There Was Not One But Number of Cause That Led to Scottish Devolution in 1999 - Essay Example

There was not one but a number of cause that led to Scottish devolution in 1999 Scotland for those who are not very familiar with world history and politics is a country in Europe with its own government like many other independent countries in the world. Moreover, like Americans to America or the Japanese to Japan, the Scottish people are presumed by foreigners to live in a country called Scotland. However, none of these is true since Scotland in reality is “a nation but without its own state” (Keating, 1). Although it has its own parliament, Scotland has no representation in both United Nations and European Union because it is not recognised as a separate nation but rather a large part of the United Kingdom. Similarly, when people in the United Kingdom hear parliament, they almost certainly think of Westminster and the House of Commons. Although there is a Scottish Parliament representing a large number of people from Scotland, the United Kingdom’s Parliament seems to prevail as the “default parliament” (Wintrobe & Hazell, 63). The power of the Scottish Parliament as far as the 1999 Scottish Devolution is restricted. The restriction was imposed to prevent Scottish politician in stretching the devolution too far particularly in the direction of national autonomy and independence for Scotland. For instance, Section 28 (7) of the 1998 Scotland Act clarifies that the Westminster Parliament still has the power to make laws for Scotland. In Section 35(1) (b) of the Act, the Scottish Parliament is restricted to pass any law that contravenes the Westminster Parliament particularly those that are harmful to the interest of the United Kingdom’s and affecting it international affairs. Other matters that are off-limits to the Scottish Parliament according to Schedule 5 of the Act includes almost all aspects of economic, monetary, national security and emergency powers, import and export controls, telecommunications and energy policy, infrastructural aspects of transport policy, some matters related to social security policy, employment and health and safety issues, and broadcasting policy (Forman, 90). The significance of reserved powers These safeguards are designed to limit and ensure that the new devolve jurisdiction in Scotland or a subordinate government and parliament would not act beyond the limit set by British Government and Parliament (Forman, 91). The significant number of reserved powers as mentioned in Schedule 5 of the Act is indicative of the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament over its devolved institutions. The significance of these reserved powers can viewed as administrative practicality to prevent cross-border conflict. For instance, in order to retain a uniform UK market and ensure that consumers and other business organisations are dealing or operating under the same legislation, laws regarding employment, consumer, and commerce are all retained or reserved by the Westminster Parliament. In the same manner, social security was reserved to Westminster to prevent the emergence of different benefit levels in different parts of the United Kingdom. The power to make laws about abortion was also reserved due the possibility of having different laws that later would be in conflict with health services involved (Lynch, 17). The primary focus of reserved powers according to Oliver is on the legal implications and power that relates to structure of the devolution scheme itself which is clearly Westminster-based. The devolution itself established the conceptualization that devolved institutions are nothing but subordinate bodies with limited power and options, and should not share the same sovereignty as the United Kingdom (p.2110). Scotland became a union-state of the United Kingdom since 1603 as part of the Union of the Crowns where two separate states shared one monarch. In 1707, the Scottish and English parliaments were united to form the Parliament of Great Britain while retaining some of the independent institutions of Scottish civil society such as the Church and the law. The motivation for such political manoeuvring was not clear but according to Falconer et al., it was part of consolidation strategy created by the powerful British government which at that time was expanding its colonies and control overseas (p.17). However, although laws concerning public right, policy, and civil government was made the same throughout the entire United Kingdom, the parliamentary union did not give the Scottish people the power to alter laws concerning private rights except those that will be utilised within Scotland. Along with territorial distinctiveness, dissimilar educational system, and London’s continuous insensitivity to Scottish concerns, the issue concerning the restoration of Scottish Parliament have been a Scottish primary interest. The Scottish devolution in 1999 was however not entirely formed out of these concerns. According to Keating, the United Kingdom’s decision was motivated by the general decline of the country as a world’s economic and political power as a consequence of an outmoded constitution and governance that cannot respond to the needs and circumstances of the complex and changing world (p.2). Moreover, aside from increasing pressure from its political opponents, the Labour Government was so anxious to conciliate growing nationalist sentiment in Scotland. For the Labour and Liberal Democrat, devolution is the proper policy response to the prevailing political situation and an important part of the constitutional reform. The Labour Party in particular was well aware that if it wishes to govern in the future, their strategy should be politically deliverable. For this reason, they participated intensely in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, produced the Scotland Bill in late 1997, and conduct a massive public endorsement through a referendum, and invited all concern party in the Consultative Steering Group to create an impression that the Scottish devolution and the new parliament was made in Scotland rather than by the UK government (Winetrobe & Hazell, 64). Political Control Devolution is one of the very old issue in Scottish politics since as