• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 16066 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 16066 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Presses universitaires de la Méditerrané...
  • ›
  • Horizons anglophones
  • ›
  • Dévolution, identités et nationalismes
  • ›
  • Devolution in Scotland: “Settled Will” o...
  • Presses universitaires de la Méditerrané...
  • Presses universitaires de la Méditerranée
    Presses universitaires de la Méditerranée
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral The Long Road to Home RuleThe Early Years of DevolutionThe 2007 Campaign: Time for ChangeAfter the WatershedNo End for the Honeymoon?Towards Independence?Independence in Britain? Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Dévolution, identités et nationalismes

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Devolution in Scotland: “Settled Will” or “Staging Post”?

    Eberhard Bort

    p. 45-75

    Texte intégral The Long Road to Home RuleThe Early Years of DevolutionThe 2007 Campaign: Time for ChangeAfter the WatershedNo End for the Honeymoon?Towards Independence?Independence in Britain? Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Texte intégral

    1The past decade has seen fundamental change in the United Kingdom. Anyone who would have predicted in 1997 that, ten years on, the Labour Party would be in its third term at Westminster, that Devolution had led to a Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition in Wales, a Nationalist minority government in Scotland and a power-sharing government in Northern Ireland, led by the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Féin, would have been called an illusionist, a dreamer (or worse). And now 2007 and all that. . . a year of massive change, perhaps a historical watershed? A new Reform Treaty for the EU, change in the UK—the long good-bye of Tony Blair and, at long last, the hand-over to Gordon Brown, his subsequent summer honeymoon, then the election that never was, signalling the plunge of Brown’s government into a troublesome autumn and the end of the line for Lib Dem leader Menzies Campbell. In Wales, a totally unexpected coalition between Labour’s Rhodri Morgan and Ieuan Wyn Jones of Plaid Cymru; in Northern Ireland, the astonishing spectacle of Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley sharing a press conference, followed by the astoundingly good-natured partnership in government of the erstwhile “Dr No” of Northern Irish politics with ex-IRA commander and Sinn Féin negotiator Martin McGuinness—now often referred to as the “Chuckle Brothers”.

    2For Scotland, in the year marking both the tercentenary of the Anglo-Scottish Union and the tenth anniversary of the successful Devolution Referendum, the May elections turned out a momentous event, breaking the nearly five decades of hegemony of Scottish Labour at the national and, even more emphatically, at the local government level and ushering in an SNP minority government at Holyrood. Was this the death knell for devolution—allegedly, in John Smith’s words, “the settled will of the Scottish people?”1 Proof that devolution did not, as George Robertson had claimed, “kill Nationalism stone dead”, but rather a stepping stone, or a “staging post”? If the latter, where to? Just underlining that devolution, pace Ron Davies, was a process rather than an event, part of what Henry McLeish calls the “evolution of devolution”? Or towards regaining Scottish independence as a sovereign nation-state, as the SNP would have it? Was the SNP victory a victory for independence, or rather the “coming of age” of devolution? Have the “devolution dullards. . . had their day,”2 or have the voters cast Alex Salmond and the SNP as the better devolutionists? How did Labour, with their new leader Wendy Alexander, react to the defeat? What effect does the new Scottish dispensation have on internal UK relations, between the devolved territories and between the Scottish and the UK governments? Is the notorious “West Lothian Question” provoking an English “Nationalist” reaction, at a time when the Scots provide not only the UK Prime Minister, but also a number of important ministers in Brown’s cabinet?

    3After 300 years, the Union seems to have “moved from a constitutional fixture to a constitutional option,”3 but has it reached its sell-by date, as Tom Nairn, Chris Harvie et al. have been arguing, or can it be renewed, as Gordon Brown, Wendy Alexander, Henry McLeish and David Steel would maintain?4 Eight years into Devolution, the question whether the present constitutional arrangement is the “settled will of the Scottish people” or an unsustainable and therefore transitory “halfway house” has to be reshaped. With not one, but two rival constitutional discourses on the go (the “National Conversation” of the SNP government, and the “Constitutional Commission” of the Parliament), the status quo (Devolution ’99) is being consigned to history. But whether “Devolution plus” (aka “Devolution Max” or “Devolution Mark II”) or Independence will be the outcome of the process is a question still looming large. Before we start to speculate on that outcome, let us first see how we have got here.

    The Long Road to Home Rule

    4The roots of the Scottish Home Rule movement go back to the nineteenth century. After the Acts of Union of 1707,5 in which Scotland secured a degree of autonomy6—particularly Scots law, the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland and the education system—it was the decline of the Church’s influence after the Disruption of 1843, and the expanding role of the state (i.e. government from London) which gave rise to demands for self-government in Scotland. The response was the re-institution of the Scottish Secretary and the Scottish Office in 1885, and eventually the move of the Scottish Office to Edinburgh in 1939. Thus, administrative devolution long preceded political devolution. In 1886, the Scottish Home Rule Association was formed to further Scottish demands for self-government. These demands were based on the fact that Scotland, perhaps more than any other region in the UK, had the historic status of nationhood, which was pre-dating the Union of 1707 and not questioned afterwards. The distinct set of legal, educational and religious institutions which Scotland had retained had served to reinforce a distinct Scottish identity—its unique “Unionist Nationalism”7 of the nineteenth century, from Sir Walter Scott onwards: culturally Scottish, politically British, combining Scottish nationality with British statehood.

    5The years following the First World War saw economic depression in Scotland and, along with cultural stirrings which would culminate in the Scottish literary renaissance led by Hugh MacDiarmid, new political movements and parties were founded, leading to the formation of the Scottish National Party in 1934. For the following decades, the SNP remained a fringe party, but the late 1960s and early 1970s saw their first big rise, connected with the finding of oil off the Scottish shores in the North Sea. In 1974, the party scored nearly a third of the vote in the two general elections of that year, and returned 11 (out of 72) MPs to Westminster. Labour reacted to the challenge and, in 1979, introduced a referendum on a Scottish Assembly. But Labour itself was divided on the issue, the proposal weak, and the Callaghan government hugely unpopular after the infamous “winter of discontent”. Although a small majority in Scotland voted in favour of an Assembly, their number did not pass the threshold (arbitrarily set by Westminster) of 40 per cent of the electorate who would have to have agreed to the proposal in order to allow it to become enacted. The Devolution Bill was shelved. The SNP withdrew its support for Labour’s minority government, elections were called, and Margaret Thatcher came to power. Implacably opposed to any constitutional change that would give Scotland Home Rule, and exuding a sense of narrow English nationalism, she became key to the success of the pro-devolution cause in the final two decades of the twentieth century. In the words of Canon Kenyon Wright, the convener of the Scottish Constitutional Convention (1989-1995), Mrs Thatcher became “the unwilling and unwitting midwife” of the Scottish Parliament.8

    6The declining parliamentary representation of the Conservative Party in Scotland throughout the 1980s and 1990s emphasised the perception of a “democratic deficit”. Increasingly, Scottish political representation was regarded as marginalised, as the governing party in Westminster had to fill Scottish political institutions with MPs from English constituencies. This “democratic deficit” was profoundly influential in shaping Scottish opinion and preparing the ground for the 1997 Referendum. Furthermore, Conservative government policies were perceived as threatening the welfare state that remained popular among the Scottish electorate. Thus, “welfare benefits” became intricately linked with the push for constitutional change.9 It was also a time when Scotland, in common with other peripheral regions of the UK, suffered from de-industrialisation, the terminal decline of heavy industries like shipbuilding, coal and steel. Again, the government in London came under serious criticism as it stood by and let the market deal with these structural changes.10 A further element in the changing context for devolution was the growing significance of the European Union, which emphasised the “third level” of governance and the principle of subsidiarity in Europe, and gave those who demanded Scottish independence a framework—“Independence in Europe”—within which Scottish self-determination could be discussed.

    7The Campaign for a Scottish Assembly (later Campaign for a Scottish Parliament) started work in 1980.11 The Constitutional Convention, convened in 1989, based on a new Claim of Rights and involving a broad spectrum of Scottish civil society (only the Tories and the SNP had excluded themselves from the process—the SNP as it did not want to compromise the principle of independence; the Conservatives as they did not want constitutional change), produced, in November 1995, its “blueprint” for a Scottish Parliament.12 It took another eighteen months before its translation into reality could begin. Labour had adopted the “blueprint” in its manifesto for the 1997 elections and, returned to power in May of that year, based the Government’s White Paper on Devolution on the findings and conclusions of the Convention, put it to the people of Scotland in a Referendum on 11 September 1997 and, with the endorsement of nearly 75 per cent of those who voted, began the legislative process which led to the Scotland Act of 1998 and, eventually, to the first elections of a Scottish Parliament in nearly three hundred years, in May 1999.

    The Early Years of Devolution

    8The new electoral system, part first-past-the-post (73 constituencies) and proportional list (56 additional seats in 8 regional constituencies) meant that no party could expect to have an overall majority in the 129 seat Parliament. Labour (56 seats) and the Liberal Democrats (17) formed a partnership government; the SNP (35) became Her Majesty’s Official Opposition party in Scotland, and the Conservatives (18), who did not win a single constituency, were saved by the list (which they had opposed, like the whole idea of devolution and a Scottish Parliament). The Greens and the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) each gained one seat, as did Dennis Canavan who triumphed as an independent against the Labour Party (which had refused to accept him as the candidate for Falkirk-West).

