Memorandum by Michael Lister (HON 10)
It is in your capacity as Chairman of the Commons
Public Administration Committee that I write to you. I understand
the honours system is to be reviewed with the intention of providing
greater transparency and a greater independent input to the awards
process, and as a supporter of the system I naturally welcome
this review.
For some years now, I have followed with great
interest the publication of the twice-yearly lists and since the
welcome "aggiornamento" introduced during one of the
Major administrations, opening up the route for public nominations,
I have put forward a number of nominations myself in favour of
various visual artists, writers and musicians for services to
the arts in Scotland.
At the same time, I have also naturally taken
an interest in the allocation of senior honours (CBE and above)
awarded for contributions to national life in relation to Scotland
and for Scottish achievement, and I have carried out a little
research into the allocation and distribution of awards in the
past fifty years or so.
From a sample of lists from the years 1950,
1951, 1970, 1990, 2000 and 2001, and in relation to the distribution
of senior honours, what very much emerges is that Scottish endeavour
and achievement are much less visibly acknowledged and rewarded
in the higher awards. This would suggest that Scottish achievement
is conspicuously less distinctive and less significant to national
life than contributions from other parts of the United Kingdom.
(In this regard, I would acknowledge that in Northern Ireland
the over-all distribution of awards is quite different again,
and this must remain a matter for another day!)
While I have raised these concerns previously
with the Honours Secretariat of The Scottish Executive, with various
Secretaries of State for Scotland and with the previous Cabinet
Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, only did Sir Richard begin to engage
seriously with the issues raised and responded with openness.
Responses from other government ministries or departments ranged
from the ludicrous to avowed ignorance, and in one instance feigned
hurt!
Nor may I add that am I alone in my concerns.
Only a couple of years ago, at the close of a splendid recital
given during the Edinburgh International Festival, I approached
an acquaintance, a very senior Scottish academic administrator,
to ask for his support for a nomination for a UK national honour
for a certain Scottish composer. This eminent academic cast his
eyes to the heavens and sighed, saying he did not hold out much
hope, as, in his experience, the Scottish Office (as was) was
singularly lacking in confidence in promoting at Whitehall Scottish
interests in the Lists and the new Executive was likewise afflicted.
Such a belief does not encourage an optimistic outlook.
My intention in writing to you is to ask for
the Scottish dimension to be taken into fuller consideration in
the review of the honours system. (The OM has only one Scot, the
Order of the CH none at all; Scotland has, I believe, only three
DBEs. While there may even have been in recent Lists disproportionately
higher allocations of MBE's for Scottish endeavour, what is to
be extrapolated from that? This question is, of course, rhetorical!)
May I suggest that relative population may be one means by which
awards across the UK are to be allocated but it is too brutal
a means for the distribution of senior honours, particularly in
relation to Scottish endeavour and achievement.
While the UK national honours system has principally
a rewarding function, it also has a unifying function. The way
the system appears to operate in relation to Scotland can be seen
to be disunifying.
January 2004
THE NEW YEAR HONOURS, 2001
|
| Rest of UK
| Scotland | percentage
|
|
| Privy Counsellor | 4
| NIL | |
| Companion of Honour | 2
| NIL | |
| Knights Bachelor | 25
| 1 | 4.0%
|
| GCB | 1 |
NIL | |
| KCB | 2 |
NIL | |
| CMG | 4 |
NIL | |
| CB | 9 |
NIL | |
| DBE | 7 |
NIL | |
| CBE | 103 |
11 | 10.6%
|
| OBE | 233 |
24 | 10.3%
|
|
Source: www.cabinet-office.gov.uk
THE BIRTHDAY HONOURS, 2000
|
| Rest of UK
| Scotland | percentage
|
|
| Knights Bachelor | 25
| 2 | 8.0%
|
| KCB | 2 |
NIL | |
| CB | 12 |
1 | 8.0%
|
| CMG | 2 |
NIL | |
| GBE | 1 |
NIL | |
| DBE | 6 |
NIL | |
| KBE | 1 |
NIL | |
| CBE | 103 |
13 | 12.6%
|
| OBE | 237 |
23 | 9.7%
|
|
Source: www.cabinet-office.gov.uk
THE NEW YEAR HONOURS, 1990
|
| Rest of UK
| Scotland | percentage
|
|
| Life Peers | 3
| NIL | |
| Privy Counsellor | 3
| NIL | |
| Knights Bachelor | 29
| 1 | 3.4%
|
| CB | 17 |
1 | 5.8%
|
| CMG | 2 |
NIL | |
| GBE | 1 |
NIL | |
| DBE | 2 |
NIL | |
| KBE | 1 |
1 | 50.0%
|
| CBE | 100 |
7 | 7.0%
|
|
Source: The Times, 30 December 1989
THE NEW YEAR HONOURS, 1970
|
| Rest of UK
| Scotland | percentage
|
|
| Life Peers | 4
| NIL | |
| Companion of Honour | 2
| NIL | |
| Privy Counsellor | 4
| NIL | |
| Knights Bachelor | 29
| 1 | 3.4%
|
| KCB | 3 |
NIL | |
| CB | 14 |
1 | 7.0%
|
| GCMG | 1 |
NIL | |
| KCMG | 1 |
NIL | |
| CMG | 2 |
NIL | |
| GBE | 1 |
NIL | |
| DBE | 2 |
NIL | |
| KBE | NIL |
1 | 100.0%
|
| CBE | 92 |
6 | 6.5%
|
|
Source: The Times, 1 January 1970
THE NEW YEAR HONOURS, 1951
|
| Rest of UK
| Scotland | percentage
|
|
| Life Peers | 2
| NIL | |
| Privy Counsellor | 3
| NIL | |
| Knights Bachelor | 23
| 2 | 8.6%
|
| GCB | 1 |
NIL | |
| KCB | 3 |
NIL | |
| CB | 19 |
1 | 5.2%
|
| Order of Merit | 2
| NIL | |
| KCMG | 1 |
NIL | |
| CMG | 10 |
NIL | |
| GBE | 1 |
NIL | |
| DBE | 2 |
NIL | |
| KBE | 7 |
NIL | |
| CBE | 105 |
5 | 4.7%
|
|
Source: The London Gazette of Friday 29 December 1950 for
Monday1 January 1951, No 39104
THE NEW YEAR HONOURS, 1950
|
| Rest of UK
| Scotland | percentage
|
|
| Viscounts | 1
| NIL | |
| Barons | 5
| 1 | 20.0%
|
| Privy Counsellor | 3
| NIL | |
| Knights Bachelor | 27
| 1 | 3.7%
|
| GCB | 1 |
NIL | |
| KCB | 4 |
NIL | |
| CB | 20 |
1 | 5.0%
|
| GBE | 2 |
NIL | |
| DBE | 2 |
NIL | |
| KBE | 4 |
NIL | |
| CBE | 92 |
11 | 11.9%
|
|
Source: The Times, 2 January 1950
January 2004
|
