Choosing Scotland's Future
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
 Our View We welcome the SNP's launch of a “national conversation” about the governance of Scotland, with the Government itself advocating independence. However, opinion polls suggest that two-thirds of the Scottish people oppose independence and the SNP itself does not have a majority in the Scottish Parliament. The white paper does not spell out how this national conversation should take place and asks for suggestions. Unlock Democracy is calling on the Scottish Government to introduce a system in which the public has far greater control over the process. This could be along the lines of the Citizens’ Assembly model which has been used by the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Ontario to review their electoral systems. Ordinary citizens are randomly selected to sit on an assembly and deliberate on an issue, with their findings put to a referendum. Commenting on the publication of the white paper, Unlock Democracy’s Deputy Director Alexandra Runswick said: “It is not at all clear whether the Scottish people themselves would, on reflection, prefer further devolution, independence or to stick with the status quo. We therefore welcome the SNP’s commitment to attempt to build a wider consensus on Scottish governance. The white paper however is disappointingly vague about how the Government intends to do this. “Government consultations are fraught with problems, especially on matters where the ruling party is ideologically committed to a specific outcome. If the SNP is not careful here, it not only risks courting unpopularity, cynicism about politics and politicians more generally. Proposals for a new constitutional convention along the lines of the convention from which the existing Scottish Parliament emerged would result in a process controlled by the great and the good, which would also be problematic. “If the Scottish Government and Parliament are genuinely committed to resolving this issue, they must let go of the process. The future governance of Scotland is too important an issue to be left to partisan horse-trading. “A process along the lines of the Citizens Assembly model used in Canada would take the politicians themselves out of the equation. We urge Scottish politicians from all parties to look at this and other innovative forms of involving the public in decision making.” Unlock Democracy launched a campaign for a Citizens' Convention Bill in the UK Parliament in July. |
Contents |
A National Conversation
Ten years since devolution, the new SNP-led Scottish Government have published a paper about the future governance of Scotland. While the clearly stated preference of the SNP is independence for Scotland this is only one of the options put forward.
The aim of the document is to provoke a National Conversation in Scotland on the direction of their constitutional arrangements, and in particular regarding the 1707 Act of Union (not the 1603 Union of the Crowns).
April 2008
On 2nd April 2008, there was a Westminster Hall debate on Scotland's future.
It was a bitter debate in which the protagonists ended up very much talking past each other. On the one hand, the SNP stressed their desire for a referendum on Scottish independence. They also wanted to know whether the other parties supported the transfer of further powers to the Scottish Parliament from Westminster. On the other hand, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives claimed that independence was not important to the Scottish electorate, that if it was it should be brought to the Scottish Parliament to debate and that a commission had just been set up to deal with whether more powers should be transferred from Westminster to Holyrood in any event.
Pete Wishart MP (SNP) began the debate by commenting on how pleasing it was to have the “national conversation” concerning Scotland’s future so greatly discussed and in seeing the main parties supporting the transfer of more powers from Westminster to Scotland.
He was asked by Rosemary McKenna MP (Labour) whether his party’s position was that a referendum on Scottish independence should be a “yes-no” referendum and he confirmed it was, but clarified that they would also accept a multi-option referendum.
Eric Joyce MP (Labour) pointed out that the SNP party leader said unequivocally the referendum should be done under the single transferable voting system—that voters should have three choices.
Alistair Carmicheal MP (Liberal Democrat) asked if the national conversation would go to the Scottish Parliament and Mr Wishart confirmed it would.
Willie Rennie MP (Liberal Democrat) asked when that would be, to which Mr Wishart responded “it will come to the Scottish Parliament when it comes to the Scottish Parliament.”
Mr Wishart criticised the Calman Commission, quoting Brian Wilson, who claimed it represented “incremental nonsense of fiddling about with powers.” He claimed the other parties were involved in an “uneasy alliance” on that Committee.
Adam Ingram MP (Labour) stated that he supported the Calman Commission, in that it allows the whole gamut of the Scotland Act 1998 to be reviewed, which allows powers to be taken back from the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Wishart claimed that there is no support for taking powers from the Scottish to the Westminster Parliament, saying it existed “only in the fevered imagination of Labour Members.”
Willie Rennie pointed out that parties in favour of independence – the SNP, the Scottish Socialist party and the Scottish Green party - could not get a majority in the Scottish Parliament. He suggested therefore that they should look at other issues.
