THE Scottish Green Party yesterday entered the controversy over whether or not the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament should include any form of daily worship, writes Frances Horsburgh.

The party lent support to the Most Rev Richard Holloway, head of Scotland's Episcopal Church, who has been roundly criticised by other church leaders for proposing that the Parliament should avoid daily prayers and be careful to separate church and state.

The Greens said the Bishop had been right to spot the potential minefield that prayers could open up. They suggested that prayers for one religion should mean open access for all persuasions, no matter how obscure or offensive to others.

They also called for more debate about the wording of the oath which Scottish Parliamentarians would swear on taking their seats, saying it should include a promise to serve the people of Scotland.

Spokesperson Dr Nina Baker said: ''Our Parliament is rightly expected to contain members from the widest possible range of the Scottish community. If this turns out to include Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, and atheists, not to mention anything odder, how do they propose to accommodate their 'prayers' without giving offence to other groups.

''What if a Satanist happened to get a seat?''

Dr Baker added that if prayers were felt necessary by individuals, it was reasonable that a quiet space be made available for contem- plation outwith the formal programme of the Parliamentary day.

She also called for more debate on the form of oath which new MSPs will take. Instead of simply swearing allegiance to the Queen, as at Westminster, she said Green Party members intended to add the words ''and faithfully to serve the people of Scotland without fear or favour''.

The ultimate decision over worship at the Parliament is expected to be left to the MSPs themselves, but a wide range of church leaders hope to reach agreement on recommendations for a multi-faith approach.