mentioned earlier it dates back at least in the middle of the 19th century and was at one time adopted and opposed by various parties such as the Liberal, Conservation, Labour, Social Democratic, and the SNP which also campaigned for it in 1970s (Kellas, 144). However, one of the major causes that led to devolution was believed to be political control rather than democratic aspirations since there was a need to revive some kind of relationship which had been seriously damaged. The Treaty of Union between United Kingdom and Scotland had envisaged preservation of Scottish identity through her legal system and system of church government but these institutions were displaced by the reality that Scottish identity requires more than just a legal system or church but institutions of government (Bogdanor, 8). Many in the government perhaps realised that handling Scottish society at the executive or parliamentary level is no longer satisfactory with the existing unitary framework. Thus, in order to preserve the spirit of the Union, the government of Scotland should reflect the Scottish interest and needs more effectively (Bogdanor, 8). According to John Curtice, the elected Labour government in 1997 had several agenda when it decided to create the Scottish Parliament. One was believed to be political calculation in fear that unless the party delivers some form of home rule their electorate in the region might be destabilized by the Scottish National Party. They are worried that the Scots would think that the United Kingdom would never give their wishes for more autonomy and decided to seek independence instead unless devolution was put in place. On the other hand, public support for the maintenance of the Union will be strengthened rather than weakened by granting Scotland her own parliament (p.142). In Michael Keatings argument, he insisted that the Labour Party had faced this issue both ways by signing the declaration of the Scottish Constitutional Convention that sovereignty was vested in the Scottish people while insisting that devolution cannot affect the sovereignty of Parliament in the 1997 election. Moreover, the decision to hold the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales carries some form of recognition that these nations deserved some form of autonomy to manage their own destiny but it appears that the Scottish Parliament was just inheriting the complete sovereignty of the Scottish people. This according to Keating is similar to the treatment received by Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom throughout the 1980s and 1990s where they sought to restore self-government to Northern Ireland through power-sharing arrangements with local politicians. The same arrangements can be seen while the British government was negotiating with Scottish politician that were united in their demand for home rule (Keating, 111). The 1999 devolution is characterised by a “new politics” (Hassan and Warhurst 2002a in Mooney & Scott, 2) that gives the Scottish people more opportunity to participate and be involve in policies that reflects their needs. Scottish Mood for Change Devolution is the opposite of centralization since devolution transfers powers from the central government to constituent parts rather than states and provinces. For this reason, it usually creates separate legislatures for each unit and grants them autonomy in their respective home rule. The national parliament in the United Kingdom recognises the autonomy of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales thus local legislatures were established. The establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 is undoubtedly a devolution that had reversed hundred years of history of the Union that merged England and Scotland into a unitary state. According to Khan, these referendums and establishment of local legislatures are motivated by universal democracy that promotes Free State constitutions, home-rule, and local governments (143) but this seems just partly true because the circumstances that came about in Scotland were entirely different. For instance, the devolution that came to Northern Ireland made it an Irish Free State that still belongs to the British Empire but no longer subject to the sovereignty of the Westminster parliament (Falconer et al., 17). The devolution in Scotland was not also a direct consequence of the rise of the Scottish National Party since it failed to create the tide for independence. In fact, the devolutionary settlement was not shaped by the SNP but the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, and other organisations that participated in the Constitutional Convention (Falconer et al., 18). For this reason, the most probable reason for the 1999 devolution according to Falconer et al. was the public’s mood for change which was intensified by bitterness created by the eighteen years of Conservatives domination at Westminster during which all political support in Scotland vanished. The weakening legitimacy of unitary framework caused by growing disenchantment together with the mounting confidence of the Scots to rule and manage their domestic affairs more effectively intensified the enthusiasm for constitutional change (p.18). From this perspective, the Scottish devolution can be seen as a re-negotiation of governance arrangements between Scotland and the UK Parliament instead of looking at it as the return of the sovereign Scottish Parliament before 1707. It is a consequence of an evolutionary process induced by the public’s growing appetite for change that has a significant impact not only with Scotland but for the rest of the United Kingdom’s political system. Disintegration of the Empire and Revival of Scottish Nationalist Aspirations In the British-Scottish relation, the empire was traditionally the provider for the union and for the Scots; it is opportunity, profession, military service, and administration. The empire therefore provides the rationale that keeps the Scottish tied firmly to the union. For this perspective, it is also worth noting that disappearance of the empire also means losing the economic ties that bound Scotland to England for a very long time. According to Louis & Ransom, nationalist aspirations may be revived by continuous decolonization which