The subject of nationalism has been ever present in Scotland, although they had to wait until 1999 to gain any control over their home affairs. Once finalised, the Scottish Parliament had 129 members, a Chief Minister who selects the Cabinet, tax raising powers, the right to make laws and the jurisdiction over health, education, local government, criminal law, economic development, transport, environment, agriculture, sports and the arts. The vote was a unanimous one, in which 74.3% of the electorate backed the Scottish Parliament, with 63.5% in favour of having tax raising powers.
The election campaign was backed by the new Prime minister, Tony Blair, who had put this issue high on his list of priorities in his winning manifesto. The Scottish Conservative Party however, was humiliated in defeat, and has now been forced to accept devolution as a ‘done deal’. New Labour and the SNP formed an unlikely alliance which ended shortly after victory in the referendum.
As well as the difference in powers from Westminster, the Scottish Parliament also has a different composition. It is made up of 129 members, as mentioned before, with 73 from constituencies elected on the First Past the Post system, and 56 additional members selected on a proportional basis from party lists drawn up for each of the current eight European Parliament constituencies. Each elector can cast two votes; one for a constituency MSP, and one for the party of their choice. Ironically, this hybrid mix of a proportional representation system favoured the more unpopular parties, like the Conservatives who ran the ‘Think Twice’ anti devolution campaign.
The 1997 campaign by the Labour party under Tony Blair, and supported by the Liberal Democrat Party, showed how it was not merely an inevitable evolving of government, but a politically contested campaign. With the ‘Think Twice’ campaign backed by MPs, even supported by Margaret Thatcher, devolution faced strong opposition. Even the SNP, the most victorious party in the outcome of the election, was opposed to the concept of devolution. They felt that devolution did not offer Scotland enough power over her own affairs. Basically, they wanted full independence. Foreseeing the outcome, the SNP backed down and Alex Salmond, the leader of the SNP, made a coalition of sorts with Blair. Salmon argued, “The House of Commons doesn’t have time or enough interest to meet the real political needs of Scotland. This will change now we have our own Parliament devoted to getting the best deal for Scotland and giving us a real say in the running of our country.”4 He went on to comment, “The independent Parliament that I seek would put even more power in Scotland’s hands. It would be able to remove Trident from the Clyde, demand Scotland’s share of the oil revenues and speak up for Scotland in Europe.”5
This speech highlighted some peoples’ growing concerns that devolution was merely a stepping stone to the complete breakdown of the Union, the United Kingdom as it now stands.
Alex Salmond was one Scottish MP who did cause controversy. Some felt that Scotland was using devolution to break down barriers so full independence could be obtained more easily. “We will shortly begin work on our manifesto but I can say right now that its centrepiece will be the pursuit of an independent Scotland.”6 Comments such as this, taken from a speech shortly after the new Parliament became official, worried anti devolution campaigners. Furthermore, he optimistically stated, “I have no doubt we will achieve that aim (independence) within my own lifetime”7 The main concern was that Scotland wanted to be fully independent by 2007, 300 years after Scotland lost its independence.
Shortly after the devolution of Scotland was the turn of Wales. Probably the most different from England, with its own national language, it was not as vehement in its need for devolution as the Scots. The industrialised, English populated south was a predominately Labour strong hold and it was only particularly the north west of Wales that provided the highest level of support for Plaid Cymru. One major problem facing Plaid Cymru was that of the Welsh language. They want to extend it, and keep it alive, whereas in areas such as the south and southwest, where the language has almost completely died out, many opposed this and opted for the UK’s figure head political party. Another major problem was simple geography. With its rural landscape, ultimately it was easier for Welsh MPs to travel to English cities such as Shrewsbury or even London, rather than their capital Cardiff.
