Political Focus, with Bill Jacobs

THE creation of a Scottish Parliament brings a constitutional minefield for the Queen, begging the question of how often she will open it.

Four main areas promise bitter constitutional battles between Edinburgh and Westminster. The most obvious when an Act of the Scottish Parliament in direct conflict with UK government policy comes for Royal Assent.

The second is when she is asked to make a Queen's Speech in Edinburgh announcing policies contradicting those she outlines at Westminster.

This begs the question of whether she should open the Scottish Assembly on a regular basis and, if so, whether she should make a full "Gracious Speech" outlining the Edinburgh Executive's detailed policies as she does in the House of Lords for every full session of Parliament.

The final area is how she chooses the First Minister of Scotland under a proportional representation system in which means most elections will produce a "hung' Parliament.

This is of particular significance because neither Buckingham Palace nor the main political parties want Scotland to set a binding precedent for "hung" Westminster Parliaments - especially if PR comes in for UK elections and brings regular inconclusive results.

Already a team of constitutional experts at the Palace, Westminster and the Scottish Office are understood to be examining these thorny issues. The first problem is the most pressing.

While there are procedures to resolve whether an issue is within Edinburgh's competence, there is no mechanism to sort out problems where it legislates in explicit conflict with UK government policy.

While some possible flashpoints such as abortion and drug policy have been reserved to Westminster, other areas supposedly open to the Scottish Parliament offer plenty of opportunity for clashes.

These include Scotland reintroducing the death penalty for murder, holding a referendum on independence, banning invitro fertilisation or legalising euthanasia. The first two are clear policy flashpoints. The latter two offer the prospect of large numbers of people moving across the border to take advantage of different NHS service.

If Edinburgh advised the Queen to give the Royal Assent and Downing Street to withhold it, she would face a dreadful dilemma.

The betting is she would follow the UK Prime Minister and risk a huge row North of the Border and a constitutional crisis.

A similar dilemma faces the Queen if her speech to the Edinburgh Parliament contradicts the speech at Westminster.

But as she has already made totally conflicting speeches in policy terms over her long reign, the odds are that she would go ahead and risk ridicule when the two are compared or spliced together by the TV people.

This brings in the third element - what should she do about opening the Scottish Parliament.

Unlike the Welsh devolution White Paper which says: "The Assembly will be a Crown Body. The Government envisages that Her Majesty the Queen or Her representative would formally open the Assembly after each election," it's Scottish equivalent says nothing. Senior sources say the government would "expect the Queen to open the Scottish Parliament" but how often and how is understood to be under intense discussion at the moment.

Should she merely open the first session and metaphorically smash a bottle of champagne over its bows or should she open every full session with a proper Queen's Speech?

Should she chart a middle course and either open the first session after each election or should she open each session but leave outlining the policy programme to the First Minister?

The final question seems the most arcane but could have the most wide ranging and long term significance.

As the Scottish Parliament is normally likely to be "hung", with no party having overall control because of its additional member PR system, the Presiding Office and the Palace will have to develop rules for the Queen's method of choosing the First Minister.

But Royal and government advisers don't want this "custom and practice" in Edinburgh to become a precedent binding the Monarch for the UK Parliament. Although Scottish and English law are different, legal precedents have hopped across the Border before and on such an important constitutional issue could well do so in this case.

While under the current "first past the post system" hung Parliament's happen once in a blue moon, if PR was adopted after a referendum what happens in Scotland could prove to be very important indeed.

On all these matters no decisions have been taken and the finest constitutional minds that Buckingham Palace, Downing Street, and Westminster can muster are working on the problems.

But it does prove - as the Tories, Scottish Nationalists and Tam Dalyell claim - that making devolution within the United Kingdom work is a much more complex matter than the current government likes to admit.

Just as Blackburn MP and Home Secretary Jack Straw feared.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.