    9The first session was fraught with problems—three First Ministers (Donald Dewar died in October 2000; his successor Henry McLeish fell over his Westminster office allowances and was replaced by Jack McConnell in 2001); a private referendum on Section 28 (teaching homosexuality in schools); the exam fiasco of 2000; and the albatross of the much-delayed and over-budget parliament building project; all exacerbated by a Scottish print media at times excessively and unfairly critical of the fledgling institution. Despite these trials and tribulations, the Parliament passed 62 bills in its first four years, among them landmark legislation like Land Reform, the implementation of the McCrone agreement on education, free personal care for the elderly, the abolition of up-front tuition fees for students, and the fox-hunting ban. Notwithstanding apparent disappointments, public support for devolution as such remained strong.13

    10The second elections, in 2003, produced a “rainbow parliament”, as the smaller parties gained seats, mostly at the expense of the SNP. Labour was reduced to 50 MSPs, but could continue its coalition with the Liberal Democrats (17); the SNP plunged to 27 seats, while the Greens added six to their existing one, and the SSP ended, five up, on six MSPs. Three independents and one representative of the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party (SSCUP) completed the diverse picture.14 The tally of bills passed climbed to 112 by the end of the second term. Local Government reform (including the switch to STV—the Single Transferable Vote), the Smoking Ban in enclosed public places, and controversial anti-social behaviour measures were the legislative flagships of the second term. Also among the plus points for the Executive and the Parliament were the launch of Scotland’s unique National Theatre and the open tackling of the remaining pockets of sectarianism and of growing signs of racism in an increasingly multi-ethnic Scottish society. Clearly, after the building saga faded into the background, the Parliament seemed to gain in confidence.

    11A lot had been said and written about the “new politics” around the 1999 election, and although some of it evolved, especially in the Parliament’s powerful committees, there was a sense that stable Labour-Liberal Democrat government had reinforced more traditional, Westminster-style politics at Holyrood. The envisaged “participative democracy” had only surfaced in patches. And those who had hoped for a radical new political content in Scotland, brimming with new ideas and redefining social democracy for the twenty-first century, saw themselves disappointed.15

    12On the other hand, major conflicts between Edinburgh and London, as widely predicted before devolution, did not materialise. Parliament and Executive developed international links: regional partnership agreements were signed with Catalonia, Tuscany, Northrhine-Westfalia and Bavaria. In 2003-2004, Jack McConnell was President of RegLeg—the body representing and lobbying for the self-governing “constitutional” regions of the European Union. But he seemed caught between his commitment to regional solidarity across Europe and the regions common interest to gain a seat at the top table in Europe, and constraints from London which had not even allowed a working group on the regions in Giscard’s Constitutional Convention.16 Thanks to sustained economic growth and high levels of employment, financial tensions between Westminster and Holyrood, likewise widely anticipated, were also absent.17 But, of course, the real litmus test for devolution would only come once parties of different political hues were in charge north and south of the border.

    13As the dust settled on the ballot paper fiasco on 4 May 2007—nearly 150000 voting papers had been discarded as spoilt18—it emerged that Scotland had voted for political change. By the narrowest of margins, but with surging momentum, the SNP had pipped Labour to the post, with 47 to 46 seats. Far from an overall majority. But that was to be expected. Under the Additional Member System (AMS), no party since 1999 had gained an outright majority.

    The 2007 Campaign: Time for Change

    14After eight years of Devolution with the partnership of Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the helm of Scottish governance, there seemed to be a clear desire for change. But only a year or so before the election, there had been no sign of an SNP surge. In the opinion polls, it had seemed to go nowhere, while the Liberal Democrats had tried to make hay after claiming Dunfermline from Labour in a Westminster by-election in February 2006. But from the summer onwards, the SNP eked into a lead over Labour. That, in itself, was not surprising. It had happened before. But this time the polls continued having the SNP substantially ahead at the beginning of the campaign proper, and up to election day—with the exception of two or three “stray polls” which had Labour in front. In previous campaigns, the SNP poll lead had always collapsed as the campaign got under way. Labour was shocked by the Westminster by-election defeat in Dunfermline, which was mostly self-inflicted through ill-conceived interference of London Labour into devolved matters like the Forth bridge tolls and the building of a new Forth bridge. The SNP used the summer months for the build-up of their manifesto pledges, issuing policy after policy, while Labour seemed to snooze. With a brilliantly staged autumn conference, the SNP cemented its lead (Labour’s gathering at Oban was overshadowed by Tony Blair’s long farewell and the replacement of Trident, which Gordon Brown had committed himself to in July 2006). It looked as if the return of Alex Salmond as SNP leader in 2004 had truly galvanised the party (eventually, “Alex Salmond for First Minister” would replace the party name on the 2007 ballot paper). Riding high in the polls, his claim that the SNP could win 20 extra seats in the election seemed to become more realistic by the day. At Haddington, in October 2006, Jack McConnell delivered the annual John P Mackintosh lecture, in which he stated that no additional powers were needed for Holyrood.19 This was, for many observers, strange and puzzling: boxing the self-proclaimed party of change into the defensive corner (oddly reminiscent of the Tories position in the 1980s and 90s) of the sole Scottish party advocating the status quo—all other parties stood for change, as even the Scottish Conservatives showed a willingness to talk about increased powers for Holyrood. Had not McConnell himself initiated a review of the Parliament’s powers, suggesting transfers in areas like immigration, broadcasting, control over firearms, casinos and drug policy?20 Had devolution, all of a sudden, ceased to be a process?

    15With the Union anniversary looming, a peculiar double-decker argument evolved—on the upper deck the debate about the Union and Scottish independence; on the lower deck the issues of devolved governance. Labour concentrated the big guns on the upper deck—repeating the mantra of “divorce is expensive” which had been successful in 1999 and 2003. What they failed to grasp was that (a) the SNP had mastered that double-decker argument, taking the sting out of the independence issue by promising a separate referendum (and thus decoupling the issues of devolved government from the issue of independence), while at the same time playing on the unpopular reserved issues like the Iraq war, the replacement of Trident, Gordon Brown’s role in the pensions crisis, and Blair’s cash for peerages scandal, while offering a manifesto for change in Scotland, rich in promises (if perhaps not perfectly sound in financial terms), and (b) that an independence referendum and the transfer of taxation powers from Westminster to Holyrood ranked seventeenth and twenty-first among twenty-five policy issues in an ICM poll for the BBC at the beginning of the campaign, way behind schools and hospitals, crime, farming and fishing.21

    16Labour’s apocalyptic rhetoric about the threats of independence seemed to annoy as many voters as it was frightening them into voting for the status quo. What had worked in 1999 and 2003, now became increasingly counterproductive, but Labour kept ploughing on, not realising that there were seriously diminishing returns, while reminding the public constantly of those reserved Westminster political issues that highlighted the impotence of the Scottish Parliament concerning those reserved matters, playing into the hands of Salmond’s line of argument:

    We’ve now had seven years of devolution and I think there’s a pretty overwhelming feeling in Scotland that now we’ve got a parliament, we may as well make it a real parliament with real powers, so it can do real things for Scotland.22

    17John Curtice put it in a nutshell: Labour fought a referendum campaign (although a referendum was not on the cards) and won; it lost the election. The SNP fought a Scottish election (which was very much on the cards) and won: “The SNP’s victory in May was a success for the party rather than the cause of independence that it espouses. It had a popular leader and tapped a feeling that Holyrood should put Scotland, rather than partnership with London, first.”23

    18In fairness, it has to be said that Jack McConnell tried hard to make education the central plank of Scottish Labour’s election campaign—but the SNP seemed “to dominate the media agenda.”24 Labour did not manage to make its themes the focus of the campaign. In the end, Blair’s long good-bye, the ongoing fiasco in Iraq, Trident, cash for honours, nuclear power, pensions, treatment of asylum seekers, etc cast a long shadow over the campaign. Blair and Brown’s presence in the campaign highlighted those “reserved” matters—and reinforced the public perception of negativity about Labour. A Populus poll for The Times a fortnight before the election put Labour in the UK at 29 per cent, showing support for the party falling to a level last seen when Michael Foot was leader in the 1980s.25

    19Moreover, if Scotland was, as Labour argued, incapable of sustaining itself as an independent country, who was to blame? Who, after all, had been in government over the past decade? Was it not Labour’s fault if Scotland was still on the drip? This “Scotland a basket case” rhetoric obviously alienated some influential Scottish business leaders so much that they publicly declared their support for the SNP—and filled the party’s coffers to the brim. Among them were the controversial bus-tycoon Brian Souter who donated £500,000, and Tom “Kwik-Fit” Farmer who was good for £100,000. The former Royal Bank of Scotland chairman Sir George Mathewson also endorsed the party’s stance on independence. Through the Scottish Independence Convention and non-party campaign group Independence First (combining the pro-independence parties), cult author Irvine Welsh, his fellow-writer Alasdair Gray, and folk singer Dick Gaughan threw their weight behind demands for an independence referendum. Other prominent support came from Archbishop Keith O’Brien and the historian and former Tory candidate Michael Fry. Signs of the widespread frustration with Labour, but also a clear indication of how far the SNP had travelled since 1999. The same is true for endorsements by the media. While hitherto the Scottish political landscape had been remarkable for the paradox that not a single paper supported the largest opposition party, this time a number of national newspapers recommended a vote for change and for an SNP-led government, even if they sometimes couched their advise in unionist caveats.26

    20From the start of the campaign, it was clear that it would be a “two-horse-race” between Labour and the SNP. Observers generally agreed that Annabel Goldie had a good campaign for the Scottish Tories, but there was clearly no Cameron effect north of the Border. The Lib Dems had lured themselves into believing that they could manage a major break through after Dunfermline (which strained their partnership with Labour), but they ran a bland campaign in which their new leader Nicol Stephen could not establish himself sufficiently.27 They stood for an increase in the powers of the Parliament, based on the findings of their own Steel Commission. But the only issue involving them directly in the campaign was the possibility of a coalition with the SNP—and the potential stumbling block of the independence referendum, which the Lib Dems refused to even contemplate.