started after World War II and with the end of the Empire the Scots may decide to break their link to the union and reunite the Scottish nation to its state (p.291). Since the British Empire is not founded on negations but rather depends on positive ideals, its survival also depends on free institutions (Boyce, 262). However, later in 1960s onwards, the perception of empire changed due to the changes in the world economic system. The decline in economic and military strength diminished Britain’s place in the world (Addison & Jones, 119). Great Britain found that it is becoming difficult to defend its global interest while the world politics are shifting massively (Boyce, 264). Moreover, demands for full autonomy, decolonization, and self-determination trend in world affairs had already sharply increased the number of nation states thus pressures for devolution increased (Pizzuti, 41). The influence of the Empire on British history is so vast that it can be attributed to its undulation (Keating, 25). While the notion of imperial federation provided a framework for unionist to accept the Britain as their mother country and for the Scottish people who had no problem being an autonomous member of the imperial federation, these self-governing nations still see the empire as their external support system. In addition, the Scots seems magnetised by the cult of imperialism where the monarchy serving symbolically and constitutionally to unite the union-state to its motherland (Keating, 26). Many believes that the British owes much of its identity to the development of the British empire overseas thus when decolonization come to an end, the demands for regional self-government increased and constitutional adjustment at home is necessary (Stone, 225). The image of the empire is therefore an important factor as without the concept of Great Britain, in which they had invested most of their cultural capital, the English has no alternative identity to save them. This is because England has only several institutions that were not already identified with Britain and its empire. Moreover, unlike the Scots, Welsh, and Irish who until now retained its strong sense of national pride and identity, the English are deeply perplexed about what to do in the midst dissolution of the empire (Jeremy Paxman 1998 in Koenigsberger, 15). According to Gardiner, nationalism and decolonisation were linked directly as part of the anti-imperial movement. Moreover, from 1917 to 1997 Scottish nationalism became gradually more separatist and could pursue it further to total independence (p.102). Growing Pressure from Scotland Considering the disintegration of the empire, the disenchantment of the union-state to the Conservative Party, and the increasing nationalist aspirations, advancing the national interest and reducing the pressure through constitutional arrangements have been an issue for the British government. The choices were either to incorporate, devolve, or give complete independence. However, devolution or home rules made it to the top as it can advance national interest while retaining most of its power to the mother state. In other words, devolution is a way for Westminster to delegate its powers to Holyrood to govern Scotland while retaining sovereignty at the centre (Mitchison, 421). For this reason, the Scots would be in-charge of deciding who ran their government and will be responsible to the voters of Scotland (Curtice, 90). In this manner, the enthusiasm of those seeking independence would be diminished and further intensification of nationalist sentiments. The Labour Party has always been interested in centralised political authority with Westminster at the centre but the rise of nationalism and support for SNPs in Scotland made it rethink its position on the devolution of power and gave the Scottish Parliament limited legislative powers. After the 1979 referendum and general election, the SNP went through a phase of renewal and began to rise again. By the time of the second referendum, it was the most effective opposition to the Labour Party (Dardanelli, 84). The Labour Party had long been threatened by any resurgences of Scottish nationalism but the SNP threat during the 1970s was never consistent and Labour leaders have handled this effectively. Moreover, the SNP seriously disappoints its supports when it only polled 11 percent of total vote during the general election in 1970. However, a few years later, the party seemed to recover with Margo MacDonald’s victory at the 1973 Glasgow Govan by-election. The success reflects the Scottish protest against the Conservative rule and also a strong reminded to the Labour party that it is about to loose its credibility in Scotland. In mid-1970s, the SNP’s began to revive its fortunes and won six seats in the 1974 General Election and it continues to develop as years passed. The political fortunes in Scotland also became an advantage for the SNP and Scottish nationalism as the discovery of commercially viable oil which SNP soon laid claim on behalf of the Scottish people as “Scotland’s Oil” for the benefit of the Scottish people. These developments rapidly transformed the SNP case for greater Scottish autonomy which could eventually lead to independence since they made the Scottish people believed that they have legitimate rights to the oil revenues (Forman, 84). In fact, the SNP was aiming for an independent Scotland if their legal claim for the oil fields was accepted. However, the claim for oil was not all the made the SNP gather more support but their attitude to self-government was also equally influential (Bogdanor, 26). Another factor that would later put pressure to the British government was Britain’s entry to the European Community which emphasizes the disadvantages for Scotland to remain attached with the United Kingdom. For instance, Edinburgh would become even more remote for the centre if important decision-making functions will be transferred from London to Brussels. Moreover, it will be more difficult for industry located in Scotland to penetrate European markets. The UK’s entry into the European Community was therefore a big disadvantage to Scotland but it will never happen if Scotland gained her independence from the United Kingdom. This is because an independent