A private member’s bill which sought to establish a Scottish parliament was defeated on 9 May 1924, after its opponents successfully “talked it out”, sparking furious protests from Scottish Labour MPs and forcing the speaker to adjourn the House of Commons.

***

The Scottish Home Rule Association (SHRA) was formed in 1886 to campaign for devolved self-government for Scotland. It expressed support for the principle of “Home Rule All Round”, reflecting the approach advanced by the Liberal prime minister William Ewart Gladstone in relation to Ireland.

Gladstone’s mission to legislate for home rule was thwarted first in the commons (1886) and then in the House of Lords (1892). But an Irish legislature was eventually approved in the Government of Ireland Act 1914 – the first UK law providing for devolved government – and then delivered, on different terms, by the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

The Government of Scotland Bill, introduced by Independent Labour Party (ILP) MP for Gorbals George Buchanan proposed a unicameral (single-chamber) Scottish parliament with wide-ranging powers over domestic affairs. The bill, based on the Government of Ireland Act 1914, proposed that only control of the army and navy, foreign affairs, the Post Office and excise and customs would remain reserved at the Westminster parliament.

All other matters would be controlled by the new Scottish legislature – a quasi-federal settlement.

According to the bill, the proposed parliament would be composed of 148 members, elected under the existing network of parliamentary constituencies, with each returning two representatives. The bill maintained that Scotland would keep its existing representation in the House of Commons. This situation would only alter once a wider scheme of devolution was agreed for the whole of Great Britain (home rule all round), at which point the English matters would be considered in an English parliament.

***

The bill’s introduction coincided with the dawn of the first Labour government under Ramsay MacDonald as prime minister. The Labour movement had emerged as the largest political force in Scotland at the 1922 and 1923 general elections. MacDonald, who was president of the London branch of the SHRA before the First World War, was seen as an ally.

However, MacDonald’s ministry lacked an overall majority in the House of Commons, and many of its MPs were hesitant to support or prioritise a Scottish home rule scheme.

Buchanan, introducing his bill to parliament, argued that there was a “real demand for self-government in Scotland at the present time.”

He added: “It may not be a characteristic of the Scottish race to make their demands in the same way as, say, the Irish people, but nevertheless, while their methods may differ and their steps may alter, the Scottish people are as sincere, and for the most part as anxious, for this measure as even our friends in Ireland were for their own form of government.”

Making the case for the proposed legislation, Buchanan contended that the “imperial parliament” at Westminster was so overwhelmed with business that it could not give adequate time or attention to specifically Scottish problems.

He warned that if this “mild, meagre measure” was not conceded, it would be replaced by a demand for a much bolder one, invoking the recent history of Ireland.

He told the House: “You had a situation in Ireland, where if, in 1910, or 1912, the legitimate and, if I may say so, the mild demands of Ireland had been granted, we should never have been faced with the catastrophe in Ireland with which we were afterwards faced.”

Buchanan also referenced the passage of a Government of Scotland Bill at second reading in May 1913 by 204 votes to 159. The bill, proposed by William Cowan, provided for the creation of a Scottish parliament but was thwarted by the outbreak of the First World War.

Tom Johnston, the Labour MP West Stirlingshire, spoke in support of Buchanan’s bill. He argued that the “historical and cultured traditions” of England and Scotland were different; “our racial characteristics are different. The Celt has long memories, the Englishman forgets quickly.”

Johnston invoked Robert Burns’ 1787 assertion that the “story of [William] Wallace poured a tide of Scottish prejudice into my veins which will boil along there till the floodgates of life shut in eternal rest”.

He added: “The word ‘international’ means ‘between nations’, and any political party in this House that seeks to destroy these national characteristics and diversities is doing something that is for the ill-being, and not for the well-being, of the British Empire.”

Sir John Baird, the Unionist MP for Glasgow Central, spoke in opposition to the bill. He said the “reactionary measure” would “put the clock back where it was in 1707[ [before the Acts of Union].”

Baird maintained that the Anglo-Scottish Union was “not only one of the best things that ever happened to Scotland, but one of the best things that ever happened to England or to the world, because it enabled the British race, instead of fighting… [to] spread civilisation throughout the world to an extent that no other race has done, and it would not have been possible unless Englishmen and Scotsmen had been working hand in hand together.”

He also dismissed the bill as poorly drafted. “If [proponents of the bill] really want to treat this as a serious measure”, he said, “they might put that degree of care into the drafting of the bill which we are entitled to expect from something that is cared about.”

During the May 1924 debate, the Labour government did indicate its lukewarm support for Buchanan’s measure. The secretary of state for Scotland, William Adamson, told MPs that the government agreed with the “general principle” of a home rule scheme and was prepared to appoint a committee to examine the issue.

***

When Adamson sat down just before the 4:00 pm deadline for private members’ business, supporters of the bill expected a vote to be called. But several Unionist MPs rose, indicating their desire to speak.