Nevertheless, the Labour party strongly backed the idea of a Welsh Assembly as it did the Scottish Parliament. Not only because they felt it would improve their popularity but because the British Parliament simply did not have time for detailed issues in Wales. They had one committee that dealt with Welsh issues and that had very little power. Even this was run by the party that won the most British votes, not necessarily the one that will reflect the needs of the Welsh public. Labour was also accused of corruption and nepotism in south Wales, were their local councils had such a large majority they basically remained unchecked.
In the first election of the new Assembly, Plaid Cymru got 28% of the vote, an all time high for this party, never seen before. This showed that the Assembly was already a more true representation of its public, as Plaid Cymru only got 10% of the vote in the general election. With considerably less power than the Scottish Parliament many people felt this Assembly was merely a ‘Mickey mouse’ enterprise, being created to ‘shut up’ the nationalists. However, Labour argued that it was less powerful because of the split in the country, with a much weaker nationalist feeling.
After the finalisation of the devolution process in both Scotland and Wales, “many observers feel that these arrangements disadvantage England and that the constitutional imbalance between Scotland, Wales and England needs to be correct through institutions representing English regions.”8 With all three units still ultimately falling under the powers of Westminster, the question of fairness arose. Should the Scottish Parliament hold more powers than the Welsh Assembly? A more frequently and contentious question is, should England have its own separate legislative body? Why should Scotland and Wales be able to influence matters concerning health, education and other issues in England (because they are debated and voted on at Westminster) when issues in Scotland and Wales cannot be influenced by any English politician? These questions are now known as the West Lothian question. At first, the proposition of an English Parliament was met with much resistance, but as the subject of funding has become increasingly controversial, moiré and more people are contemplating it.
Before devolution, Scottish and Welsh offices received annual block grants, “giving them budget of £14 billion and £7 billion respectively….As a result, Scottish and Welsh spending is estimated to be 23% and 16% per head higher respectively that the English average.”9 This allocation of generous funding further exasperated anti devolution campaigners, particularly when the building of the new Scottish Parliament turned into a farce. Originally estimated to cost £40 million, it escalated to nearly £200 million. With Scottish Members of Parliament having much shorter working hours and apparently a higher wage, the topic of funding only adds fuel to the argument of the West Lothian question.
One advocate of English devolution is Deputy Prime Minister John Precott. In 1999, he announced the final shape of eight regional development agencies, which would come under the Select Committee for the English Regions. Although when people thought that this committee was simply a sample of English devolution, this was denied. He argued that this Committee can be seen to represent a form of administrative or executive devolution for regions in the South East, South West, East Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside, North West and the North East. Within those regions the agencies will be responsible for the supervision of industrial development, urban and rural regeneration and transport and strategic planning, “These developments are putting in place the raw building materials out of which some kind of English devolution might be created.”10 these could lead the way for regional assemblies. However, regional development agencies were granted only a modest budget, less than £1 billion between all eight of them.
Pro-devolutionists were slightly defeated by this although they were later granted extra funding in 2003. Many believe the RDAs are a significant way forward in proposing an English Parliament, towards a more quasi-federal Britain.
This regionalism however, is not as popular as Mr Prescott would like.
By May 2000, London had its own mayor, ken Livingston. This was a major change of the Greater London borough, as since the Thatcher years, the Greater London Council had been abolished. The introduction of an elected mayor has given London a ‘presidential arrangement’. Livingstone is monitored by a small council but ultimately, he is “the most powerful directly elected politician in Britain, the choice of 7 million voters”11 This again would see a shift towards a more devolved, unitary tier system of local council.
More recently, the subject of regional assemblies, devolving power to the eight separate regions has been raised. Many feel that the North of England would be the most likely to vote ‘yes’ in a referendum. Areas such as the North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humberside are the furthest away from London where central government is based. Cities like Newcastle upon Tyne and Liverpool also have the most distinct local identity and cultural variations. They are more socially deprived, industry based places. Although unemployment is at an all time low, it is still three times lower in the South East. Cornwall is also seen as a region pro devolution. As it is so remote, in the extreme south west, it too has its own culture and traditions.