Gordon Banks MP (Labour) claimed that the chairman of the Calman Commission said that there is “no appetite for independence in Scotland.” Anne Begg MP (Labour) challenged the SNP to put not only the national conversation to the Scottish Parliament, but also the idea of a referendum to it.
Angus MacNeil MP (SNP) replied that the matter will come to the Scottish Parliament.
Anne Begg denied that Scottish independence was the “No 1 priority” she was hearing on the doorstep, through the mail or in the constituency surgery. Eric Joyce agreed with her, and said that in a survey of his constituents, the issues that mattered to them were health, education, the economy and the environment, but not independence.
Ms Begg also argued the SNP would not put their ideas to the Scottish Parliament because “they know that they will lose.”
Alistair Carmichael suggested that after eight years of the Scottish Parliament, it is time to look at giving it the power to raise more of its own budget.
Alan Reid MP (Liberal Democrat) pointed out that since 1999, the debate in the Scottish Parliament has been about how to spend the block grant of £30bn and not about how to raise money. He suggested that new powers should be delivered for the Scottish Parliament through a written constitution for the UK. He pointed out that Scottish Parliament's powers are determined simply by an Act of Parliament and those powers could be removed simply by another Act of Parliament.
Ben Wallace MP (Conservative) claimed this was a missed opportunity and that it could have been “about the opportunities and challenges facing Scotland” but had ended up as the SNP “gloating” over recent (limited) electoral successes.
He pointed out that 17 per cent of people who were eligible to vote in May 2007 voted for the SNP and that recent polls indicated less than 30 per cent of respondents wanted independence.
Rosemary McKenna MP (Labour) argued that an SNP Administration would mean “years of constitutional wrangling instead of them getting on with ensuring that Scotland prospers.”
The SNP were then asked who it proposes would be allowed to vote in a referendum. Angus MacNeil responded that the SNP’s position is that if someone is registered in a Scottish constituency, they could vote.
Ben Wallace complained this would mean “hundreds of thousands of Scots who live in England because their jobs have sent them there, and the soldiers who have been sent there, do not get a vote.”
David Cairns MP (Minister of State, Scotland Office) commented that the Calman Commission was being questioned before it had even started work.
He also claimed that remaining part of the UK “is the will of the majority of the people in Scotland” and “no amount of bluster from Alex Salmond or manufactured grievances” would change that. Mr Cairns accused the SNP of wanting “to destroy devolution because it is obsessed with a dogmatic proposition to break up the United Kingdom.”
The Current Situation
The Scotland Act 1998
The Act devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive on all matters not specifically reserved to the United Kingdom.
Devolved powers include
- health,
- education,
- justice,
- local government.
Reserved responsibilities include:
- tax collection,
- health and safety,
- social security (Schedule 5).
The United Kingdom Parliament remains sovereign and may legislate even in devolved areas. It retains the general power to make laws for Scotland in all reserved and devolved areas, including altering the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. This may be done either by explicitly amending the Scotland Act or, implicitly, by passing other legislation that is clearly inconsistent with the Scotland Act or a provision in another United Kingdom statute or an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
However, under a constitutional convention (known as the Sewel convention), the United Kingdom Government and the United Kingdom Parliament have undertaken not to exercise legislative powers in devolved areas, or to change the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the executive competence of Scottish Ministers, without the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. This mirrors the operation of the provisions in the Scotland Act, ensuring that both Westminster and Holyrood must agree on such changes to the competence before they may take effect.
The nature of explicitly reserved powers means that devolution tends to expand as new events arise. The Scotland Act also contains provisions for legislative change to the devolution settlement by approval of both the Scottish and Westminster legislatures.
- Section 30(2), Schedules 4 and 5 allow amendment to give Scotland control over previously reserved matters.
- Section 63 provides for “executive devolution” of powers from the United Kingdom Government to Scottish Ministers, who are responsible to the Scottish Parliament although there is no transfer of legislative power.
The responsibilities of Scottish Ministers have been changed on numerous occasions under section 63 of the Scotland Act and by the use of the Sewel convention. The reasons for transferring responsibility vary, but tend to recognise either Scottish Ministers' leading policy interest in an area, or the administrative coherence of Scottish Ministers having responsibility for an area that fits with existing devolved responsibility.
Examples include:
- powers to consent to construct, extend or operate electricity generating stations;
- functions relating to food safety and standards;
- regulations on the supply, purchase, possession or use of fireworks;
- functions under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000;
- financial assistance in respect of shipping services carrying passengers between the Highlands and Islands and Northern Ireland;
- funding of rail services provided under franchise agreements; and
- functions in relation to fire authority pensions.
