During the 1980s, pressure for a Scottish Parliament stemmed largely from the view that devolution might be able to protect Scotland from the worst excesses of Thatcherism. The last fourteen years have certainly confirmed that logic, even if some of that Thatcherism was being pushed at Westminster by New Labour. The decisions taken at Holyrood by this administration and its predecessors have almost all been either better than Westminster’s equivalent decisions for England or at least no worse. That’s why the idea of abolishing the Scottish Parliament, as floated by the occasional fringe voice from the Tories or Labour, is now utterly inconceivable.
The current Coalition is engaged in a direct assault on the poor across the UK, particularly through tax and benefits, and on immigrants – all areas that are primarily reserved, even if Holyrood can make some difference on all of them. Although independence is for keeps, not just to block this particular Tory/Lib Dem administration, this kind of policy agenda certainly helps make the case for independence.
But it’s not just “if Holyrood had powers over these areas it’d be making better decisions”, even though that seems likely to be true no matter who’s in power at Holyrood. It’s also a broader issue of coordination and direction. Is it really in Scotland’s interests to have the key policy issues that affect us all divided between two legislatures and two lots of Ministers, Ministers who will so often have radically different objectives? Does it help Scotland to have social policy pulled in two directions at once? Even on economic issues, where the SNP are closer to the Westminster consensus than I’d like, the two administrations aren’t exactly in lock-step.
As the US shutdown illustrates, a single national government doesn’t always lead to coordination and efficiency, or even common sense. But I’d rather we didn’t have to have a Scottish Government which spent a chunk of its time either complaining about Westminster’s poor decisions or considering how to work around them. I’d also rather that when people have a problem they need help with they don’t have to check Schedule 5 of the 1998 Act to work out if they need to speak to their MP or their MSPs.
We need a single Parliament, fairly elected, responsive and transparent (and yes, one which devolves more power down to communities too), one which deals with every national issue, and which holds to account a single government which drives policy in a clear direction: whatever direction it was elected to take us in. Given we’re not going back to unitary rule at Westminster any time soon, that can only come with a Yes vote next year.
#1 by Richard on October 1, 2013 - 2:27 pm
“Given we’re not going back to unitary rule at Westminster any time soon”
Don’t be too sure, if next year’s vote goes the wrong way. If Scots are seen to bottle it, there will be a backlash, and there are many who would like to see the back of Holyrood.
#2 by Iain Menzies on October 1, 2013 - 3:40 pm
So you want Scotland to have a truly unitary state?
SO its bye bye local councils…bye bye the European Union…what about school govenors? How low can you go before you get away from a unitary state?
As for your comments on the US, you get that its the United STATES yeah? Its a federal government shut down.
#3 by Ben Achie on October 1, 2013 - 5:09 pm
Good, concise post, James, but there will certainly be some of Westminster’s inhabitants – from either our elected or totally unelected parliamentarians that dwelleth there – calling for return of powers to Westminster. Aren’t some of our unionist MSPs proposing some of that already?
#4 by Green Christian on October 1, 2013 - 5:35 pm
“As the US shutdown illustrates, a single national government doesn’t always lead to coordination and efficiency, or even common sense. ”
As the US has a federal system of government, I’m not sure it’s the best example to illustrate that point.
#5 by James on October 1, 2013 - 5:36 pm
It’s still a single national government. As Iain above misses, I’m also talking about shifting more power down from Holyrood to local authorities. I have a pretty good understanding of the systems being compared here.
#6 by Iain Menzies on October 1, 2013 - 6:40 pm
With respect I dont think i did miss that. I didnt comment on that point. But let me now.
A unitary state with devolution to local authorities in the way and context you discuss above is utterly contradictory.
You want welfare to be the provence of the Scottish Parliament because you dont like westminster. Which is fine. But what about those services that can, to one degree or another, be covered by that header. What about social care and social housing. Should that be run by Holyrood? Or should Holyrood/Westminster just set guidlines that are administered at a local level? Or should policy be devolved to a sub-parliamentary level?
The over riding problem with what you have posted above is that it is totally superficial. You know as well as i do that these issues are insanly complicated. The could be made much simpler yes, but to simple shift those powers that are at Westminster to Holyrood wont do that.
