Scotland: The Evolution of Devolution
On April 16, 1746, on the bleak expanse of Culloden Moor, government troops
commanded by the Duke of Cumberland utterly destroyed the Scottish army of Bonnie Prince
Charlie. The battle ended the Second Jacobite Rebellion and Scotland's last bid for
independence. The Union of 1707 remained intact and Scotland became an integral part of the
British Empire. As the United Kingdom moves into the next century however, it does so much
less united than when it entered the current one. Even Scotland is once again seeking its own
path. The Scottish Nationalist Party and a resurgent Scottish nationalism, sparked by the
conservative excesses of Thatcherism, North Sea Oil, and a weakened British state, has been able
to pressure the two major political parties into approving (albeit grudgingly) a separate Scottish
parliament. This decision is a culmination of a century long struggle with Britain's ruling elites.
What is the basis for this devolution? Is it solely an expression of nationalism or are there more
fundamental reasons?
The roots of Scottish nationalism stretch at least as far back as 1320. Six years after
Robert the Bruce's victory at Bannockburn and the establishment of an independent kingdom of
Scotland, the Scottish people petitioned the Pope for recognition of their nation and their king.
Their Declaration of Arbroath stipulated they were bound to their king only insofar as he worked
for the good of the people. Their primary goal was freedom "which no good man gives up except
with his life"(Harvie 23). This social contract laid the foundation for the Scottish nation-state.
The people defined the state. The people were sovereign. They were, and are, a national
community with the right of self-determination (Keating 25). Scotland not only had its own king
but it also had its own parliament. The situation changed somewhat when in 1603 James VI
1
ascended to the English throne and united the crowns. Scotland, however, still retained its
parliament (165).
Scotland even had a brief fling at empire when the Scottish Trading Company established
the colony of Darien on the Isthmus of Panama in the late 1600's. It was hoped it would come to
dominate east-west trade but the venture failed due to Spanish attacks and malarial mosquitoes
(Gray 41).
In the early 1700's, with Queen Anne childless, the Stuart line was ended. London asked
Scotland to agree to the succession of the House of Hanover. Scotland refused. Commissioners
sent to London came back with a proposal: if the Scots swore allegiance to the Hanovers the
parliaments could be joined. Scotland could keep its ancient laws and legal system, forty-five
ministers could join Commons, sixteen lords could join the House of Lords, the Presbyterian
Church would be recognized as the state church, and the Scottish Trading Company would be
bought out (it was to be abolished by the agreement). Of course this proposal was refused but
when England threatened to blockade all Scottish trade and hinted at war the Union was accepted
in 1707. Scottish parliament members were rewarded for their "help" (44).
It did not take long before Scotland realized its position in the Union. The British
government spread taxes in ways that helped English trade but depressed Scottish trade. For
example, English coal could enter Ireland duty free but Scottish coal could not. England's main
industry was wool so government placed a light export duty on it. Scotland's was linen so
government placed a heavy export duty on it (46). With the Jacobite defeat at Culloden in 1746,
the government ruthlessly purged all resistance to the Union. Thousands were killed, made
homeless, or exiled. Scottish cultural symbols such as the tartan were outlawed. The bagpipe was
designated a "weapon of war" and also outlawed (Maclean 125). For much of the 1800's,
2
Scotland's nationalism was stunted. There were several factors that made this so. The industrial
revolution made union more attractive. Also, Scots were proud of their role in building the
British Empire. They served in every capacity imaginable including missionary, colonist, soldier,
and administrator. Scotland's superior education system accounted for much of this success. One
English lord complained that English universities taught "gentlemen" how to spend money while
Scottish universities taught young men how to make it. Nationalistic hunger was fed by the
"Tartan Monster," a shallow romantic nationalism based on the tartan, bagpipes, and the cult of
Sir William Wallace. Most of the tension between Scotland and England occurred when
contributions to the empire were collectively attributed to the English (Finlay 20).
With the industrial revolution, Scotland soon found its small measure of autonomy
threatened by the emerging modern state when Parliament began to meddle with Scottish
educational institutions in 1870. The conflict was resolved by the creation of a Secretary of State
for Scotland in 1885. The secretary's duties included lobbying for Scotland in Parliament and
adapting details of policies to the Scottish environment (Keating 168). Yet this sop was not
enough to stem a rising tide of Scottish nationalism. Much of this newfound fervor was a result
of increasing demands on government to see to Scotland's needs and the Irish crisis. The Scots
saw themselves as England's "milk cow." They contributed proportionately more to the
Exchequer but received less in benefits. It was especially irritating that English cultural
associations were funded by the Exchequer while similar Scottish entities had to find funds from
the private sector. The Irish, also reluctant members of the Union, finally won support for home
rule. This prompted Scotland to seek the same. Between 1886 and 1900, seven separate Scottish
home rule motions were presented to Parliament. Scottish activists wanted to tie the issue with
Ireland's bid on the same legislation. They feared that if Ireland gained home rule separately
3
there would not be enough votes for the Scots due to reduced Irish representation in Parliament.
