DOCSLIB.ORG

The Parliament (No. 2) Bill: Victim of the Labour

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Parliament (No. 2) Bill: Victim of the Labour THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL The Parliament (No. 2) Bill: Victim of the Labour Party's Constitutional Conservatism? being a Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Hull by Lavi David Green B.A. (Hons), M.A. September 2019 That a major bill to remove hereditary peers, and to reconstitute the basis of membership for the upper House, should have received all-party endorsement, been introduced as a Government bill, received a comfortable majority at second reading, then been abandoned in committee, was remarkable. Donald Shell1 The idea of reducing its powers was, in a vague kind of way, official Labour policy. What I was primarily concerned with, however, was to place its composition on a rational footing. Such a project, one might think, would commend itself to all Liberals and Socialists, if it involved eliminating or at least much reducing the hereditary element … In fact, the position was, from the beginning and throughout, much more complex. Lord Longford2 1 D. Shell (2006) ‘Parliamentary Reform’ in P. Dorey (ed.) The Labour Governments 1964–1970, Lon- don: Routledge, p.168 2 F. Longford (1974) The Grain of Wheat, London: Collins, pp.33-4 ABSTRACT This thesis assesses the failure of the UK House of Commons to pass an item of legislation: the Parliament (No. 2) Bill 1968. The Bill was an attempt by the Labour Government 1964- 70 at wholesale reform of the House of Lords. Government bills would normally pass without difficulty, but this Bill had to be withdrawn by the Government at the Committee Stage in the Commons. While the Bill’s failure is often attributed to a backbench filibuster, this was a necessary but not sufficient cause for the failure. The filibustering would have been overcome if the Bill was supported enthusiastically by a larger number of the Labour backbenchers. The Labour Party had an attachment to the Westminster Model of British Government. Within this constitutional conservatism, there was a conservative standpoint on the House of Lords which consisted of three tenets: firstly, the Lords’ existing anachronistic/irrational composition was considered as preferable to a rationalised composition, since this protected the supremacy of the House of Commons; secondly, it was thought that a Labour Government should be focussing on economic and social reform, rather than on Lords reform; thirdly, there was a distinct lack of theory, or theorising, on the Second Chamber qua Second Chamber, which was based on the Labour Party’s empirical, atheoretical, and pragmatic approach in general. The Parliament (No. 2) Bill was intended to appeal to the Labour Party on the basis of a range of selling-points: 1) abolishing the Lords’ hereditary basis, 2) abolishing the Lords’ capacity to impede the Commons, 3) strengthening the Commons’ scrutinising functions, 4) technocratic reform of the governance institutions, and 5) modernising Parliament as part of a wider institutional modernisation. The thesis concludes that these selling-points were insufficient to overcome the Labour Party’s conservatism on Lords reform, grounded as it was in a broader constitutional conservatism, and that this overall conservatism was the principal cause for the Bill’s failure. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There is a long and varied list of people who made some form of a contribution to the success of this PhD. Starting with the two largest contributors. Firstly, my supervisor Lord Norton of Louth. What an honour it was to receive the tutelage of someone who is indisputably at the forefront of the field. Not only that, but he showed me a forbearance and diligence without which I am certain this PhD would not have been completed. Secondly, my dear mother, without whose support (financial, moral, and I suppose biological) this PhD would never have even been started. How does she put up with me? Other family members also helped by Skyping/e-mailing me with advice and reassurance, or by accommodating me while I accessed archives. A special mention to my cousin, Dr. Ilan Kelman, who showed a genuine concern over a long period of time. Several academics (non-familial!) also assisted with general support