    21Whatever happened to the “rainbow”? The Scottish Socialists had torn themselves apart—in a very public split in 2006 following Tommy Sheridan’s libel case against the News of the World.28 Both the SSP and Sheridan’s new party, Solidarity, failed to have an impact on the campaign, fighting each other as much as their real political opponents. The Greens, by contrast, had hoped to build on their successful transformation from a one-man-band to a fully-fledged parliamentary party. With the relatively unknown figure of Mark Ruskell as their campaign manager they failed to capitalise on the SSP’s woes. Should they not have fought more aggressively for the favours of disillusioned Socialist voters? Alas, the focus on the two main contenders in this two-horse race would perhaps have crushed, or squeezed, the Greens as one of the smaller parties anyway.

    22When the result was out, it seemed that even those who had not voted for the SNP took some satisfaction that change had been effected. The change of power marked a watershed in Scottish politics. As if the electorate had realised that the Scottish Parliament would only be able to prove itself if the settlement was—as it would at some stage anyway—to be tested by different parties in power at Holyrood and Westminster. Simply put, London had to be forced to cease thinking of Edinburgh as a local dependence of the Labour Party.

    After the Watershed

    23Following the election result (see Tables 1 and 2 on the next page), most pundits thought that, regardless of what they had said during the campaign, the SNP would form a government with the help of the Liberal Democrats. But as the Lib Dems set as a precondition that the Nationalists drop their plan for an independence referendum, and Alex Salmond refused to do that, coalition talks never even started. As the SNP had ruled out working with the Tories (and the Tories had ruled themselves out for any coalition), the Lib Dems had no intention of continuing with Labour, and power-sharing between Labour and the SNP was a non-starter (even if Ian Paisley can tango with Martin McGuinness, and Rhodri Morgan with Ieuan Wyn Jones, it is difficult to imagine such a cohabitation in Scotland between Labour and the SNP), there remained only the Greens, and the prospect of a minority government.

    24Eventually, the SNP signed an agreement with the two Greens which ensured that their two MSPs voted for Alex Salmond as First Minister and supported his ministerial appointments. In return, the Nationalists gave their backing to a climate change bill as an early measure and nominated Patrick Harvie MSP as the convener of one of the Holyrood committees (Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change). But it was not a coalition deal. No ministerial posts for the Greens. And they are not obliged to back Alex Salmond in a confidence vote or support the SNP’s budget plans. It is an even looser arrangement than the “confidence and supply” model of co-operation which the Greens had talked about

    Table 1. — Election Result 2007 (Share of Seatsa)

    Party

    Constituency MSPs

    Regional MSPs

    Total

    SNP

    21

    26

    47

    Labour

    37

    9

    46

    Conservatives

    4

    13

    17

    Lib Dems

    11

    5

    16

    Greens

    0

    2

    2

    Independent

    0

    1

    1

    Total

    73

    56

    129

    25a Forty-one of the 129 MSPs (31.8 %) did not serve in the previous term; 43 women (33.3 % of MSPs) were elected to the third Scottish Parliament, down from 51 (39 %) in the previous term. That figure increased to 34 % when Shirley-Anne Somerville replaced Stefan Tymkewicz as an SNP Lothians list MSP in September.

    Table 2. — Election Result 2007 (Share of Vote)

    Party

    Constituency (%)

    Regional List (%)

    SNP

    32.9

    31.0

    Labour

    32.1

    29.2

    Conservatives

    16.6

    13.9

    Lib Dems

    16.2

    11.3

    Greens

    0.1

    4.0

    Independent

    2.1

    10.6

    Total

    100

    100

    26during the campaign.29 Consultation and consent are the only way for a minority government of 47 out of 129 seats to achieve anything. Alex Salmond made that clear in his first few days as First Minister. “New politics plus”, was a phrase used by commentators. Being far short of a majority, the government needs to “assemble a broader base of support for its measures,” as Michael Keating put it: “A new phase of devolution is beginning.”30 As the Damocles sword of a no-confidence vote hangs permanently over the head of the government, the Parliament’s role in finding consensual decisions has been enhanced. Transcending the Labour-designed and Labour-led blueprint has granted devolution, in Peter MacMahon’s words, a “new lease of life”.31

    27The first measures of his government were populist and consensual, at least among a majority in the Parliament—steps to prevent ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Firth of Forth, the abolition of the graduate endowment tax, the scrapping of the Forth bridge tolls. The media gave Salmond the full benefit of his honeymoon period. Otherwise critical commentators like Joyce McMillan (The Scotsman) or Iain Macwhirter (The Herald/Sunday Herald) heaped praise on the new administration, and especially on Alex Salmond. “The effect of the last six weeks has been devastating,” Iain Macwhirter commented just before the summer recess: “The SNP hasn’t so much hit the ground running as lapped the political field on an almost daily basis. Opposition MSPs have been blown away at what has been happening.” Even some opposition MSPs, he continued,

    seem to agree the Scottish parliament has moved up a gear since the Nats took over. Debates are worth listening to; MSPs who were languishing in backbench obscurity have started making speeches that are intelligent and relevant. You could say the parliament has suddenly come alive.32

    28He compared Salmond’s start with that of Blair in 1997: the same flurry of dramatic statements of intent changing the climate of public affairs. But, he reminds us, Blair did it with a huge majority, Salmond with a party that has never before been in government and holds only a minority of seats. “Where the SNP has been unexpectedly lucky is in being a minority government. It has allowed ministers to act swiftly,” so George Kerevan (aspiring SNP candidate for Westminster), “with discipline and with a proactive media strategy.”33 Crises like Foot & Mouth and the terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow saw the Scottish government acting promptly, wisely and in full accord with the UK government. The phasing out of prescription charges over three years was announced. A Broadcasting Commission was installed, to look at the funding, the output of Scottish broadcasting (including the “Scottish Six”34) and the responsibility for media policy. The abolition of the council tax took its first hurdle, as the Lib Dems shared the SNP’s intent. But, as their model of local income tax is substantially different from the SNP’s, one of them would have to give for a replacement to gain a majority in the Chamber.

    29There is a limit to what can be done consensually, and the vote on the Edinburgh transport schemes (introduction of a tram system and a railway link to the airport) was an early crunch point. On 27 June, Cabinet Minister John Swinney accepted the first resounding defeat for the government—Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories had supported an amendment in the name of Wendy Alexander MSP to keep the Edinburgh tram project on track and review the airport rail link until the autumn. Despite previous speculation to the contrary, nourished by remarks by Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson and Alex Salmond himself, the government declared it would respect the will of Parliament and act accordingly, thus avoiding the threat of a no-confidence vote.35

    30Concerning the bigger picture, how would the new administration deal with London? And vice versa? There was the old claim to £ 23 bill which London saved when the Scottish Parliament introduced free personal care for the elderly. The Barnett formula for the distribution of revenues across the UK, with rumblings in England that Scotland gets more than a fair share, fuelled by Alex Salmond who wants this debate? Oil revenues? The conflict brewing about the closure of post offices? Representation at the European level? Civil service reform? Would Alex Salmond turn out to be Gordon Brown’s “worst nightmare?”36 Brown’s ostentatious “Britishness” and Salmond’s “Scottishness” slugging it out? Or would “British” pragmatism ensure a workable relationship? Brown and Blair’s childish delay in even acknowledging Salmond’s election to the post of First Minister played into the hands of the SNP-leader. As did the “stushie” about Blair’s memorandum of understanding with Colonel Gaddafi on the extradition of prisoners, without having bothered to consult the Scottish Executive beforehand (the most prominent Lybian prisoner in the UK sits in a Scottish prison—the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.)37 Salmond pledged to revive the institution of joint ministerial committees which had last met in October 2002, in order to better coordinate policies between the UK and Scotland. These could either become battlegrounds—or a stabilising factor, if Richard Lochhead’s dictum of “partnership and co-operation” should prevail.38

    31The first “foreign” visit of Alex Salmond saw him in Belfast, hobnobbing with Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness. Could there be a concerted demand for a lower corporate tax for the “Celtic” regions and nations, perhaps joined by Rhodri Morgan on behalf of Wales? Particularly with Plaid Cymru as part of his government? A ganging up by the Celts against London? An enhanced role for the British-Irish Council, as Tom Nairn had announced a tad prematurely at the turn of the century?39 The Irish Independent seemed to hint at such a possibility:

    Mr Salmond’s visit to Belfast, in the early days of the new Executive and shortly after his own election as First Minister in Scotland, is an event of some political significance. It indicates the possibility of a shake-up of loosening ties in the centralised UK state, and the possibility of new relationships developing between the constituent parts (and indeed across national boundaries) as the regions, with new-found confidence, begin to flex their muscles.40

    32In February, the SNP had laid out its plan, based on the current British-Irish Council, formed after the Good Friday Agreement and involving ministers from Scotland, Wales, Ireland and England as well as the crown dependencies (Channel Islands and Isle of Man) meeting to discuss areas of common concern. After Scottish independence, Salmond envisaged the convening of a “beefed-up” version, modelled on the Nordic Council.41

    33The opposition parties, and in particular Labour, needed time to come to terms with their new role. For a party like Labour which dominated Scotland at national and local level for decades to be dethroned in such a spectacular way (locally even more decisively than nationally)42 proved a bitter pill to swallow: “The party has been shocked rigid by the loss of power,” Ian Bell observed, “and its response has been a mixture of defiance, denial and incoherence.”43 Was the defeat perhaps not decisive enough? Does it lure the party into falsely believing that 2007 was only a glitch, due to Blair and Iraq? And that a come-back will be easy? Questions about leadership are being raised. Is Scottish Labour run from Scotland or from London? How should the party deal with the formidable Alex Salmond?