The well-mannered debate subsequently descended into chaos as Buchanan and his allies in the group of left-wing “Red Clydesider” MPs made repeated attempts to force a vote.

The commons speaker, John Henry Whitley, refused to accept these calls, basing his ruling on the grounds that there were still Unionist opponents of the bill who intended to speak.

John Sturrock, the Liberal MP for Montrose Burghs, who was subsequently selected to speak by the chair. Sturrock was booed and shouted down by chants of “divide, divide!”.

In the ensuing chaotic scenes, several MPs, including Buchanan, David Kirkwood and Neil Maclean, repeatedly refused to obey the speaker’s calls for order.

At the 4:00 pm cut-off, the speaker ruled that the debate stood adjourned and ordered the clerk to read the orders of the day.

Buchanan responded: “This is shameful.”

Kirkwood, the ILP MP for Dumbarton Burghs, protested: “There will be no orders read. You have no right, Mr. Speaker, to refuse the closure. I move the closure now.”

He added: “We have not been treated fairly. Where is the respect due to the House?”

Rising on a point of order, Maclean told the House: “I understood, when arrangements were made for this debate, that the closure was going to be accepted by you, Mr. Speaker… I should like to know, Sir, whether that was a correct understanding, and, if so, why it was not carried out?”

The speaker responded: “I cannot allow any right of honourable members to put such a question as that. It is perfectly true that it was my intention in the earlier part of the debate, but a right honourable member [former chancellor Sir Robert Horne] on the opposition side was not allowed to address the House”.

Maclean, the ILP MP for Govan, interjected: “That is not true!”

The speaker added: “I must point out to honourable members that as long as I am in this chair, I shall conduct my duties according to my own conscience.”

According to contemporary reports, Kirkwood then addressed Edward Turnour (Lord Winterton), the Conservative MP and former under-secretary of state for India. He asserted: “Ye are not treatin’ wi’ Indians, ye big long drink of water.”

On a further point of order, Maclean directed his remarks at Horne, declaring: “I was sitting listening to the debate all the time, and you were in the lobbies or in the bar.”

Maclean added: “My point of order is this: I understand that one of the members who was not in this debate until about an hour before the debate closed, rose to speak. He was not in the House at all, nor had he taken any part in the debate.”

The speaker dismissed Maclean’s representations, once more instructing the clerk to read the orders of the day.

Maclean hit back: “There will be no orders of the day!”.

***

At this point, Liberal MP James Hogge rose to challenge the speaker’s conduct and refused to resume his seat. Hogge had previously objected to the speaker’s decision to call a series of opposition frontbench spokespeople to address the debate.

The speaker responded: “The honourable member persists in defying the chair, and being of opinion that grave disorder has arisen in the House, I adjourn the House, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order No 21.”

Kirkwood, speaking after sitting’s end at 4:10 pm, commented: “So you didn’t get your orders of the day after all.”

Maclean added: “And this is only the beginning of the end of your parliament.”

The government, to the dismay of home rule campaigners, refused to allocate additional parliamentary time to consideration of the bill. Nor was it referred to a royal commission or a commons committee.

The episode shook the confidence of SHRA campaigners in the Labour Party as a vehicle for advancing the home rule cause. The dawn of the first Labour government under MacDonald had enthused the movement, elevated expectations and directly provoked Buchanan’s bill.

The failure of the bill precipitated a reassessment of the strategy pursued by the Scottish Home Rule Association. In the aftermath, the organisation proposed the adoption of obstruction by sympathetic parliamentarians.

Meanwhile, the SHRA concentrated on its policy to convene an extra-parliamentary constitutional convention to consider the case and scheme for a Scottish parliament. The Scottish convention was assembled on 15 November 1924 with only seven MPs present. The convention proposed a scheme of home rule that would have seen Scottish MPs withdraw from Westminster, a measure which differed from Buchanan’s bill. “Imperial matters”, it was proposed, would be scrutinised by an Imperial council, to which the Scottish home rule executive would contribute. Home rule/devolution campaigners would struggle over this issue, later referred to as the “West Lothian question”, for decades to come.

The failure of the convention and disillusionment within the SHRA animated calls for a national party to contest elections as a means of putting pressure on MPs. Following the failure of another home rule bill in May 1927, proposed this time by Reverend James Barr, a new ‘Scottish National Party group’ within the SHRA declared its intention to take independent action.

National Party of Scotland (NPS) was formed of members of the Scottish National League, the Scottish National Movement, the Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association and disaffected members of the SHRA. Its inaugural rally on 23 June 1928 featured a platform including Glasgow University student leader John MacCormick.

The SHRA officially wound up on 13 April 1929 against a backdrop of division and uncertainty.

In 1934, the NPS merged with the Scots National League to form the Scottish National Party (SNP).