or by answering my awkward questions – I wonder where they found the time? A special mention to Dr. Kevin Hickson with whom I spent hours discussing the sometimes-inscrutable ideology of the Labour Party. My two examiners, Dr. Matt Beech (internal) and Prof. Pete Dorey (external), deserve to be acknowledged: I can only imagine how much time it must take to forensically read through a PhD and draw-up a list of questions on it. There are also the countless librarians and archivists who helped with obtaining obscure and long- forgotten-about items. Their work is often overlooked but is crucial. The Labour MPs and Civil Servants from the time who agreed to be interviewed were indeed able to show an impressive power of memory (there were also those who tried to recollect but were understandably unable). I am grateful to all those listed here, and my apologies to all those who I have omitted. CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Historical Context.......................................................................................... 40 The Labour Party’s standpoint on Lords reform 1945-1964 Chapter 3: Labour Party Ideology (1) ............................................................................. 62 Linear ideological spectrum: Revisionist Right, Labour Left, & Centre Philosophical strands: Fabianism & Labourism Annual Conference Chapter 4: Labour Party Ideology (2) ............................................................................. 91 Party Leadership – Technocratic Collectivism Chapter 5: Developing the Bill (1) ................................................................................ 121 Ministerial Committee Chapter 6: Developing the Bill (2) ................................................................................ 153 Inter-Party Conference Southern Rhodesia Order incident Reconstituted Ministerial Committee Chapter 7: The Cabinet’s standpoint on the Bill ........................................................... 186 Chapter 8: The PLP’s standpoint on the Bill/The Parliamentary Passage of the Bill ... 224 Chapter 9: Conclusion ................................................................................................... 263 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 288 Appendices ......................................................................................................................... I 1 CHAPTER 1: Introduction Introduction After the 1966 general election, the Labour Party was returned to Office on the basis of a campaign whose focus was on radical reform e.g. “modernising obsolete procedures and institutions”.1 At the time, the House of Lords was composed overwhelmingly of hereditary peers – “at total variance with the socialist ideals of equality”2 – and contained a large majority for the Conservative Party. The Lords also held a one-year delaying power over principal legislation and a power of rejection over subordinate legislation. Dorey notes: For many Labour politicians, the most objectionable aspect of the House of Lords’ ability to delay legislation for one year has been the unelected and unaccountable character of the (hereditary) peers imbued with this power.3 Overall, it is explicable that the Labour Government 1966-70 would make an attempt at reforming the House of Lords, and indeed this attempt was embodied in the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. The provisions of the Bill included: reducing the delaying power over principal legislation, establishing a compositional majority for the Government of the day (and as such eliminating the Conservative Party’s in-built majority), and eliminating both the hereditary principle and the power of rejection over subordinate legislation. It is reasonable to expect that this Bill would be supported by the majority of the Labour backbenchers, and therefore that the Bill would proceed reasonably straightforwardly to Royal Assent.4 Indeed, the Bill received a Second Reading in the 1 The 1966 Labour Party manifesto – http://www.politicsresources.net/ (accessed 31st May 2016) 2 J. Silkin (1987) Changing Battlefields: The Challenge to the Labour Party, London: Hamilton, p.113 3 P. Dorey (2008a) The Labour Party and Constitutional Reform: A History of Constitutional Conservatism, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, p.138 4 Additionally, the Labour Government was elected in 1966 with a comfortable majority of nearly 100 seats. 