This is what eventually occurred (Finlay 49). Liberal Party supports for Scottish home rule
allowed another chance when the Irish crisis reached a peak between 1910 and 1915.
Conservatives, fearing a total breakdown of the Union, certainly would have supported some
form of devolution. War in 1914, unfortunately, killed the initiative and brought the death of
liberal Britain. Ireland escaped- Scotland did not (Harvie 41).
Post World War I Britain presented a new political climate. The Liberal Party was no
longer a force. It had been supplanted by the Labour Party as the dominant opposition party to
the conservatives. Naturally many Scots gravitated to Labour, but many home rulers, frustrated
by the established parties, founded the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) in the late 1920's. The
Scottish electorate itself was ambivalent. Union was a distinct economic advantage offering
access to the Empire's markets to Scottish heavy industry. It was also an advantage when the
world fell into the Great depression for membership in the Union allowed access to the growing
British welfare state (Keating 170).
Home rule agitation caused partial devolution in 1939, when a Scottish "Whitehall" was
established. All Scottish governmental departments were transferred to Edinburgh. Progressives
hoped this move was a precursor to an expanded Scottish role in government but it came to mean
little. The SNP did plan an all-party Scottish convention to discuss this development and its
relation to home rule but war again killed the issue (Harvie 169). Scottish hopes for home rule
were dealt an even bigger blow by Churchill's appointment of Thomas Johnston as Scottish
Secretary of State in 1941. How? Johnston was effective. He utilized a centrist approach to
management and involved business and trade unions. He gained greater concessions from
4
Parliament and "delivered" benefits to Scotland. His success was proof against claims that only
home rule could work for Scotland (Finlay 129).
With World War II over there was a burst of home rule activity. The first SNP Member
of Parliament was elected in 1945. This activity was short lived for Parliament had already
proved it could be effective and the Labour Party had committed itself to looking after Scotland's
needs. As a whole, Labour favored some form of devolution (at least in theory) but some
elements of the party were decidedly anti-home rule (136). Labour did bring changes.
Nationalization of key industries brought the British State into the daily lives of the Scots. The
welfare state was expanded and brought some Scottish traditions to an end such as local boards.
Redistribution of industry brought new plants into Scotland. New Council housing (public
housing) eased housing shortages and there were several health programs created and other
social reforms. Some of these initiatives were short sighted especially in industry. Scotland was
given a narrow range of industry that would later come back and bite their collective bums (138).
Every party had a hand in Scottish affairs in the 1960's and 1970's. Deteriorating
economic conditions gave the SNP victories at the polls at Labour's expense. Their success put
Labour and the Conservatives on notice. Labour introduced more devolutionary ideas. They saw
two options: give some power to a Scottish parliament or tackle Scottish grievances at the
source. They chose the latter option and set up the Scottish Development Agency but it did little
to turn the economy around. On the Conservatives part, their leader, Ted Heath, came out in
support of a Scottish assembly (Keating 181).
Home Rule received a slap in the face in 1979. With government forced to concede a
referendum on devolution a bare majority (51.6 percent) voted "Yes." Forty percent of the
5
electorate did not even show up at the polls. The SNP lost over one-third of their support in the
elections that year (Finlay 157).
Nothing proved to be a greater impetus to Scottish nationalism and demands for
devolution than the conservative governance of Margaret Thatcher. The Tory attack on
corporatism and the welfare state was seen as an attack on Scottish political culture. The Tories
were viewed as an English party not a national one. In Scotland itself, the conservatives hit their
lowest depths: no ministers at all and barely seventeen percent of the vote. The operation of
government in Scotland without Scottish input demonstrated a lack of accountability to the
electorate- it was a "democratic deficit." The impotence of Labour caused them to reassess the
issue of home rule. Scottish parliament could prove to be a bulwark against conservatism, it
might even keep the Tories out of power indefinitely (Applebaum 164).
On the part of the SNP and much of the Scottish electorate the situation was clear. The
government was no longer delivering the goods. North Sea oil added weight to their argument
that Scotland could do better by itself. Underlying it all was a divergence of philosophy:
Scotland was more attuned to the classic welfare state while England was still tied to a
conservative perspective. The election of Tony Blair in 1994 did not appreciably alter this
viewpoint. Home rule was going to become a reality (Keating 177).
What form home rule would take was outlined in a white paper appropriately entitled
Scotland’s Parliament (Wales’ white paper was entitled A Voice for Wales). The next decision
was to delineate the powers reserved to Westminster and what would be devolved to Scotland.