country would still retain the prime advantage accessing a duty-free market which membership of the UK gave her. For this reason, England could no longer threaten to disrupt markets and trade in the event of independence. Moreover, Scotland can now use its power for her interests and probably would get more favourable terms than the British government can afford (Bogdanor, 27). The growing pressures from SNP and the opportunities at EU confronted the British government with problems. Should the government resist nationalist pressures or offer devolution? Clearly, the government had offered devolution in the 1997 referendum to established general unity between governments in London and Edinburgh to survive. However, the success of devolution will be tested if the devolved government succeed in the pursuit of their policy objectives (Oliver, 2121). The Scottish Devolution appears to be an initiative of the central government rather an attempt by Scotland herself for autonomy or independence. These initiatives were demonstrated by external actors in the formulating the devolution settlement. For instance, Gordon Brown, a Labour Chancellor and Scottish MP, conducted a number of interventions in Scottish political affairs and appears has had influenced the Scottish devolution than any MSP or Scottish Executive (Lynch, 154). The devolution in Scotland appears not just a matter of constitutional change but central government’s attempt to address the demands and needs for unique Scotland governance. Support for devolution put the Labour Party into a more desirable position after 18 years of opposition by eliminating the unsympathetic image of central government to Scottish concerns. The Labour Party made sure that their move would not create the same damaging impression of division in 1980s and had decided to use a more cautious approach while retaining effective political control (Oliver, 2106). The need to revive a relationship that was seriously damaged by the insensitivity of the previous parties, the Labour Party decided to give Scotland a government that is responsive to their interests and needs while retaining its political control. The public’s mood for change which was also intensified by bitterness towards the central government during the Conservative administration caused the idea of devolution to progress. For the Labour Party, it was more feasible to re-negotiate governance arrangements rather than full independence. Another factor that causes the devolution to progress is the weakening appeal of the British Empire which had provided the union-state the rationale for being a subordinate nation for many years. The disintegration or disappearance of the empire therefore can negatively affect the ties that bind Scotland to England and in the near future, the former may break the link and reunite the Scottish nation to its state. In relation to decolonization and disintegration of the empire, another factor that cause the Scottish devolution were the pressures coming from Scotland such as the growing disenchantment to the union, increasing nationalist aspirations, and the need to advance the UK’s national interest. For the central government, independence was never an option since it must retain its power at all cost. Devolution is the only practical solution that would benefit Scotland and England since allowing the Scots to run their affairs can significantly reduce the enthusiasm for complete independence. More importantly, the Labour Party can regain its lost credibility in Scotland and reduce the impact of the UK’s entry to the European Community. Work Cited List Addison Paul & Jones Harriet. A companion to contemporary Britain, 1939-2000. UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007 Bogdanor Vernon. Devolution in the United Kingdom. UK: Oxford University Press, 2001 Boyce David. Decolonisation and the British Empire, 1775-1997. Hong Kong: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999 Curtice John. New Scotland, new society?: are social and political ties fragmenting?. UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2002 Curtice John. Has devolution delivered? UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2006 Dardenelli Paolo. Between two unions: Europeanisation and Scottish devolution. UK: Manchester University Press, 2005 Deacon Russell & Sandry Alan. Devolution in the United Kingdom. Edinburgh University Press, 2007 Falconer Peter, Smith Colin, & Webster Willilam. Managing parliaments in the 21st century: EGPA yearbook. Netherlands: IOS Press, 2001 Forman F.N. Constitutional change in the United Kingdom. UK: Routledge, 2002 Gardiner Michael. The cultural roots of British devolution. Edinburgh University Press, 2004 Keating Michael. Plurinational democracy: stateless nations in a post-sovereignty era. UK: Oxford University Press, 2004 Keating Michael. The government of Scotland: public policy making after devolution. UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2005 Keating Michael. The Independence of Scotland: Self-government and the Shifting Politics of Union. UK: Oxford University Press, 2009 Kellas James. The Scottish political system. Australia: Cambridge University Press, 1989 Khan Ali. A theory of universal democracy: beyond the end of history. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003 Koenigsberger Kurt. The novel and the menagerie: totality, Englishness, and empire. US: Ohio State University Press, 2007 Louis William & Ransom Harry. Penultimate adventures with Britannia: personalities, politics and culture in Britain. US: I.B.Tauris, 2008 Lynch Peter. Scottish government and politics: an introduction. UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2001 Mitchison Rosalind. A history of Scotland. UK: Routledge, 2002 Mooney Gerry & Scott Gill. Exploring social policy in the 'new' Scotland. UK: The Policy Press, 2005 Oliver Dawn. The changing constitution. UK: Oxford University Press, 2007 Pizzuti Felice & Franzini Maurizio. Globalization, institutions and social cohesion. US: Springer, 2001 Stone Lawrence. An Imperial state at war: Britain from 1689 to 1815. UK: Routledge, 1994 Wintrobe Barry & Hazell Robert. Anglo-Scottish relations from 1900 to devolution and beyond. UK: Oxford University Press, 2005 Read More