2 Commons by a large majority of 150. However, during the Bill’s Committee Stage, a minority of backbenchers were able to filibuster the debates in order to obstruct the Bill’s progress, while the majority of the Labour backbenchers were not sufficiently enthusiastic to support the Bill in order to drive it forward. As a result, the Bill’s progress was extremely slow – it got bogged down – and the Government was forced to withdraw it. While the filibustering has entered into political folklore (it was led by the so-called ‘unholy alliance’ of Michael Foot and Enoch Powell), this thesis will demonstrate that the filibustering was a necessary but not sufficient cause for the Bill’s failure. As such, the pressing question to ask is: what can explain the lack of enthusiastic support from the majority of the Labour backbenchers? A thesis
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The News-Sentinel 1959
    The News-Sentinel 1959 Friday, January 2, 1959 Oliver H. Heckaman Oliver E. HECKAMAN, 73, R.R. 3, Argos, died at 1:40 p.m. Thursday at Parkview hospital, Plymouth, where he had been a patient since suffering a heart attack six days earlier. Mr. Heckaman, a farmer who had spent his entire life in Marshall county was born near Bremen, Oct. 3, 1885, the son of Samuel and Saraj BROCKER HECKAMAN. He had lived in Bremen, LaPaz and Argos. He was first married in 1904 to Chloe B. JONES, who died in 1944. In 1946 Mr. Heckaman was maried to Lois SWOVERLAND, who survives. Other survivors include three daughers, Mrs. Frank (Inez) THOMAS, LaPaz, and Mrs. Roger (Hope) WINTERS and Mrs. Glenn (Mary) STAFFORD, both of Portland, Ore.; four sons, William [HECKAMAN], Portland, Ore.; Herbert and David [HECKAMAN] of Lakeville and Oliver [HECKAMAN], Jr., Plymouth; fourteen grandchildren; eight great-grandchildren; three step-daughters, Mrs. Betty MAST, Nappanee, Mrs. Meril (Dorothy) OVERMYER, Plymouth, and Miss Margaret SWOVERLAND, at home; a stepson, Donald SWOVERLAND, at home; two step-grandchildren; a sister, Mrs. Ralph HUFF, Bremen, and two brothers, Monroe [HECKAMAN], Etna Green, and Charles [HECKAMAN], Beech, N.D. Services will be conducted at 2 p.m. Sunday by the Rev. Lester CLEVELAND of the Santa Anna Methodist church at the Grossman funeral home, Argos, where friends may call after 7 p.m. today. Burial will be in New Oak Hill cemetery, Plymouth. Martha V. Atkinson Fulton county’s 1959 traffic toll leaped to one killed and at least six injured Thursday, before the New Year was even a day old.
    [Show full text]
  • Documentary Research in Education, History and the Social Sciences
    Documentary Research in Education, History and the Social Sciences Documentary sources have become increasingly neglected in education and the social sciences, while historians use them but often take them for granted. This book seeks to emphasise their potential value and importance for an understanding of modern societies, while also recognising their limitations, and explores their relationship with other research strategies. This up-to-date examination of how to research and utilise documents analyses texts from the past and present, considering sources ranging from personal archives to online documents and including books, reports, official documents and printed media. This comprehensive analysis of the use of documents in research includes sections covering: • Analysing documents • Legal frameworks and ethical issues • Records and archives • Printed media and literature • Diaries, letters and autobiographies Documentary Research covers everything you need to know to make effective use of this important research technique and will be a valuable resource for all students, researchers and academics carrying out extensive research, particularly in the areas of education, history and the social sciences. Gary McCulloch is Brian Simon Professor of History of Education at the Institute of Education, University of London. Social Research and Educational Studies Series Series Editor: Professor Robert G.Burgess‚ Vice-Chancellor‚ University of Leicester 1 Strategies of Educational Research: Qualitative Methods Edited by Robert G.Burgess 2
    [Show full text]
  • The House of Lords in 2005: a More Representative and Assertive Chamber?
