The UK Government has a number of honours committees - UK Honours Committees - to consider nominations for honours. Remember it is the United Kingdom Honours Committee and the Head of State of that kingdom is the Her Majesty the Queen, and it is she who confers the honour. Whether she can veto a nomination from the Committees, and whether she has ever done so is unknown. My guess is that she theoretically has a veto, has never exercised it formally, but that her views are known to the Committees well before the formal recommendation is made.
Since I do not stalk the corridors of power and am never to be seen in the inner sanctums, my speculation is worth precisely nothing. But I can say one thing with absolute confidence - since the Queen approves the honour and confers it, she has, de facto, given her approval and endorsement to the person receiving it. If I may choose a completely uncontroversial example, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II laid her sword on the shoulder of commoner Brian Souter and made him a Knight of the Realm, Sir Brian Souter, and in doing so gave her Royal approval to the man and to the reasons advanced for his nomination.
Does Cathy Jamieson MP, or the Labour Party in Scotland wish to challenge that?
Brian Souter is controversial because of his views on gays and what he calls the promotion of homosexuality.
Does Cathy Jamieson MP, or the Labour Party, suggest that Her Majesty the Queen is anti-gay, and a fundamentalist Christian because she knighted Brain Souter, successful businessman and a major contributor to the Scottish and UK economies?
The civil servant who wrote to Cathy Jamieson said that the Scottish Government nominated Brian Souter. The Scottish Government says that it was the Independent Honours Committee of the Scottish Government who nominated him, presumably to the relevant UK Honours Committee.
Who nominated Brian Souter to the Independent Honours Committee of the Scottish Government? Or did they just come up with his name on their own initiative, go online and nominate him to the UK Committee, just as any citizen or group may apparently do?
The UK Honours Committee online site - Nominations to UK Honours Committees - offers helpful advice to those considering a nomination -
Before you make your nomination, ask yourself the following questions. Has your nominee:
- made a difference to their community or field of work?
- brought distinction to British life and enhanced its reputation?
- exemplified the best sustained and selfless voluntary service?
- demonstrated innovation and entrepreneurship?
- carried the respect of their peers?
- changed things, with an emphasis on achievement?
- improved the lot of those less able to help themselves?
- displayed moral courage and vision in making and delivering tough choices?
The question arises - who nominated Brian Souter to the Independent Honours Committee, and for what reasons?
Did Brian Souter, now Sir Brian Souter, meet any or all of these criteria?
Clearly, the person or persons making the original nomination to the Scottish Independent Honours Committee (who was not a minister of the Scottish Government since they are debarred from doing so) thought so.
Clearly, the Scottish Independent Honours Committee (whoever they are, because I’m buggered if I can find out!) thought so, because they submitted the nomination to the UK Committee.
Clearly, the UK Honours Committee thought so, because they submitted their recommendation to Her Majesty.
Clearly, Her Majesty the Queen thought so, because she didn’t veto the nomination, and duly dubbed commoner Brian Souter knight - making him Sir Brian.
But Cathy Jamieson MP doesn’t think he deserves his knighthood, and questions the process and its integrity, and so does the Scottish Labour Party, and for all we know, Ed Miliband.
I applaud Cathy Jamieson’s courage - some may say her foolhardiness - in questioning the judgement of the UK Honours System, and implicitly of the Queen herself, and therefore the Union that the Labour Party is pledged to uphold. This is indeed political bravery of a kind rarely in evidence, least of all in the Labour Party.
This ancient system, the bedrock of the imposing edifice of unelected power, birth and privilege that protects the UK from the worst excesses of democracy and the electorate, has been fooled all the way along the line, and only the perspicacity of Cathy Jamieson MP can save it.
Surely this is worth a Damehood and a seat in the Lords?
But a last question, one that I asked yesterday -
Why is the Scottish National Party getting involved at all in a system that is designed, in everything it does, to protect and embed a non-elected power structure that is totally and utterly hostile to the values and objective of the SNP?
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS
Does Cathy Jamieson MP, or the Labour Party in Scotland wish to challenge the Queen’s decision to knight Brian Souter?
Does Cathy Jamieson MP, or the Labour Party, suggest that Her Majesty the Queen is anti-gay, and a fundamentalist Christian because she knighted Brian Souter, successful businessman and a major contributor to the Scottish and UK economies?
Who nominated Brian Souter to the Scottish Independent Honours Committee, and for what reasons?
Did Brian Souter, now Sir Brian Souter, meet any or all of the UK Honours Committee’s criteria for nomination?
Why is the Scottish National Party getting involved at all in a system that is designed, in everything it does, to protect and embed a non-elected power structure that is totally and utterly hostile to the values and objective of the SNP?
Posts
Peter, what evidence do you have of SNP involvement in the UK Honours System? From my reading the Honours Committee of the Scottish Government is entirely staffed by civil servants, and I have seen no evidence that Sir Brian's nomination came from the SNP.
ReplyDeleteI would have thought 'the evidence' was patently evident from the fact that it is a committee of The Scottish Government,Holebender - which has been the SNP since 2007 - and that the SNP government merely modified the Committees remit to exclude recommendations from ministers, instead of abolishing it completely.
ReplyDeleteBut if you have evidence that the SNP government are opposed to the honours system and do not intend to cooperate with it, or have stated their opposition to it publicly in any forum or publication, I will be happy to publish it on my blog.
Thanks for your comment.
Holebender, maybe this - received after your comment, courtesy of Jim at scotsindependent.org - will be helpful in clarifying the SNP's position -
ReplyDeleteEXTRACT
The Parliamentary Answer showing that SNP Ministers had chosen not to exercise the right to approve the recommendations by the Permanent Secretary is as follows:
Question S3W-21587 - George Foulkes ( Lothians ) (Scottish Labour ) (Date Lodged 04/03/2009 ) : To ask the Scottish Executive what the arrangements are in Scotland for consideration of nominations for honours and what changes there have been since May 2007.
Answered by John Swinney ( 25/03/2009 ): Nominations are received from a variety of sources, including members of the public, outside organisations and Lord-Lieutenants. Prior to May 2007, Scottish ministers added their own nominations to those from other sources. Nominations from all sources are initially assessed by Scottish Government officials who assist the Permanent Secretary in preparing recommendations for the UK-wide selection committees to consider. Since May 2007, the First Minister has chosen not to exercise the right to approve the recommendations by the Permanent Secretary. The UK-wide selection committees submit their recommendations to HM The Queen through the Prime Minister.
Peter, are you saying that the civil servants employed by the Scottish government are required to be members of the SNP?
ReplyDeleteGod knows where you got that idea, J.R. Not from anything I said or implied. As you are doubtless well aware, the Civil Service and civil servants are required to be apolitical.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am saying is that they are employed and paid by government, and their functions and committees exist because government, i.e those with a majority in the Parliament, decide that they should or accept their continuance.
The government has the capacity to create or dissolve a civil service committee through Parliamentary action - that is my understanding. If you understand differently, or believe that civil servants and functions exist independently of the elected government's fiat, let me know.
While it would come as a great relief to public servants whose roles and jobs are threatened by Westminster budget cuts were that the case, I fear that it is not.
But I have no monopoly of wisdom, I am often wrong, and I am happy to be corrected when I am.