    No End for the Honeymoon?

    34Jack McConnell announced his resignation as Labour leader in August. Wendy Alexander was the only candidate for the post and became leader in mid-September. She had a wobbly start as opposition leader, and by the end of November became engulfed in a scandal about illegal donations to her leadership campaign44 which led to massive pressure on her to resign.45

    35While the SNP honeymoon continued, with popular support reaching 48 per cent in an August poll,46 a pattern of attack by the opposition parties evolved. The SNP had to admit early on that some of their central manifesto pledges could not be kept. Graduate endowment tax adieu—but where was the promised write-off of student debts? An ambitious target of 80 per cent reduction of carbon emissions was set for 2050, but no longer was there any talk of annual targets. The 1,000 new, additional police officers promised in the SNP manifesto shrunk to 500, to be recruited over the four years of the current Parliament, with efforts to boost the number of “bobbies on the beat” through redeployment and the retaining of officers who would normally retire.47 Back in August, Severin Carrell had listed, item per item, the government’s shortcomings:

    Watered-down promise to abolish all student debts; delayed pledge to remove business rates for small firms; held up plans to abolish council tax; failed to support marine national parks; abandoned deal to end automatic early release for prisoners.48

    36A whiff of disappointment did also hang over the First Minister’s first legislative programme, introduced at Holyrood in September. The eleven bills, some of them mere technicalities, others taking up proposals of the previous administration, contained only three which were explicitly delivering on SNP manifesto commitments: direct elections to health boards, abolishing tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges, and ending the graduate endowment scheme. “Policy lite” was one of the friendlier comments,49 and the Scotsman warned: “This is not a political conjuring trick the First Minister can hope to repeat, without scraping the legislative barrel.”50 Douglas Fraser dryly noted: “The bigger ambitions, from local income tax to independence, have to wait for another day.”51 When John Swinney presented the first SNP budget on 14 November, following the tightest financial settlement from London since devolution, these attacks on “broken promises” intensified.52 No sign any more of the £ 2,000 for first-time house buyers. Where was the commitment to match the school-building programme of the previous administration “brick by brick”? Insufficient funding for Scotland’s universities? Not enough new teachers to allow primary school classes one, two and three to have no more than 18 pupils? Prescription charges to be phased out by 2011, but no immediate abolition for those with chronic conditions (as unequivocally promised in the party manifesto.)53 Swinney’s coup, though, was that he could announce an agreement reached with the local councils to freeze the council tax.54 Only a fortnight later, though, the Finance Committee’s adviser, Professor David Bell of Stirling University, criticised that this measure disproportionally benefits the well-off and therefore directly contradicted the SNP’s “cherished aim of reducing inequality.”55 But by that time Labour’s “dodgy donations” scandal south and north of the Border ruled the headlines, and the SNP government could bury the bad news. At a time when the SNP budget was supposed to come under scrutiny and draw flak, it was the Labour party’s finances which hugged the spotlight.

    37With the main opposition party in turmoil, the Tories veering between co-operating with Salmond’s government and opposing it, and the Lib Dems in their self-imposed wilderness, the signs for a survival of the SNP minority government looked decidedly good towards the end of an amazing year in Scottish politics. But will it last the full term? Or could it all unravel? Could there be a switch to a more comfortable coalition arrangement, should the going get rougher (as happened in Wales in 2000 when Labour, eventually, came to an agreement with the Liberal Democrats)? The Greens have signalled that they would be prepared to consider a more formal pact with the SNP if the Liberal Democrats decided to take part in government. The first half year of SNP rule did not reveal any noticeable cracks inside the party. But could the fact that the SNP has twenty new MSPs in their ranks mean a lack of experience, and raise questions of loyalty to the leadership, particularly if it becomes clear that there is no chance of getting a majority for an independence referendum. Or if other policy differences manifest themselves. After all, formulation of policies in opposition is one thing, uniting behind and implementing policies as a government is a different matter.

    38And what about that referendum, which was envisaged for 2010, one year before the next scheduled Scottish Parliament elections? Little chance, with 79 MSPs belonging to “unionist” parties, and only 50 in the independence camp. Or were we to take Tory interventions serious, which argued in favour of a referendum, sooner rather than later, with the intention of having independence resoundingly voted down and thus laid to rest for a generation?56 And what relevance had former Labour minister Allan Wilson’s opinion piece in the Sunday Times coming out in favour of a referendum “to call Salmond’s bluff.”57 After all, his advice to party leader Wendy Alexander was backed by Andy Kerr, one of the most senior Labour politicians in the Parliament.58 No indication, by all means, that the referendum is imminent, but interesting none the less. How would the SNP deal with a defeat in a referendum? Would it accept to become a devolutionist party? In the absence of a referendum, how would some “fundamentalist” SNP-MSPs act if they sensed that devolved government was gradually changing their party, turn it perhaps into a Catalan-style nationalist party, content to govern a devolved Scotland, albeit with substantially increased parliamentary powers? Or can Salmond steer a course which both embraces pragmatic devolution and keeps the flame of independence alive?

    Towards Independence?

    39That is the strategy behind the “National Conversation” which Salmond started with the presentation of a White Paper and the launch of a dedicated website in August.59 Although it was not just a proposal for independence, but a review of all constitutional options, outlining the three main options—small extension of devolved powers; radical redesign of devolution and greatly enhanced powers; independence—its publication drew a good deal of criticism in the media, seeing that there was no chance of a parliamentary majority for the referendum envisaged in it. Scotland on Sunday begged to differ. It found “hard to understand the vitriol that was poured on Alex Salmond,” after all he was only fulfilling a manifesto pledge. Citing the latest survey figure of 39 per cent support for independence, it contended that “Salmond himself expects that his White Paper will fall at the first hurdle,” but that he hopes that its failure will “herald a more complex debate on Scotland’s constitutional future.” This debate, so the paper hoped, would result in “Devolution Max”, including “new control over broadcasting, marine law, stamp duty and business taxation.” Its leader comment continued:

    There must also be a debate on wider fiscal devolution, and the immediate policy focus must be the economy. Scotland needs specific policies for Scotland’s particular economic strengths and weaknesses. There is a compelling argument that without access to all levers of economic power—including tax powers—the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish government will never be fully responsible for the Scottish economy. Instead, we will continue to blame Westminster for our own ills.60

    40The Scotsman, too, argued for a referendum “sooner rather than later”. Its line was: “Scotland’s constitutional future can be determined only by her voters. They should be allowed to do so in the lifetime of this parliament.”61 Picking up on Tory voices supporting a referendum now, the Edinburgh Evening News had pronounced back in June: “Scotland needs stability and if that means an independence referendum, then better sooner than later.”62

    41Reflecting on the conundrum that the SNP rides high in the opinion polls, but that this is not matched by the independence option (with 23 per cent in this year’s Scottish Social Attitudes Survey at its lowest point since 1997),63 Iain Macwhirter pointed out what, in his view, could be Labour’s “most effective challenge to the Nationalists”:

    Why. . . does Scotland need independence when it has political autonomy under devolution? In a sense, the SNP’s effective performance in government rather undermines the Nationalists own case. The inventory of the first 100 days is pretty impressive—bridge tolls, hospitals, prescription charges, tuition fees, even doubling the subsidy to the Edinburgh Festival. If Salmond can do so much with the powers of the Parliament, what’s the point of independence?64

    42Peter Jones looked at it from a different perspective of attack. Referring to the SNP’s rejection of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link (EARL), he asked: could the SNP “deprive Scotland of the kind of big improvements that are eminently achievable now so that we become convinced that we must have independence in order to get them?”65 On the other hand, the SNP’s Peter Wishart MP warned that in the “national conversation” “independence has become just an option when it should, of course, be the option.” He warned his party to be “careful that this key choice does not become obscured in a plethora of other options.”66

    43There were also questions about the process of the “national conversation”. The Edinburgh Evening News questioned the openness of the conversation, if Salmond was the chair: “Mr Salmond may be genuine in his desire to have a ‘national conversation’ about Scotland’s future governance, but if he really wants an open debate it is not one he can chair and it must be one he is prepared to lose.”67

    44A first result of the White Paper was the coming together of the three main opposition parties in an agreement to develop devolution within the UK.68 Commenting on the “remarkable turnaround” of Labour, the Sunday Herald marvelled:

    It is another sign of how Salmond, as was always his intension, is changing Scottish politics out of all recognition: all mainstream parties now agree on the need for more powers, however much they might differ on the extent of change required. Like him or loathe him, Salmond is a first minister who is leading from the front.69

    45At perhaps the worst possible moment for her (due to the donations scandal hanging over her), Wendy Alexander delivered a major speech on the constitution at Edinburgh University on St Andrew’s Day, setting out her plan to develop devolution through an independent Scottish Constitutional Commission, endorsed by the Scottish Parliament.70 It put the seal on this constitutional U-turn for Scottish Labour, revising the position Jack McConnell had adopted before the elections. It also seemed to acknowledge that, as the Scotsman had argued after the election, “Labour lost votes in May because—for the first time—it refused even to discuss more powers for Holyrood, thus conceding the constitutional debate to the SNP.”71 Alexander singled out the strengthening of the financial accountability of the Parliament, including a review of the Barnett formula with a view to diminish the role of the block grant from Westminster through shared and assigned taxes, thus increasing the fiscal responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

    46Labour’s proposal, Canon Kenyon Wright’s Constitutional Commission72 or, indeed, a new Constitutional Convention (as proposed by the Steel Commission’s Report)73 could prevent Salmond being all in one person: instigator, moderator and adjudicator of the “national conversation” and its outcome. But the “Commission endorsed by a parliamentary majority (the ‘grand, if informal, Unionist coalition’)74 on 6 December specifically excludes the independence option.75 On the other hand, it allows for discussion of wider areas of UK constitutional reform, with the aim of strengthening both Devolution and the Union. The SNP sticks by the government’s ‘National Conversation, which is limited to Scotland’. But are two separate and competing public consultations really the best way forward?