    The House of Lords in 2005: A More Representative and Assertive Chamber? By Meg Russell and Maria Sciara February 2006 ISBN: 1 903 903 47 5 Published by The Constitution Unit School of Public Policy UCL (University College London) 29–30 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU Tel: 020 7679 4977 Fax: 020 7679 4978 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/ ©The Constitution Unit, UCL 2006 This report is sold subject to the condition that is shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. First Published February 2006 2 Contents Preface............................................................................................................................................................1 Summary of key points................................................................................................................................3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................5 Lords reform doesn’t happen (again)........................................................................................................5 Changing composition: a more representative chamber? ......................................................................7 The Prevention of Terrorism
    [Show full text]
  • Oral Arguments
    ORAL ARGUMENTS MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC SI'ITINGS held or the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 4 ro 26 Jurre 1973 FlRST PUBLIC SITTING (4 VI 73, 3 p.m.) Present: Presidenr LACHS;Vice-Presideitf AMMOUN;J~~dges FORSTER, GROS, BENGZON,PETRÉN, ONYEAMA, IGNACIO-PINTO, DE CASTRO,MOROZOV, JIMÉNEZ DE ARÉCHAGA,SIR Humphrey WALDOCK,NAGEKORA SINGE, RUDA; Ji~dge ad hoc Sir Muhammad ZAFRULLAKHAN; Regisrrar AOUARONE. Also preseitt: Far tlre Covernnlenr of Pokisran: H.E. Mr. J. G. Kharas, Ambassadorof Pakistan to IheNetherlands, as Agent; Mr. S. T. Joshua, Secretary of Embassy, as Deputy-Agent; Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar, Attorney-General of Pakistan. as Clrief Counsel; Mr. Zahid Said, Deputy Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Govern- ment of Pakistan, as Cowtsel. PAKISTANI PRISONERS OF WAR OPENING OF THE ORAL PROCEEDLNGS The PRESIDENT: The Court meets today to consider the request for the indication of interim measures of protection, under Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Article 66 of the 1972 Rules of Court, filed by the Government of Pakistan on II May 1973, in the case concerning the Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War, brought by Pakistan against India. The proceedings in this case were begun by an Application by the Govern- ment of Pakistan, filed in the Registry of the Court on 11 May 1973'. The Application founds the jurisdiction of the Court on Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948, generally known as "the~ ~ Genocide~ Convention".
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Left's Views on Israel: from the Establishment of the Jewish State To
    ‘The Left’s Views on Israel: From the establishment of the Jewish state to the intifada’ Thesis submitted by June Edmunds for PhD examination at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 UMI Number: U615796 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615796 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 F 7377 POLITI 58^S8i ABSTRACT The British left has confronted a dilemma in forming its attitude towards Israel in the postwar period. The establishment of the Jewish state seemed to force people on the left to choose between competing nationalisms - Israeli, Arab and later, Palestinian. Over time, a number of key developments sharpened the dilemma. My central focus is the evolution of thinking about Israel and the Middle East in the British Labour Party. I examine four critical periods: the creation of Israel in 1948; the Suez war in 1956; the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and the 1980s, covering mainly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon but also the intifada. In each case, entrenched attitudes were called into question and longer-term shifts were triggered in the aftermath.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Conventions
    REPORT Parliamentary Conventions Jacqy Sharpe About the Author Jacqy Sharpe is a former Clerk in the House of Commons. Her period as Clerk of the Journals provided her with significant insight into the historical and contemporary context of parliamentary conventions and procedure. Message from the Author With thanks to Dr Andrew Blick, Sir David Beamish, Helen Irwin and Sir Malcolm Jack for their comments on drafts of this paper. The conclusions, and any errors or omissions, are, of course, the responsibility of the author. Parliamentary Conventions Executive Summary “General agreement or consent, as embodied in any accepted usage, standard, etc”1 “Rules of constitutional practice that are regarded as binding in operation, but not in law”2 “[B]inding rules of behaviour accepted by those at whom they are directed. A practice that is not invariable does not qualify.”3 A list of various conventions with a note on how, if at all, they, or the approaches to them, have lately been modified or changed: CONVENTION CURRENT POSITION Conventions relating to behaviour in the House of Commons Speaking in the House of Commons Members should address the House through the Chair Although both questioned and frequently breached, and refer to other Members in the third person, by the convention is generally accepted constituency or position. Except for opening speeches, maiden speeches and Accepted and generally observed where there is special reason for precision, Members should not read speeches, though they may refer to notes Attendance at debates Members
    [Show full text]
  • Thecoalition
    The Coalition Voters, Parties and Institutions Welcome to this interactive pdf version of The Coalition: Voters, Parties and Institutions Please note that in order to view this pdf as intended and to take full advantage of the interactive functions, we strongly recommend you open this document in Adobe Acrobat. Adobe Acrobat Reader is free to download and you can do so from the Adobe website (click to open webpage). Navigation • Each page includes a navigation bar with buttons to view the previous and next pages, along with a button to return to the contents page at any time • You can click on any of the titles on the contents page to take you directly to each article Figures • To examine any of the figures in more detail, you can click on the + button beside each figure to open a magnified view. You can also click on the diagram itself. To return to the full page view, click on the - button Weblinks and email addresses • All web links and email addresses are live links - you can click on them to open a website or new email <>contents The Coalition: Voters, Parties and Institutions Edited by: Hussein Kassim Charles Clarke Catherine Haddon <>contents Published 2012 Commissioned by School of Political, Social and International Studies University of East Anglia Norwich Design by Woolf Designs (www.woolfdesigns.co.uk) <>contents Introduction 03 The Coalition: Voters, Parties and Institutions Introduction The formation of the Conservative-Liberal In his opening paper, Bob Worcester discusses Democratic administration in May 2010 was a public opinion and support for the parties in major political event.
