300 years too long for adjournment

Published on Saturday 4 July 2009 19:54

WHEN watching Brian Taylor's interview with Winnie Ewing a few nights ago, I heard for the first time her explanation of why she chose to announce, at the Opening of the Scottish Parliament, that "The Scottish Parliament, adjourned on 23rd March 1707, is hereby reconvened".

Apparently one Robert McIntyre, the first ever SNP member, asked her on his deathbed to make sure this point was made when the Scottish Parliament was opened, because "it was never dissolved, only adjourned".

Now I do realise that when a man is imminently dying that is no time to engage him in dispute, and it is kinder to let him pass on with as quiet a mind as possible. But Winnie Ewing is still very much with us, and believes this herself. Today, at the ceremony to celebrate the 10th Anniversary of the Scottish Parliament, Alex Salmond repeated the assertion that it was reconvened.

We have all heard of long adjournments, but 300 years is ridiculous. At no time during the lifetimes of those who had been its members was it reconvened. That Parliament was so different from modern notions of an elected legislature, it is almost a different species. It had three parties, none of which exist today, sent there by a tiny, privileged electorate. It had no working-class male members, and no female ones of any class. I pointed out, during the debate on the Scotland Bill, that back then, if any woman had attempted to seek election to it, she would probably have been burned as a witch.

What is the point of pursuing this notion of a continuity that does not exist, and which contributes about as much to our present day concerns as worrying about where Mary Queen of Scots should be buried?

Maria Fyfe, Glasgow