    47While the SNP’s abstention from the original Constitutional Convention aided the consensual process in the lat 1980s and early 1990s, the dual approach now evolving ‘for crude partisan ends’ is divisive and confusing. ‘All the parties are agreed that the experience to date with devolution has to be reviewed,’ wrote the Scotsman:

    But instead of finding common ground to conduct such a review in a rational manner, and thus present a united face to Westminster—the only body that can introduce constitutional change—we are left with rival projects.76

    48‘Constructive dialogue instead of dissent’77 would be inclusive and debate all options, for Scotland and the Union. And what comes after the consultations? For the SNP the ‘Constitutional Commission’ heads in the right direction—more powers for the Parliament. Eddie Barnes is not alone in thinking that the ‘Unionist pact may not just be seen in later years as a historic moment for devolution,’ but also as ‘the moment when a referendum on independence became inevitable.’78 It could well be a three-way referendum, the options being the status quo, greater autonomy (‘Devolution Max’) and independence.

    Independence in Britain?

    492006-2007 has been a year of change. We have seen the end of a beginning. Devolution has come of age.79 Whether we have also witnessed the beginning of the end of the Union is less clear. According to a System 3 Poll at the beginning of September, only 35 per cent of Scots would vote in favour of independence.80 The Scottish Social attitudes Survey recorded only 23 per cent in favour of independence. And, as David McCrone and Frank Bechhofer have reminded us, ‘Britishness is still widespread in England and Scotland,’ despite a strengthening sense of Scottishness over the last thirty years.81

    50The big lacuna in the whole devolution process has been England (after the failure of the referendum in the North-East in November 2004). Prime Minister Brown’s announcements of further constitutional reform did not offer a solution for this ‘constitutional elephant in the room.’82 Could a functioning Northern Ireland assembly, and an invigorated Scottish Parliament, and the increased powers of the National Assembly for Wales trigger new attempts at rolling out devolution to the English regions? It looks unlikely and, of course, only if those regional assemblies had legislative powers, would they go towards solving the West Lothian Question.83 Malcolm Rifkind’s suggestion of an English Grand Committee, apparently also favoured by his leader David Cameron, consisting of all English MPs, proposing English law which would then, by force of convention, be accepted by Westminster, would de facto create an English Parliament and a two-tier system of Westminster MPs. As Arthur Aughey has shown, there is no clamour for such an English Parliament in England (yet). If English regionalism is ‘the dog that never barked,’84 English Nationalism is, as Aughey says, still a mood, rather than a movement.85 But as soon as a Westminster government lacked an English majority and had to rely on Scottish MPs to drive through legislation on English education, health, transport, etc—areas which in Scotland are decided by the Scottish Parliament—the ‘English Question’ could loom a lot larger.

    51The only clear-cut answer to the ‘English Question’ would be independence for the constituent nations of the UK. Everything else will, of necessity, involve untidy, asymmetrical arrangements. On the other hand, asymmetries are something the UK has lived with for centuries, and something that is not specific to the UK alone.86 Both the Welsh First Minister Rhodri Morgan, visiting Edinburgh in December 2007, and UK Tory leader David Cameron, also in Edinburgh, a few days later, expressed that asymmetry was not the main issue. For Morgan ‘the union’s asymmetry and flexibility. . . can be a source of strength’;87 and Cameron preferred ‘an imperfect Union’ to ‘some perfect constitutional construct that would threaten the Union.’88

    52For Alex Salmond, the solution to the ‘English Question’ is clear: amicable repeal of the Union:

    The 18th-century Union is past its sell-by date. It’s gone stale for both our nations. What we both need now are the political and economic powers to make our nations work, to tailor policies to suit our different circumstances, and to speak for ourselves in Europe and the wider world—while acting together where our interests converge.89

    53In a new book, intended as a contribution to the ‘national conversation’, Henry McLeish and Tom Brown promote their idea of a ‘New Union’, a Union which must adapt to survive.90 The ‘national conversation’, they contend, must not be restricted to Scotland and increased powers for Holyrood alone. Are there signs of a convergence? Did not the SNP’s Michael Russell and Dennis McLeod also argue for a ‘New Union,’91 where some remaining reserved matters could be shared at a UK level. And has not Alex Salmond for more than a decade talked about a ‘British Association?’92

    54In 1992 the SNP adopted Jim Sillars” “Independence in Europe” as its slogan—is it now time for “Independence in Britain” or, as McLeish calls it, “small-i independence?”93 As David McCrone noted, “we live now in [a] very different kind of world—a world of federations and confederations of autonomous nations within states within the European Union. Self-government is a question of degree, not of kind.”94 And the BBC’s Brian Taylor wrote that

    it is a familiar anecdote of canvassers from a range of parties that voters are far less inclined than the politicians to make sharp distinctions between devolution, independence and federalism.95

    55Will Hutton, in an intervention in the Herald, argued for “Devolution-max”, which would “in effect create a Scottish state within Britain rather like Alberta or Ontario within Canada.” He contended that globalisation demanded management by “bigger units”. Independence would therefore be “a 19th century response to 21st century dilemmas.”96 Also, independence would not end the presence of an economically, politically, culturally and socially powerful neighbour. “In bed with an elephant” was, after all, coined for independent Canada and its sharing a continent with the United States of America.97

    56Devolution could still prove to be the “settled will of the Scottish people”. Devolution ’99, on the other hand, could never be expected to be the last word on constitutional change in the UK. It was a staging post. Wales has moved on. Scotland accrued additional powers over the past two sessions of parliament (e.g. over railways). The fiscal powers of the Scottish Parliament have increasingly been perceived as insufficient. There is, as Wendy Alexander said, “unfinished business.”98 And all the parties at Holyrood “are now united as never before on the need to give Holyrood more oomph.”99 But a staging post towards which destination? To “Devolution plus” with increased powers for the Scottish Parliament, to “small-i” independence within a “new union”? To an autonomous Scotland in a federal or confederal Britain? Or to the break-up of Britain by 2017, as Alex Salmond has predicted100— “Independence—keen by 2017”, as Brian Taylor blogged?101 A realistic perspective? Or will it, in due time, join previous SNP-slogans like “free by ‘93’” or “in heaven by ‘07’” in the dustbin of history?

    57“The stage is set for the most crucial period in Scottish politics since 1997,” dramatised the Edinburgh Evening News, “not only because of the new personalities in the leading roles, but because the future of the country is at stake as it has never been in living memory.”102 The air may get thinner for the minority government over time. The opposition may become more of a threat than they could muster in 2007. “It won’t be easy,” Scotland on Sunday editorialised on the tenth anniversary of the Devolution Referendum,

    but we urge the First Minister to be bold. Scotland voted for change and more vision in May and will not accept inaction, however hamstrung the government feels. For its part, the opposition must be helpful where there is scope for consensus, and constructive but combative where there is none. That is how democracy should work and—remarkably—10 years on, devolution is strong enough to take it.103

    58On the 300th anniversary of Westminster’s signing of the Act of Union, the Edinburgh Evening News had drawn its own conclusions:

    What is clear is that the devolution deal delivered in 1999 is far from the settled will of the Scottish people, but neither has it been proved to be the start of the inexorable slide towards independence. There is plenty of room for change, and giving Holyrood proper responsibility for raising the money it spends or answering the West Lothian question should not be regarded as the next stop to divorce.104

    59Whatever the constitutional future, the present belongs to Alex Salmond. There is still a palpable sense of change and optimism in the air. Joyce McMillan went so far as to talk of “a smile on the face of the nation, and a spring in its step”:

    . . . people seem energised, hopeful, even excited, as if some dead hand of cramped thinking and low expectation had been lifted at last, and it’s a mood that has spread across the whole field of Scottish public life, from politics and business to public service and the media.105

    602007 brought the electoral break-through for the SNP. And perhaps they have found it difficult to believe how long their honeymoon period has lasted. Indeed, if Labour remains “mired in sleaze and incompetence”, it could leave the SNP “as the dominant force in Scottish politics for the foreseeable future.”106 But would that lead to independence? “Mr Salmond and his colleagues have got off to a good start in convincing the public the SNP can provide good government,” John Curtice commented:

    But, contrary to the SNP’s hopes, demonstrating that the party can govern is evidently doing nothing to persuade Scots of the case for independence. Rather, it may be persuading Scots that devolution can, in fact, be made to work effectively in Scotland’s interests after all.107

    61The SNP’s notion that increased devolution brings Scotland automatically closer to independence may have seductive charms, but it is empirically unproven. At the moment it looks as if the Scottish voters, in their wisdom, relish having the SNP in the driving seat, not of an independent, but a devolved Scotland. But that could change, depending on political decisions at the Westminster, Holyrood and European levels.108

    62So, how will things look in ten year’s time? Lacking a crystal ball, all we can say is: different. Alex Salmond has promised independence by then, Gerry Adams has promised a united Ireland by 2016 (to mark, as it were, the centenary of the Dublin Easter Rising),109 Wales will have had a referendum on primary legislative powers for its National Assembly, and maybe, just maybe, Scotland will have had a vote on independence. Will the English Question be settled, one way or the other? Will there, perhaps, be a written constitution, eventually—as hinted at by Gordon Brown and expected by Rhodri Morgan? Or will we have witnessed the “break-up of Britain”?110 “This is an unprecedented era for new momentum,” Douglas Fraser reflected in his backward glance at 2007, “new alliances, new thinking and new possibilities.”111 For the time being, at least, all parties may feel justified in believing that they still have all to play for.

