Scotland’s referendum has led to re-engagement with social citizenship but we must engage at all times - not only when our unity is under threat.
Dan Sharp is a Labour Party activist and works in Westminster as an MP’s researcher
As a Scot in London I have been surprised by the high level of interest from those south of the border in the upcoming Independence Referendum. Across the UK people are genuinely interested in the arguments and the outcome, but all too often are unaware of the powers that the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland currently hold.
This week the Scottish Labour Party published its plans for the further devolution of powers to Holyrood in the event that Scotland votes No in September. With 2012’s Scotland Act already set to give Holyrood powers over income tax rates and borrowing levels from 2016, devolution is certainly a process not an event.
Earlier this month the Silk Commission reported on devolution in Wales, calling for the Welsh Assembly to have greater powers over policing, energy, broadcasting and transport. The Commission also called for Wales to move to a reserved powers model, which would stipulate which powers are not devolved rather than those that are, bringing the Assembly into line with the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Irish Assembly.
This move would represent a step change if implemented: to date asymmetry has been a key feature of devolution across the United Kingdom. The institutions that Labour created through its constitutional reforms in 1998 reflected the historic differences between the nations of the UK, as much as existent political pressures.
Scotland, which has a long history of independent statehood before the Union of 1707, had been accommodated within Great Britain with its own church and legal and education systems, and from 1885 its own government department – the Scottish Office.
In 1999 Scotland was given a parliament while Wales – which was given a Welsh Office in 1965 and remained culturally distinct despite being annexed to England in the mid-sixteenth century – was given an Assembly. The difference in language was not only symbolic but substantive; Scotland was given far greater powers, including the ability to pass primary legislation on any issue not specifically reserved to Westminster.
Acknowledging this, Labour’s last prime minister Gordon Brown called for a narrative of Britishness. Brown’s claims that British solidarity was underwritten by distinct British values were criticised for being politically expedient given his personal predicament as a Scottish PM.
But the issues he raised were – and are – real and salient. Asymmetric devolution has the capacity to undermine what unites the UK, as the SNP’s current policies and constitutional proposals highlight.
The sociologist TH Marshall said that individuals are bound together in solidarity – in social citizenship – through a sequence of civil, political and social rights. Applying his logic, the creation of new political rights in Scotland, with a parliament responsible for major aspects of social policy, could create a competing site for social solidarity at odds with the UK.
In practice, distinctive policies – such as the abolition of undergraduate tuition fees – have earmarked Scotland’s distinctive political space; the same is true for Wales and Northern Ireland.
Devolving different powers to different national legislatures across the UK has not been matched by renewed commitment to strengthen state-wide social citizenship and inter-governmental institutions. German regions, for example, in contrast are strongly represented across their federal government.
Labour is partly to blame for this. As the senior partner in the Scottish Executive and with a majority in the UK parliament, Labour coordinated policy through informal networks during the early years of devolution rather than by building official channels for inter-governmental communication. This legacy has been exacerbated as different parties have come to power in different parts of the UK.
The creation of different social rights in different parts of the UK – whether in relation to higher education, prescriptions or social care – has also disconnected our political debate. Citizens across the UK have different rights and are subject to different authorities.
The devolved nations undoubtedly benefit from being part of the UK – with powers over important domestic policies, they also benefit from the strength, security and influence that being part of a bigger country brings – but the public need to know who does what and why. Put simply: we need greater dialogue between citizens and between governments.
The devolution of further powers to our national legislatures should be supported, but we need to look holistically at our constitutional landscape. We need to renew our commitment to social citizenship and social justice across the whole of the UK.
Scotland’s referendum has led to re-engagement but we must engage at all times – not only when our unity is under threat.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
3 Responses to “Devolving greater powers must be accompanied by clarity on what binds us”
uglyfatbloke
Dan – if you’re going to cite historical processes you really should read some history first. Scotland was not ‘accommodated in the United Kingdom’; England and Scotland came together to form the United Kingdom. There was no United Kingdom prior to the treat of 1707, just separate counties than shared a monarch.
Dan Sharp
Thanks for your feedback. I fear that you have misunderstood.
There is an assumption that when a smaller country unites with a larger one, it will be assimilated. Indeed, many have commented on the unequal partnership between Scotland and England. However, Scotland was not assimilated following the Union of 1707. As I said, Scotland continued to have its own church, legal and education systems. These three institutions are said to have created a distinctive political class in
Scotland, which persisted with the creation of the Scottish Office. It is a generally held view in academia that Scotland was accommodated rather than assimilated when it joined with England to create Great Britain. Lindsay Paterson of Edinburgh University has written very compellingly on this issue. You mention the United Kingdom, it came much later.
uglyfatbloke
We may both be at cross purposes; my point was that Scotland was not accommodated within an existing unified political construct- Great Britain – which is what I took you to mean.