the top. That is why the oath of allegiance is the one oath that binds every person in the United Kingdom, symbolically, to the sovereign.

§ Mr. Canavan
If the hon. Lady is saying that, if what is now called the United Kingdom developed into a republic, its integrity would somehow be demolished, that is rather a weak argument for the integrity of the United Kingdom. The Queen is also head of the Commonwealth, but it contains many countries that are republics and do not have the Queen as their Head of State.
The hon. Member for North Essex said that the Claim of Right was inherently nationalist. It is not nationalist in a narrow-minded sense. I am sure that most, if not all, of those who subscribe to the Claim of Right for Scotland would also recognise the claim of right of other nations, including those that make up the United Kingdom, particularly Wales and England. There ought to be recognition of other nations' claims of right, as well as of that of the people of Scotland.
I was disappointed to hear the shadow Minister saying that the Claim of Right is somehow mediaeval. I would say that the sovereignty of monarchs, rather than of the people, is a mediaeval concept. The sovereignty of the people is much more relevant to a modern, egalitarian democracy.
Amendment negatived.