    Notes de bas de page

    1 Labour leader John Smith (1938-1994), in a speech in Dundee in 1994: “. . . I knew then that Scotland needed its own Parliament—and every day since 1979 more and more Scots have come to the same conclusion. I believe that it is now the settled will of the Scottish people. And I can tell you that, for me personally, the establishment of Scotland’s own Parliament is unfinished business.” www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/history/whisp/whisp-01/wh75-01.htm

    2 Rob Brown, “Introduction”, in R. Brown (ed.), Nation in a State: Independent Perspectives on Scottish Independence, Dunfermline: Ten Book Press, 2007, p. 24.

    3 Allan I Macinnes, Union and Empire: The Making of the United Kingdom in 1707, Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 326.

    4 See Tom Nairn, After Britain: New Labour and the Return of Scotland, London: Granta, 200, updated in Nairn, Gordon Brown: The Bard of Britishness, Cardiff: Institute of Welsh Affairs, 2006, and “Beyond Redemption: Why Britain cannot be saved”, in Tom Brown (ed.), Nation in a State, p. 25-43; Christopher Harvie, “Drop the dead shark!”, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/christopher_harvie/2007/08/drop_the_dead_shark.html; Tom Brown and Henry McLeish, Scotland: The Road Divides, Edinburgh: Luath, 2007; Sir David Steel, The Steel Commission: Moving to Federalism—A New Settlement for Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Liberal democrats, 2006.

    5 The 300th anniversary of the Union has prompted a frenzy of publications about the making of the Union, among them: Devine, T. M. (2006) “In bed with the elephant? Almost 300 years of the Anglo-Scottish Union”, in Scottish Affairs, 57, Autumn 2006; Michael Fry, The Union: England, Scotland and the Treaty of 1707, Edinburgh: Birlinn, 2006; Paul Henderson Scott, The Union of 1707: Why and How? Edinburgh: The Saltire Society, 2006; Christopher Whatley and Derek J. Patrick, The Scots and the Union, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006; Douglas Watt, The price of Scotland: Darien, Union and the Wealth of Nations, Edinburgh: Luath, 2007.

    6 See Lindsay Paterson, The Autonomy of Modern Scotland, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1994.

    7 Graeme Morton, Unionist Nationalism: Governing Urban Scotland, 1830-60, East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 1999.

    8 Kenyon Wright, The People Say Yes: The Making of the Scottish Parliament, Glendaruel: Argyll Publishing, 1997, p. 140.

    9 Alice Brown, David McCrone, Lindsay Paterson and Paula Surridge, “The Scottish Electorate and the Scottish Parliament”, Scottish Affairs (Special Issue: Understanding Constitutional Change), 1998, p. 38-60.

    10 For a account of this period which stresses the economic drivers of the Scottish conversion to Devolution see Richard J. Finlay, “Thatcherism, Civil Society and the Road to Home Rule: Scotland 1980-1997”, in Alexander Murdoch (ed.), The Scottish Nation: Identity and History (Essays in Honour of William Ferguson), Edinburgh: John Donald, 2007, p. 136-55.

    11 Bob McLean, Getting It Together: The History of the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly/Parliament, 1980-1999, Edinburgh: Luath, 2005; see also Christopher Harvie and Peter Jones, The Road to Home Rule: Images of Scotland’s Cause, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.

    12 Scottish Constitutional Convention, Scotland’s Parliament. Scotland’s Right, Edinburgh, 1995.

    13 A comprehensive review of the first term of the Scottish Parliament, with extensive analysis of survey data, can be found in Catherine Bromley, John Curtice, David McCrone and Alison Park (eds), Has Devolution Delivered?, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006. See also: Eberhard Bort, “The new institutions: an interim assessment”, in Michael O’Neill (ed.), Devolution and British Politics, Harlow: Longman/ Pearson Education, 2004, p. 295-318.

    14 For a fuller analysis of the 2003 election result, see Ross Burnside, Stephen Herbert and Stephen Curtis (eds), Election 2003, Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe), 03/25 (6 May 2003), www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/briefings-03/sb03-25.pdf; See also Eberhard Bort and Christopher Harvie, “After the Albatross: A New Start for the Scottish Parliament?”, Scottish Affairs, no. 50 (Winter), 2005, p. 26-38.

    15 Michael Keating (ed.), Scottish Social Democracy: Progressive Ideas for Public Policy, Berne: Peter Lang, 2007.

    16 See Eberhard Bort, “Scotland and Europe, or: Room at the Top for ‘Constitutional Regions’”, Romanian Journal of European Affairs, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2004, p. 55-64.

    17 See Tom Devine, The Scottish Nation, 1700-2007, London: Penguin, 2006, p. 633.

    18 See Stephen Herbert and Tom Edwards, Rejected Ballot Papers, Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe), 07/36 (26 June 2007); The Electoral Commission, Scottish Elections 2007: The independent review of the Scottish Parliamentary and local government elections 3 May 2007 (Gould Report), Edinburgh, (October) 2007.

    19 Douglas Fraser, “McConnell: we don’t need more powers for Holyrood”, The Herald, 25 October 2006.

    20 Andrew McDonald and Robert Hazell, “What happened next: constitutional change under New Labour” in Andrew McDonald (ed.), Reinventing Britain: Constitutional change under New Labour, London: Politico’s, 2007, p. 16.

    21 ICM Scottish Omnibus Poll (for the BBC), conducted 29-31 March 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6526715.stm\#table

    22 Alex Salmond, BBC Radio Good Morning Scotland, 11 October 2006.

    23 Quoted in Douglas Fraser, “Support for independence falls to ten year low”, The Herald, 31 October 2007.

    24 Lorraine Davidson on BBC Newsnight Scotland, 23 January 2007.

    25 The Populus poll was conducted for the Times between 13-15 April 2007. See Philip Webster, “Blair prepares for final test as polls plunge to new low”, The Times, 17 April 2007.

    26 Scotland on Sunday stated in an editorial that an SNP-led government “offers the best chance of restoring public confidence in our democracy, and a new sense of possibility in the people of this country” (29 April 2007); The Scotsman also argued for an SNP role in government; The Sunday Herald editorialised that “a vote for change is a leap of faith. It’s a leap this newspaper is prepared to make.” (29 April 2007); and the Sunday Times concluded “that an SNP-led coalition is the best option for voters” (29 April 2007). By contrast, most of the tabloids stuck with the Labour rhetoric about “sleepwalking into independence” (Daily Record, 3 May 2007), while the Sun’s front page on election day carried the image of a noose—Salmond as the hangman and “wrecker” of Scotland—and an editorial to the tune of “only Labour can save us from a living nightmare” (3 May 2007).

    27 Peter Jones, “The Smooth Wooing: the SNP’s Victory in the 2007 Scottish Parliament Elections”, Scottish Affairs, No. 60 (Summer 2007), p. 19.

    28 The tabloid newspaper had printed all kinds of allegations about Tommy Sheridan’s sexual capers, which had led to his resignation as the convener of the SSP on 9 November 2004. In August 2006, Sheridan won his case, but four of his fellow SSPMSPs had given evidence against him. In October, he formed his own party, Solidarity.

    29 Paul Hutcheon, “Greens ready to support SNP government”, Sunday Herald, 7 May 2006.

    30 Michael Keating, “Policy Convergence and Divergence in Scotland under Devolution”, in Gilles Leydier, La devolution des pouvoirs à l’Écosse et au pays de Galles, 1966- 1999, Paris: ellipses, 2007, p. 157.

    31 Peter MacMahon, “The ‘blueprint’ for devolution suddenly has new lease of life”, The Scotsman, 11 May 2007.

    32 Iain Macwhirter, “The SNP didn’t just hit the ground running, they lapped the political field”, Sunday Herald, 24 June 2007.

    33 George Kerevan, “The London media (and Brown) just don’t get it”, The Scotsman, 21 June 2007.

    34 Paul Hutcheon, “Salmond to demand a ‘Scottish Six’ and call for broadcasting to be devolved”, Sunday Herald, 5 August 2007. A Scottish Six would be, as the BBC’s Brian Taylor explained in his blog, “a TV news programme, made in Scotland, which covered global, UK and Scottish news. Contrary to some comments, it would not focus exclusively on Scottish news.” (Brian Taylor, “Broadcasting Scotland”, BBC Blog, 8 August 2007, www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2007/08/08/index.html).

    35 Douglas Fraser, “Tram scheme goes ahead after SNP defeat”, The Herald, 28 June 2007.

    36 Nicholas Leonard, “Independent Scotland is Gordon Brown’s worst nightmare”, Irish Independent, 15 January 2007.

    37 Hélène Mulholland, “Scottish ministers attack No 10 over Lockerbie bomber”, The Guardian, 8 June 2007.

    38 See Tim Reid, “Westminster v Holyrood, round one”, BBC News Online, 8 June 2007.

    39 See Tom Nairn, After Britain: New Labour and the Return of Scotland, London: Granta, 2000, p. 278, 305. Nairn revisited the idea in his Gordon Brown: The Bard of Britishness, Cardiff: Institute of Welsh Affairs, 2006, p. 27-29.