    [Show full text]
  • The UK's EU Vote
    BRUEGEL POLICY CONTRIBUTION ISSUE 2015/08 JUNE 2015 THE UK’S EU VOTE: THE 1975 PRECEDENT AND TODAY’S NEGOTIATIONS EMMANUEL MOURLON-DRUOL Highlights • The United Kingdom's European Union Referendum Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 28 May 2015, legislates for the holding of a referendum before 31 December 2017 on the UK’s continued EU membership. UK prime minister David Cameron is opening negotiations with other EU member states to try to obtain an EU reform deal that better suits UK interests. Both the negotiations and the out- come of the referendum pose major challenges for the UK and the EU. • It will not be the first time that a UK government has staged a referendum following a renegotiation of its terms of EU membership. The first such referendum took place on 5 June 1975 after nearly a year of renegotiations, and the ‘yes’ won with 67.2 percent of the vote. Notwithstanding obvious differences, the conduct of today’s renegotiations should bear in mind this precedent, and in particular consider (a) how much the UK government can get out of the negotiations, in particular with respect to potential Treaty changes; (b) why political marketing is central to the Telephone referendum’s outcome; (c) how the UK administration’s internal divisions risk derai- +32 2 227 4210 ling the negotiations; and (d) why the negotiations risk antagonising even the UK’s [email protected] best allies. www.bruegel.org Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol ([email protected]) is a Visiting Scholar at Bruegel, Fellow at the Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow and Visiting Professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutionalism in Britain and America
    NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 76 APRIL 2001 NumBER 1 SOVEREIGNTY IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: CONSTITUTIONALISM IN BRITAIN AND AMERICA LORD IRvu-m OF LAmG* In this James Madison Lectur4 the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, ob- serves that the American system of constitutional supremacy and judicial review shares many common features wid die British unvritten constitution'semphasis on parliamentarysovereignty widout judicial review. While the nvo systems are often described as polar opposites, Lord Irvine argues that both operate in a context of democratic government and translatesubstantially identical commitments to popu- lar sovereignty into distinc4 yet related, approachesto constitutionalism. INTRODUCTION "The American Constitutions," said Thomas Paine, "were to lib- erty, what a grammar is to language: they define its parts of speech, and practically construct them into syntax."1 The central role which was played by James Madison, whose memory this Lecture commem- orates, in the construction of the U.S. Constitution is too well known to require elaboration this evening. It suffices to note that, as one American commentator recently put it, Madison's championing of the amendment of the Constitution was an accomplishment which "enti- ties him to be remembered as father of the Bill of Rights even more ' 2 than as father of the Constitution. * Lord High Chancellor, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is the revised text of the thirty-first annual James Madison Lecture on Constitutional Law delivered at New York University School of Law on October 17, 2000. 1 Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1791), reprinted in Two Classics of the French Revolution 270, 334 (1989).