The British Parliament would be responsible for the Constitution, foreign policy, defense and
national security, border controls, monetary and fiscal affairs (though the Scots could raise or
lower the base income tax rate by up to 3 pence), the Common Market, employment law, social
6
security, regulation of professions, transport safety, and other regulatory areas such as nuclear
safety, abortion, and cinema licensing. All other powers devolved to Scotland. These would
include responsibility for health, education, local government, housing, economic development,
trade, transport, criminal and civil law, courts and prisons, police and fire services, animals, the
environment, agriculture, food standards, forestry, fisheries, sports, and the arts. The Scottish
Parliament could make binding laws without permission from Westminster but only in those
areas devolved to Scotland (Rozenburg). However, legislation would have a delay period to
allow review by the British Parliament. Any disputes between the two parliaments would be
referred to the Judicial Committee of Privacy Council. The office of Scottish Secretary of State
would remain intact and act as a liaison between parliaments. Other constitutional arrangements
include recognition of the Queen as head of state, recognition of the British Parliament as
sovereign, the future of Scotland’s Parliament based on popular support, a future review of
Scottish seats in Westminster (currently at 72), and a possibility of future adjustments of
reserved and devolved powers (White Paper Summary).
The electorate would enjoy accountability from their new parliament. The head of
government, the First Minister, would be drawn from the majority party or coalition. He in turn
would select the Departmental Ministers. They would have a relationship similar to that in
Westminster. Additionally, the First Minister would administer laws reserved to the British
Parliament and the European Union. Members to the Scottish Parliament would be elected by the
additional member system. This system would encourage the electorate to vote for the most
preferred party instead of voting tactically. It is quite possible that the two parliaments may be
led by opposing parties. This could cause even further divergence (Notional Make-Up).
7
Contrary to Labour’s notion that a Scottish Parliament would keep the Tories in the cold,
General Election results from May 1997show a slight Conservative gain while twenty-two
percent of Labour voters swung to the SNP. Predictions of Parliamentary elections in 1999 show
Labour losing even more ground (Scots Independence Tour).
Scotland has finally achieved what it has sought since the Union of 1707. It will have its
own parliament. Is this the end of British devolution? If recent surveys are correct the answer is
probably not. Over forty-seven percent of Scottish voters favor full independence immediately
and sixty-two percent predict an independent state within fifteen years. Even more interesting is
the devolution question facing Scotland itself. The island communities of the Orkneys and
Shetlands are calling for more autonomy at Scotland’s expense. There have even been calls for a
referendum to determine the extent of authority that should be devolved from Edinburgh to
Kirkwall; power over transport links to the islands are the main bone of contention (Islands).
It is most likely that Scotland’s bid for a parliament will not end there. Clearly there is
broad support for an independent state. This separatist mood is hardly confined to the United
Kingdom. Since the break-up of the former Soviet Union and the move to a uni-polar world,
even normally stable countries such as Spain and Canada are experiencing devolutionary forces
at work in the form of the separatist provinces of Catalonia and Quebec. The foundations of
nation-states are in flux as each attempts to adjust to the demands of a new political and
economic world order. Scotland certainly sees itself as being more capable to meet these new
demands than the other partners in the Union are. Scotland, once again, will be free.
8
Works Cited
Applebaum, Anne. “Tony Blair and the New Left.” Foreign Affairs: Readings in Comparative
Politics. Prepared for Dr. Jerry W. Jones. New York: Foreign Affairs, 1998.
Finlay, Richard J. A Partnership for Good? Scottish Politics and the Union Since 1880.
Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd, 1997.
Gray, Alasdair. Why Scots Should Rule Scotland 1997. Edinburgh: Canongate, 1997.
Harvie, Christopher. Scotland and Nationalism. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1977.
“Islands Push for Further Devolution,” Scottish Referendums. 12 Sep.1999
<http://wwwO.docklands.bbc.co.uk/politics97/devolution>.
Keating, Michael. Nations Against the State: The New Politics of Nationalism in Quebec,
Catalonia, and Scotland. New York: St. Martins Press, 1996.
Maclean, Fitzroy. Highlanders: A History of the Scottish Clans. New York: Penguin Group,
1995.
“Notional Make-up of a Scottish Parliament,” Scottish Referendums 12 Sep.1999
<http://wwwO.docklands.bbc.co.uk/scotland/briefing>.
Rozenberg, Joshua. “Devolution,” BBC Politics 97. 12 Sep. 1999
<http://wwwO.docklands.bbc.co.uk/politics97/analysis/rozenburg2.shtml>.
“Scots Independence Tour,” Scotland’s on the Move. 12 Sep. 1999
<http://www.freescotland.com/newpolit.html>.
“White Paper Summary,” Devolution for Scotland. 12 Sep. 1999
<http://www.abel.co.uk/~febl/wpsummary1.htm>.
9