    40 “Scottish neighbour Salmond may well be a friend in disguise”, Irish Independent, 27 June 2007.

    41 Eddie Barnes, “SNP spells out ‘Council of the Isles’ plan”, Scotland on Sunday, 25 February 2007.

    42 The number of councils in which Labour holds a ruling majority dropped from 13 to 2. Labour lost 160 councillors; the SNP gained 182. For the first time, the SNP has more councillors (363) than Labour (348). See H. M. Bochel and D. T. Denver, Scottish Council Elections 2007: Results and Statistics, Lincoln: Policy Studies Research Centre (University of Lincoln), 2007.

    43 Ian Bell, “Can we plot a fourth way for Scotland?”, The Guardian, 8 December 2007.

    44 The culpable donation of £ 950 came from Jersey-based property developer Paul Green. It was illegal as only people registered to vote in the UK are entitled to donate money to political parties. Jersey is a crown dependency but not part of the UK.

    45 Douglas Fraser, “What now for Wendy Alexander?”, The Herald, 3 December 2007.

    46 A Scottish Daily Mail poll on 10 August 2007 put the SNP at 48 %—but with only 31 % in favour of independence. A YouGov poll in December (commissioned by the SNP) had the SNP at 40 per cent, Labour at 29. Robbie Dinwoodie, “Latest poll gives SNP 11-point lead”, The Herald, 6 December 2007.

    47 Hamish Macdonell and Louise Gray, “The SNP and the mystery of the vanishing bobbies”, The Scotsman, 13 November 2007; Lucy Adams, “U-turn claims on pledge of extra police”, The Herald, 13 November 2007.

    48 Severin Carrell, “Salmond accused of spin as SNP reviews first 100 days in power”, The Guardian, 24 August 2007.

    49 Severin Carrell, “Opposition parties mock SNP as Salmond unveils reforms”, The Guardian, 6 September 2007.

    50 The Scotsman (editorial), “First Minister has to play safe”, 6 September 2007.

    51 Douglas Fraser, “Salmond unveils first eleven”, The Herald, 6 September 2007.

    52 Douglas Fraser, “Sharp jolt of reality leads to broken promises”, The Herald, 15 November 2007.

    53 Lyndsay Moss, “SNP accused of broken promises as free prescriptions plan is unveiled”, The Scotsman, 6 December 2007.

    54 Robbie Dinwoodie, “Political coup for Swinney as councils all sign up to agreement for a tax freeze”, The Herald, 17 November 2007.

    55 See Peter MacMahon, “SNP in no position to claim moral high ground”, The Scotsman, 4 December 2007.

    56 Eddie Barnes, “Tories back vote on independence”, Scotland on Sunday, 17 June 2007.

    57 Allan Wilson, “Time to call Salmond’s bluff”, The Sunday Times, 11 November 2007.

    58 Hamish Macdonell, “Kerr backs talks on independence poll”, The Scotsman, 12 November 2007.

    59 Scottish Executive, Choosing Scotland’s Future: A National Conversation, Edinburgh, 2007. www.anationalconversation.com By December 2007, the website had counted more than 40,000 hits, over 7,000 downloads of the White Paper, and thousands of comments.

    60 Scotland on Sunday (editorial), “Time to rethink devolution”, 29 July 2007.

    61 The Scotsman (Editorial), “Referendum is the right way”, 15 August 2007.

    62 Edinburgh Evening News (editorial), “Chance to kick independence out of bounds”, 19 June 2007.

    63 See Andrew Picken, “Support grows for SNP but not independence”, Edinburgh Evening News, 10 August 2007.

    64 Iain Macwhirter, “Why we haven’t the constitution to go it alone”, The Herald, 6 Auguyst 2007.

    65 Peter Jones, “The conflict at the heart of SNP’s programme”, The Scotsman, 4 September 2007.

    66 Peter Wishart, “Independence or nothing”, The Sunday Times, 16 September 2007.

    67 Edinburgh Evening News (editorial), “It’s not an open debate if Alex is the chairman”, 15 August 2007.

    68 Kevin Schofield, “Why the unionists finally got together”, The Herald, 14 August 2007. See also Eddie Barnes, “Unionists team up to steal SNP thunder over Holyrood powers”, Scotland on Sunday, 26 August 2007.

    69 Sunday Herald (editorial), Scotland’s changed. . . so should unionist parties’ attitudes, 19 August 2007.

    70 Douglas Fraser, “Alexander calls for tax powers to replace the Barnett formula”, The Herald, 1 December 2007.

    71 The Scotsman (editorial), “Labour fails to get the message”, 22 June 2007.

    72 See www.constitutionalcommission.org

    73 David Steel, “A new convention? Now you’re talking”, The Scotsman, 25 August 2007.

    74 Ian Bell, “Can we plot a fourth way for Scotland?”, The Herald, 8 December 2007.

    75 Louise Gray, “Parties join forces to bulldoze SNP”, The Scotsman, 7 December 2007.

    76 The Scotsman (editorial), “Dual approach to devolution debate can’t succeed”, 7 December 2007.

    77 The Herald (editorial), “It’s all part of the process”, 7 December 2007.

    78 Eddie Barnes, “Unionist pact to debate devolution may hasten independence vote”, Scotland on Sunday, 9 December 2007.

    79 Eberhard Bort, “Election 2007: Devolution Come of Age?”, in Gilles Leydier (ed.), La dévolution des pouvoirs à l’Écosse et au pays de Galles, 1966-1999, Paris: Éditions Ellipses, 2007 (also: www.institute-of-governance.org/onlinepub/election2007_devolutionofage.html).

    80 Paul Hutcheon, “If Alex Salmon’s referendum was held today, 50 % would vote NO to independence, 35 % would vote YES”, Sunday Herald, 2 September 2007.

    81 Frank Bechhofer and David McCrone, “Being British: A Crisis of Identity?”, Political Quarterly, Vol. 78, No. 2 (April-June 2007), p. 259.

    82 George Kerevan, “Out with spin—and in with smoke and mirrors”, The Scotsman, 5 July 2007.

    83 The fact that Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote on English laws, while English MPs cannot vote on devolved legislation for Scotland, first raised by Tam Dalyell, then Labour MP for West Lothian, in the run-up to the 1979 referendum.

    84 Christopher Harvie, “English regionalism: the dog that never barked”, in Bernard Crick (ed.), National Identities: Constitution of the United Kingdom (Political Quarterly Special Issue), Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, p. 105-19.

    85 See Arthur Aughey, The Politics of Englishness, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007. See also Robert Haszell (ed.), The English Question, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006.

    86 See Archie Brown, “Asymmetrical Devolution: The Scottish Case”, Political Quarterly 69 (3), 1998, p. 215-23; also: Michael Keating, “Asymmetrical Government: Multinational States in an Integrating Europe”, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 29 (Winter 1999), p. 71-110.

    87 Douglas Fraser, “Funding ‘will be next step in UK devolution’”, The Herald, 8 December 2007.

    88 Ian Swanson, “Cameron says ‘Union comes first’ at party rally in Capital”, Edinburgh Evening News, 10 December 2007.

    89 Alex Salmond, “Only Scottish independence can solve the ‘English Question’”, The Daily Telegraph, 20 March 2007.

    90 Henry McLeish and Tom Brown, Scotland: The Road Divides, Edinburgh: Luath Press, 2007.

    91 Michael Russell and Dennis McLeod, Grasping the Thistle: How Scotland Must React to the Three Key Challenges of the Twenty First Century, Glendaruel: Argyll Publishing, 2006.

    92 Alex Salmond, “Sotland and Ireland”, Scottish Affairs, No. 25 (Autumn 1998), p. 68-77. See also: Douglas Fraser, “Alex Salmond: set England free”, New Statesman, 26 March 2007.

    93 BBC News at Ten, 14 September 2007.

    94 David McCrone, “Semi-detached”, Holyrood, 162, 15 January 2007, p. 45.

    95 Brian Taylor, The Scottish Parliament: The Road to Devolution, Edinburgh: Edinburgh university press, (2nd rev. ed.), 2002, p. 21.

    96 Will Hutton, “How Scotland could end up with best of both worlds”, The Herald, 15 August 2007.

    97 Pierre Trudeau coined the phrase in a speech at the Washington Press Club in 1969 when he said, that Canada’s relationship with the United States was like that of “a mouse in bed with an elephant. . . no matter how friendly the beast. . . one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”

    98 Quoted in Ian Swanson, “Alexander commits Labour to increasing Holyrood’s powers”, Edinburgh Evening News, 30 November 2007.

    99 Iain Macwhirter, “Finally, we all agree: devolution is a process, not an event”, Sunday Herald, 9 December 2007.

    100 Magnus Gardham, “Scotland independent by 2017 says Salmond”, Daily Record, 14 November 2007.

    101 Brian Taylor, “Strategic economics”, 13 November 2007,
    www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2007/11/strategic_economics.html

    102 Edinburgh Evening News (editorial), “Alexander has already scored a few hits”, 25 August 2007.

    103 Scotland on Sunday (editorial), “Time to look ahead”, 9 September 2007.

    104 Edinburgh Evening News (editorial), “We need to give devolution time to be a success”, 16 January 2007.

    105 Joyce McMillan, “SNP’s ascension has given us renewed hope”, The Scotsman, 1 September 2007.

    106 Iain Macwhirter, “Long journey into night”, The Guardian, 6 December 2007.

    107 Quoted in Andrew Picken, “Support grows for SNP but not for independence”, Edinburgh Evening News, 10 August 2007.

    108 Although sub-state regions have been recognised in the European constitutional process, they have not made it beyond the margins of recognition. An intergovernmental EU tends to be a strong argument for “Independence in Europe”, particularly if Scotland feels under- or misrepresented by the UK; while real participation of sub-state regions and nations in European policy-making could be an argument for devolution.