#7 by Ross Gilligan on October 1, 2013 - 6:51 pm
I think there’s a contradiction between your call for ‘single national government’ and greater devolution to local authorities – even more contradictory if you also support EU membership. As a supporter of devolution, one of the concerning aspects has been the centralisation of power towards the centre and the removal of local discretion in recent years – the council tax freeze being just one example. As Iain Menzies points out, the current stalemate in the US derives from a very deliberate separation of powers at federal level, it is not borne out of dispute between the Federal and State Governments so I think it’s a curious example to illustrate your point. Moreover most Europeans live in states with either federal or devolved structures in place so I think it would be unimaginative to suggest it can’t work well. In fact I’d be far more concerned about no separation of powers than about the challenges multi-layered or bi-cameral government can sometimes throw up.
#8 by James on October 1, 2013 - 6:55 pm
I’m seeing it as two parliaments and two lots of Ministers deciding on national issues (planning law, policy on the economy, health, education or defence). Wanting to end that is in no way inconsistent with wanting local councils to have more control over the taxes they raise and the money they spend. Please note I’m really not defending SNP policy on these issues, which is very centralist (e.g. Police Scotland).
#9 by Iain Menzies on October 1, 2013 - 7:03 pm
And yet local government has a role in economic policy too. Where do you draw the line? With planning administered at a council level, business rates, zoning and all the rest unless you strip alot of power out of local councils you cant have a unitarty economic policy.
When you have the interaction between health and social care/home support you cant really have a unitarty health policy.
When schools are run by councils, but whats taught is set centraly you dont have a unitarty education policy, and thats before you start to talk about pre-school provision or Colleges and Universities.
And how exactly do we have two sets of ministers deciding on Defence policy?
#10 by Peter A Bell on October 2, 2013 - 9:14 am
The “one parliament” point is an extension of the gradualist argument that once competed, within the SNP and elsewhere, with the absolutist position that saw devolution as an obstacle to or diversion from independence rather than a means to the end of restoring Scotland’s rightful constitutional status. But it is an interesting point in its own right – not least because it is entirely pragmatic. It’s just about making the system work better.
It is interesting too when examined in the context of the noises being made of late by the British parties in Scotland about continuing, or evolving, devolution. The gradualist case for accepting devolution at the end of the last century was that the devolution of one power would tend to weaken the case for reserving another. As more powers were devolved, it would become increasing difficult to justify keeping the reducing number of remaining powers in Westminster’s hands.
Who can doubt that the gradualists have been proved right.
But all of this leads us to an intriguing thought experiment which illustrates the vacuousness of the unionist portrayal of devolution as a continuous process. It inevitably begs the question, if devolution is and evolutionary process, what does it evolve into?
If devolution continues – as the British parties are desperately trying to pretend will happen in the event of a No vote – where does it go? If it is more than ineffectual, and quite possibly damaging, tinkering around the fringes of policy areas, then devolution must mean nothing less than the transfer to Holyrood of full powers in particular policy areas. Given that there are a finite number of policy areas, and a finite range of individually transferable powers within each of these policy areas, “evolving” devolution must inevitably reach a point where there is but one area in which the UK Government retains its influence over policy in Scotland.
Surely it is at this juncture, if not much earlier, that we would be asking, “What’s the point?”.
If it is daft and inefficient to have powers divided between two parliaments, how much more daft and inefficient is it to have a situation where the Scottish Parliament exercises the full powers of an independent nation with but a solitary exception?
Even if there were a devo-whatever option available to voters in next year’s referendum; even if there was a chance that this devo-whatever might be delivered by a UK Government; and even if that devo-whatever was the “evolving” thing that the British parties portray, it would be a nonsense that would inevitably lead to the kind of ludicrous division of powers described. Which, being clearly unsustainable, must in turn lead to full independence.
So why are unionists peddling a concept of devolution that they must surely be aware is both unworkable in practice and will lead to the very outcome that they seek to avoid – independence for Scotland? There seems to be only one possible answer.
It has been truly said that power devolved is power retained. The reality is that a devolved administration can be snuffed out like a light pretty much on the whim of the central government. The only conceivable motive for persisting with devolution as portrayed by unionists is the power it leaves in the hands of the British state to emasculate or abolish the Scottish Parliament.
One way ore another, the “two parliaments” anomaly will be resolved. The question is whether it will be resolved in favour of Holyrood or Westminster.
#11 by Duncan Thorp on October 3, 2013 - 5:12 pm
The guiding principle should simply be that power operates at the most local level possible, that’s street government, neighbourhood government, city, region and lastly national. Full powers for Scotland and leaving an undemocratic and elitist Westminster system is simply a part of this process, nothing more. If you take out the bizarre emotional dependency of unionism and at the same time reject narrow nationalism of any kind – then it’s just the next step on the journey. Drop all the flags and ego, localist and internationalist is what we need.