The Scotland Act does not contain any provisions limiting the extent of future devolution (which would be contrary to parliamentary sovereignty).
The future prospects for Scotland
The Scottish Government conceives of three viable alternatives:
- retention of the Scotland Act 1998 with extension of devolved powers occurring on an individual basis;
- a full definition of devolved competences (perhaps involving fiscal autonomy);
- complete independence.
Expansion of devolution
At the Scottish Parliamentary election of 2007, each of the major parties made proposals concerning the devolution settlement. In addition to proposing a white paper on independence, the Scottish National Party made specific proposals to extend the devolution settlement by transferring responsibility for the civil service, for North Sea gas and oil, for broadcasting and for firearms. The Scottish Liberal Democrats proposed a new constitutional convention to examine the best way to devolve new responsibilities, including taxation, to Holyrood. They also proposed that competence over the electoral system, the Parliament itself, the civil service, energy, transport and marine policy should be devolved. The Scottish Labour Party emphasised the continued use of the mechanisms in the Scotland Act to devolve further powers. The Scottish Conservatives declared themselves open to a debate about the powers of the Scottish Parliament to secure accountability for raising revenues, as well as for spending.
The Paper presents arguments for the extension of devolved powers in eight policy areas:
(1) Effectiveness and accountability
- Improve accountability and effectiveness of the Scottish Government.
- Clarify areas where reserved and devolved powers are not well defined, particularly in newly developing policy areas such as climate change.
(2) Economics
- Current devolved powers give responsibility for many areas affecting economic performance to the Scottish Government and Parliament, while macro-economic policy is retained by Westminster, which must legislate for the United Kingdom as a whole. Regional variation may produce a better environment for economic growth.
- Control of fiscal policy could alleviate the need for a block grant from Westminster and allow Scotland to tailor its tax regime to its public expenditure.
(3) Crime
- Areas reserved to the United Kingdom include ant-terror legislation, drugs and firearms. Assumption of terror powers would allow Scotland to create a balance of rights consistent with its own justice system, while sharing intelligence with other agencies.
(4) Social justice
- Reserved powers on health and safety are currently implemented via devolved supervisory bodies. Devolving powers also might allow such regulations to be created in accordance with other areas of Scottish law. A separate Scottish advisory body for the Executive has already been created (the Partnership for Health and Safety Scotland).
(5) Health
- Poor health is a persistent problem in Scotland that undermines growth in other areas. While responsibility for the health service has been devolved, the United Kingdom Government determines its budget. Fiscal autonomy would allow a distribution of resources to meet the health demands of Scotland. Furthermore, economics is an important determinant of health. Greater economic control may address the nation’s health.
(6) Climate change
- Scotland’s seas provide sites for effective harnessing of wave, wind and tidal power. Currently energy policy is reserved to the United Kingdom, which must consider the locations and resource demands of the country as a whole. Scotland is likely to meet energy requirements without nuclear power and additional radioactive waste. A different solution across the rest of the country would likely affect public investment on other energy sources that might be practical in Scotland.
(7) Education
- Skills for work are devolved, but United Kingdom employment and benefits-related policies are typically addressed to the wider work needs of the country. Further devolution in employment services could better meet Scotland’s skills.
(8) Foreign affairs and domestic policy
- Negotiation with the European Union is reserved as foreign affairs. However many issues relate directly to domestic policy matters devolved to Scotland. There is thus a discrepancy, whereby Scottish Ministers can only attend meetings or speak on important domestic matters at the agreement of United Kingdom Ministers. A greater role could be given to Scottish Ministers before and during negotiations on relevant matters.
Independence
A grant of independence would end all reserved powers held by the United Kingdom, and the Scottish Government and Parliament would acquire total responsibility for domestic and international policy. Scotland would attain the rights of an independent nation subject to the European Union and inherited international treaties. The Queen would remain the head of state of both Scotland and the United Kingdom. Scotland has a legal and political status, with its own legal system, institutions and definable territorial boundaries, and therefore already possesses some of the characteristics of a state. The nation’s maritime boundaries would have to be set upon independence. The current constitutional position of Scotland is circumscribed by the Union of the Crowns of 1603, the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1801, and supplemented by additional constitutional legislation such as the European Communities Act 1972, the Human Rights Act 1998 and Scotland Act 1998. The paper argues that the Union did not undermine the right of the people of Scotland to determine their own constitutional arrangements, including independence as occurred to other nations formerly united (under the British Empire, for example).