    [Show full text]
  • The Creative Industries and Cultural Politics in Britain from the 1960S to Cool Britannia1
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by edoc Publication server Published in: Christiane Eisenberg, Rita Gerlach and Christian Handke (eds.). Cultural Industries: The British Experience in International Perspective. 2006. Online. Humboldt University Berlin, Edoc- Server. Available: http://edoc.hu-berlin.de. ISBN 978-3-86004-203-8. ‘Not only a source of expenditure but a source of income’: The Creative Industries and Cultural Politics in Britain from the 1960s to Cool Britannia1 Lawrence Black Department of History, Durham University [email protected] Introduction Interrogating the cultural agenda of the Wilson government (1964-1970) seems relevant given the shifts assumed to characterise British cultural life in the 1960s. This paper does so by focusing on Jennie Lee’s tenure as Arts Minister. Besides debates about culture within the government and between it and various artistic communities, the paper highlights continuities (and differences) with later periods and notably New Labour’s seemingly novel advocacy of the creative economy. Lee’s 1965 White Paper, A Policy for the Arts – The First Steps, tallied with Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s modernizing homilies. It asserted that “in any civilized community the arts… must occupy a central place”; welcomed the prospect of “increasing automation bringing more leisure” and aligned itself “against the drabness, uniformity and joylessness of much of the social furniture we have inherited from the industrial revolution”, in favour of “making Britain a gayer and more cultivated country” (Cmnd. 2601 pars. 14, 91, 100). This echoed Wilson’s ‘white heat’ speech that saw in “scientific progress… the possibility of leisure on an unbelievable scale”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Speaker of the House of Commons: the Office and Its Holders Since 1945
    The Speaker of the House of Commons: The Office and Its Holders since 1945 Matthew William Laban Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2014 1 STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY I, Matthew William Laban, confirm that the research included within this thesis is my own work or that where it has been carried out in collaboration with, or supported by others, that this is duly acknowledged below and my contribution indicated. Previously published material is also acknowledged below. I attest that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge break any UK law, infringe any third party’s copyright or other intellectual Property Right, or contain any confidential material. I accept that the College has the right to use plagiarism detection software to check the electronic version of this thesis. I confirm that this thesis has not been previously submitted for the award of a degree by this or any other university. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. Signature: Date: Details of collaboration and publications: Laban, Matthew, Mr Speaker: The Office and the Individuals since 1945, (London, 2013). 2 ABSTRACT The post-war period has witnessed the Speakership of the House of Commons evolving from an important internal parliamentary office into one of the most recognised public roles in British political life. This historic office has not, however, been examined in any detail since Philip Laundy’s seminal work entitled The Office of Speaker published in 1964.
    [Show full text]
  • 'If You Build It, They Will Come' the Origins of Scotland's Country Parks
    ‘If you build it, they will come’ The Origins of Scotland’s Country Parks Volume 1 By: Phil Back A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Sheffield Faculty of Arts and Humanities Department of History May 2018 University of Sheffield: Department of History ‘If you build it, they will come’: The origins of Scotland’s Country Parks Phil Back Volume 1 Pollok Country Park, Glasgow (Author’s collection) Supervisors: Dr James Shaw, Dr Tim Baycroft, Dr Clare Griffiths and Dr Caoimhe Nic Dháibhéid Abstract Country parks emerged as a designated landscape type in the UK following legislation in the 1960s. Conceived initially as a solution to damaging impacts on the scenic and working countryside from visiting motorists, they were a response to alarmist forecasts of trends that would exacerbate these problems further. Although often mentioned in discussion of countryside policy, country parks have never been examined in depth in Scotland, where the applicability of this policy has generally been either ignored, or conflated with the experience of England & Wales. Yet recreational need in Scotland was very different, and requires specific examination, as does the solution provided. This thesis uses archive material, together with contemporary commentary, to explore countryside recreation policy in Scotland in the later twentieth century. It considers whether the factors influencing legislation in England & Wales were germane to Scotland as well, and whether the emergent Scottish policy reflected Scotland’s distinctive needs. The thesis explores the creation of the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the expectations placed upon it, together with its fundamental weaknesses.
    [Show full text]