With these differences, the locals feel that a government in Westminster may not be able to represent them properly. “A MORI poll in November 1998 found that 66% of electors in Manchester and 68% in Birmingham and Sheffield were in favour of elected amyors.”12
The question of whether or not devolution, or forms of it, can be useful is still unanswered. With this issue still relatively new, many are undecided on how effective it is. However, both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have produced little scandal and have been fairly pro active in policy making. In its first year alone, the Scottish Parliament passed 7 bills and had 11 statues under consideration. SMPs at Holyrood also have an effective bunch of committees. Unlike Westminster House of Commons, Edinburgh committees make an effort to ignore the executives lead. They also study the bills beforehand, keeping the SMPs held accountable. They have both also encouraged a more diverse membership. As both new institutions are representing a much smaller population, their ‘parliaments’ are a much stronger version of a microcosm of their society, more so than Westminster. Both have a higher number of women MPs and those from an ethnic minority. Furthermore, and maybe because of the enhanced level of representation, they have pleased their voters.
The fact that devolution has existed is simply down to the will of the people, “the settled will of the Scottish people”13 It is less a political inevitability, and more the general consensus of the nation. Many people within the UK are not worried by the breaking down of the traditional union of the United Kingdom, and would actively seek a form of devolved local government. With apathy growing, a more decentralised system of government may encourage voters and more political participation. Although ‘destabilising’ at times, it is can be ironically unifying. If more regions gained their own assembly, they would inevitably gain more access to their politicians. Presumably, this could lead to issues specific to regions being targeted. For instance, unemployment and social deprivation may be a major issue in inner cities such as Newcastle and Liverpool, whereas more agricultural issues will be higher on the agenda in other more rural areas. This would mean funding being allocated to the correct places, rather than blanker, sweeping laws that encompass the whole of the UK. I feel that this in turn would lead to eight more harmonious regions, not in competition with each other anymore. This could even lessen old, traditional ‘grudges’ such as the North-South divide.
Although the implementation of regional assemblies and an English Parliament looks less likely now, after the referendum in the North East, it is not completely off the political agenda. As Tony Blair says, “The era of big, centralised government is over. This is a time for change, renewal and modernity. This is the way forward. I believe that we now have the chance to build a modern constitution for the hole of the United Kingdom.”14
1 Page 709 The New British Politics by Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe, David McKay and Ken Newton. Published by Pearson Education, 3rd edition 2004
2 Section C Resources for Education – A Level Study Notes by Fulcrum Publishing 2001
3 Page 256 The New British Politics by Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe, David McKay and Ken Newton. Published by Pearson Education, 3rd edition 2004
4 Page 260 – A speech by Alex Salmond - The New British Politics by Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe, David McKay and Ken Newton. Published by Pearson Education, 3rd edition 2004
5 Page 260 – A speech by Alex Salmond - The New British Politics by Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe, David McKay and Ken Newton. Published by Pearson Education, 3rd edition 2004
6 The Guardian – a speech by Alex Salmond, shortly after the referendum on devolution in Scotland
7 The Guardian – a speech by Alex Salmond, shortly after the referendum on devolution in Scotland
8 Page 56 Politics Pal by Hyperion Press 1998
9 The Independent – article published in 1999, shortly before the referendum in Scotland about devolution.
10 Section S Resources for Education – A Level Study Notes by Fulcrum Publishing 2001
11 Page 272 The New British Politics by Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe, David McKay and Ken Newton. Published by Pearson Education, 3rd edition 2004
12 Section V Resources for Education – A Level Study Notes by Fulcrum Publishing 2001
13 Page 163 The Challenge of Westminster Edited by H.T> Dickinson and Michael Lynch. Published byTuckwell Press 2000
14 The Guardian ‘Tories bow to defeat but gird for battle’ by Lawrence Donegan 1999
