THERE are many traditions which I’m sure the readers of The National enjoy. These can include singing Auld Lang Syne at the Bells or even eating haggis on Burns’ Night (although vegetarian versions are apparently now acceptable). Traditions such as these have been long established and are well respected.

In some ways traditions can be important, they can help to define a community and create a sense of continuation. They can also provide a link between the past, the present and even into the future.

However, there is a time when traditions simply get in the way. As a new Member of Parliament I have seen first hand that there are a few traditions in the House of Commons which really should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

For example, one of the first problems the SNP MPs encountered in Parliament was the apparent ban on clapping those who make good speeches. The Speaker made it clear that such behaviour – common in most societies across the world – was unacceptable. Apparently showing your appreciation of a good speech by clapping could interrupt speakers or prolong debates.

Instead, we can only show our approval by waving order papers or braying like donkeys – although it has been pointed out that clapping speakers in certain occasions has been deemed acceptable, such as the final speech of Tony Blair or the re-election of the current Speaker!

The debate on the Scotland Bill earlier this week also highlighted to me, and to those who watched the debate, that when traditions get in the way of proper parliamentary procedure – of the ability of MPs to fully represent their constituents – then it is time for these traditions to be ditched.

Unlike the Scottish Parliament where new rules and procedures had to be thought out and put in place, Westminster relies on a series of rules about etiquette and tradition built up over the centuries that leave many observers (and new MPs) wondering what is actually going on. The debate on the Scotland Bill highlighted how these traditions conspired to limit the scrutiny of this piece of legislation.

The Scotland Bill is meant to be a result of not just the recommendations of the Smith Commission but also a reflection of the promises made in the infamous “Vow” in the final days of the referendum campaign. According to its promoters, this Bill is meant to transfer real power to the Scottish Parliament so it should have been given enough time for all MPs to scrutinise it and the impact it would have on Scotland.

Yet the debate was limited, with various Tory and Labour MPs using parliamentary traditions to stifle any real examination.

There were already concerns about the Bill, so much so that the Tory government added about 80 amendments to it, resulting in around 200 amendments and new clauses being added in total – although no amendments from any opposition parties were taken. This meant that MPs had 76 pages of material to consider but the time for this was already being cut short.

However, that didn’t stop Tory and Labour MPs conspiring to filibuster the debate.

This is the technique of deliberately wasting time during a debate to limit effective scrutiny of legislation. One example was a Labour MP from Nottingham who spoke for around 30 minutes, spending most of his time talking about wanting devolution for England. He also used the tactic of taking as many interventions as possible – to extend the time he took up, barely talking about the actual Scotland Bill.

And he was not alone. A series of Labour and Tory MPs took turns to do likewise as the old Commons tradition of alternating speakers from the two main parties took place, despite only a dozen or so from each party being present for most of the debate.

SNP MPs had to contend with coming in after each of the two main Unionist parties had spoken or resorting to interventions to get a point across. In any modern Parliament such actions would be curtailed. For instance, in the Scottish Parliament members have a set time limit for speeches, which is often shortened if there are lots of MSPs wanting to speak in a particular debate. Yet in Westminster the right to drone on endlessly – even if it is not directly related to the topic of the debate – is seen as more important than the proper scrutiny of legislation!

Another tradition which limits debate and the time available to effectively scrutinise legislation is the archaic voting procedure. Instead of using electronic voting, MPs have to get up off their seats (or return from their offices – or the nearest bar) to traipse through a corridor to have their vote recorded. In the case of the Scotland Bill, the green benches were bereft of Tory and Labour MPs yet as soon as a vote was called hordes of members appeared from nowhere to wander through the voting lobbies. Each vote can take up to 20 minutes, so add a few of these together and the time left over for scrutiny, to ask ministers questions or to raise important points is drastically cut short.

When the traditions of Parliament, whether it’s the voting procedure or the filibuster, are used to stifle debate, to limit representation and to restrict scrutiny of legislation, it is clear that they are preventing Westminster from being a fully functioning parliament.

In one of my first interviews on becoming an MP I said that “Westminster has to choose between being a museum or a functional parliament”. It seems the longer I’m there the more I feel that the traditions of Westminster are holding that Parliament back from acting in the best interests of the people we are meant to represent. In that respect the traditions of Westminster mean it acts more as a museum rather than an effective Parliament.