    109 BBC News Online (Northern Ireland), “Adams predicts united Ireland”, 14 January 2000 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/601115.stm.

    110 Tom Nairn, The Break-up of Britain, London: New Left Books, 1977.

    111 Douglas Fraser, “An extraordinary year of blistering political change”, The Herald, 11 December 2007.

    Auteur

    • Eberhard Bort

      Université d’Édimbourg
      Bort Eberhard est actuellement coordinateur académique de l’Institut de la Gouvernance et Maître de Conférences en science politique à l’Université d’Édimbourg. Entre 1995 et 1998, il a travaillé avec Malcolm Anderson sur un programme de recherche de l’ESRC sur The Internal and External Frontiers of the European Union. De 1997 à 1999 il a été directeur associé de l’Institut International en Sciences Sociales de l’Université d’Édimbourg. Il est l’auteur de nombreux articles et ouvrages sur la dévolution en Écosse et la réforme constitutionnelle au Royaume-Uni, sur l’Écosse en Europe et sur l’Irlande. Ses publications les plus récentes sont: (avec Malcolm Anderson) The Frontiers of the European Union (2001) et Commemorating Ireland: The History, Culture and Politics of Commemoration (2004).

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    À la rencontre de la différence

    À la rencontre de la différence

    Traces diasporiques et espaces de créolisation

    Robin Cohen et Olivia Sheringham Elise Trogrlic (trad.)

    2020

    Steven Spielberg

    Steven Spielberg

    Hollywood WunderKind & Humanist

    David Roche (dir.)

    2018

    Re-Imagining the Guyanas

    Re-Imagining the Guyanas

    Lawrence Aje, Thomas Lacroix et Judith Misrahi-Barak (dir.)

    2019

    Le primitivisme mélancolique d’Edward S. Curtis

    Le primitivisme mélancolique d’Edward S. Curtis

    Mathilde Arrivé

    2019

    L’androgyne dans la littérature britannique contemporaine

    L’androgyne dans la littérature britannique contemporaine

    Métamorphose d’une figure

    Justine Gonneaud

    2020

    Borders and Ecotones in the Indian Ocean

    Borders and Ecotones in the Indian Ocean

    Cultural and Literary Perspectives

    Markus Arnold, Corinne Duboin et Judith Misrahi-Barak (dir.)

    2020

    Aliénation et réinvention dans l’œuvre de Jamaica Kincaid

    Aliénation et réinvention dans l’œuvre de Jamaica Kincaid

    Nadia Yassine-Diab

    2014

    Another Life

    Another Life

    Mélanie Joseph-Vilain et Judith Misrahi-Barak (dir.)

    2012

    Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 1

    Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 1

    Diasporas and Cultures of Migrations

    Judith Misrahi-Barak et Claudine Raynaud (dir.)

    2014

    Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 2

    Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 2

    Diaspora, Memory and Intimacy

    Sarah Barbour, David Howard, Thomas Lacroix et al. (dir.)

    2015

    Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 3

    Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 3

    African Americans and the Black Diaspora

    Corinne Duboin et Claudine Raynaud (dir.)

    2016

    Ethics of Alterity, Confrontation and Responsibility in 19th- to 21st-Century British literature

    Ethics of Alterity, Confrontation and Responsibility in 19th- to 21st-Century British literature

    Jean-Michel Ganteau et Christine Reynier (dir.)

    2013

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    À la rencontre de la différence

    À la rencontre de la différence

    Traces diasporiques et espaces de créolisation

    Robin Cohen et Olivia Sheringham Elise Trogrlic (trad.)

    2020

    Steven Spielberg

    Steven Spielberg

    Hollywood WunderKind & Humanist

    David Roche (dir.)

    2018

    Re-Imagining the Guyanas

    Re-Imagining the Guyanas

    Lawrence Aje, Thomas Lacroix et Judith Misrahi-Barak (dir.)

    2019

    Le primitivisme mélancolique d’Edward S. Curtis

    Le primitivisme mélancolique d’Edward S. Curtis

    Mathilde Arrivé

    2019

    L’androgyne dans la littérature britannique contemporaine

    L’androgyne dans la littérature britannique contemporaine

    Métamorphose d’une figure

    Justine Gonneaud

    2020

    Borders and Ecotones in the Indian Ocean

    Borders and Ecotones in the Indian Ocean

    Cultural and Literary Perspectives

    Markus Arnold, Corinne Duboin et Judith Misrahi-Barak (dir.)

    2020

    Aliénation et réinvention dans l’œuvre de Jamaica Kincaid

    Aliénation et réinvention dans l’œuvre de Jamaica Kincaid

    Nadia Yassine-Diab

    2014

    Another Life

    Another Life

    Mélanie Joseph-Vilain et Judith Misrahi-Barak (dir.)

    2012

    Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 1

    Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 1

    Diasporas and Cultures of Migrations

    Judith Misrahi-Barak et Claudine Raynaud (dir.)

    2014

    Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 2

    Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 2

    Diaspora, Memory and Intimacy

    Sarah Barbour, David Howard, Thomas Lacroix et al. (dir.)

    2015

    Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 3

    Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 3

    African Americans and the Black Diaspora

    Corinne Duboin et Claudine Raynaud (dir.)

    2016

    Ethics of Alterity, Confrontation and Responsibility in 19th- to 21st-Century British literature

    Ethics of Alterity, Confrontation and Responsibility in 19th- to 21st-Century British literature

    Jean-Michel Ganteau et Christine Reynier (dir.)

    2013

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert freemium

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    Presses universitaires de la Méditerranée
    • amazon.fr
    • decitre.fr
    • mollat.com
    • leslibraires.fr
    ePub / PDF

    1 Labour leader John Smith (1938-1994), in a speech in Dundee in 1994: “. . . I knew then that Scotland needed its own Parliament—and every day since 1979 more and more Scots have come to the same conclusion. I believe that it is now the settled will of the Scottish people. And I can tell you that, for me personally, the establishment of Scotland’s own Parliament is unfinished business.” www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/history/whisp/whisp-01/wh75-01.htm

    2 Rob Brown, “Introduction”, in R. Brown (ed.), Nation in a State: Independent Perspectives on Scottish Independence, Dunfermline: Ten Book Press, 2007, p. 24.

    3 Allan I Macinnes, Union and Empire: The Making of the United Kingdom in 1707, Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 326.

    4 See Tom Nairn, After Britain: New Labour and the Return of Scotland, London: Granta, 200, updated in Nairn, Gordon Brown: The Bard of Britishness, Cardiff: Institute of Welsh Affairs, 2006, and “Beyond Redemption: Why Britain cannot be saved”, in Tom Brown (ed.), Nation in a State, p. 25-43; Christopher Harvie, “Drop the dead shark!”, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/christopher_harvie/2007/08/drop_the_dead_shark.html; Tom Brown and Henry McLeish, Scotland: The Road Divides, Edinburgh: Luath, 2007; Sir David Steel, The Steel Commission: Moving to Federalism—A New Settlement for Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Liberal democrats, 2006.

    5 The 300th anniversary of the Union has prompted a frenzy of publications about the making of the Union, among them: Devine, T. M. (2006) “In bed with the elephant? Almost 300 years of the Anglo-Scottish Union”, in Scottish Affairs, 57, Autumn 2006; Michael Fry, The Union: England, Scotland and the Treaty of 1707, Edinburgh: Birlinn, 2006; Paul Henderson Scott, The Union of 1707: Why and How? Edinburgh: The Saltire Society, 2006; Christopher Whatley and Derek J. Patrick, The Scots and the Union, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006; Douglas Watt, The price of Scotland: Darien, Union and the Wealth of Nations, Edinburgh: Luath, 2007.

    6 See Lindsay Paterson, The Autonomy of Modern Scotland, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1994.

    7 Graeme Morton, Unionist Nationalism: Governing Urban Scotland, 1830-60, East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 1999.

    8 Kenyon Wright, The People Say Yes: The Making of the Scottish Parliament, Glendaruel: Argyll Publishing, 1997, p. 140.

    9 Alice Brown, David McCrone, Lindsay Paterson and Paula Surridge, “The Scottish Electorate and the Scottish Parliament”, Scottish Affairs (Special Issue: Understanding Constitutional Change), 1998, p. 38-60.

    10 For a account of this period which stresses the economic drivers of the Scottish conversion to Devolution see Richard J. Finlay, “Thatcherism, Civil Society and the Road to Home Rule: Scotland 1980-1997”, in Alexander Murdoch (ed.), The Scottish Nation: Identity and History (Essays in Honour of William Ferguson), Edinburgh: John Donald, 2007, p. 136-55.

    11 Bob McLean, Getting It Together: The History of the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly/Parliament, 1980-1999, Edinburgh: Luath, 2005; see also Christopher Harvie and Peter Jones, The Road to Home Rule: Images of Scotland’s Cause, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.

    12 Scottish Constitutional Convention, Scotland’s Parliament. Scotland’s Right, Edinburgh, 1995.

    13 A comprehensive review of the first term of the Scottish Parliament, with extensive analysis of survey data, can be found in Catherine Bromley, John Curtice, David McCrone and Alison Park (eds), Has Devolution Delivered?, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006. See also: Eberhard Bort, “The new institutions: an interim assessment”, in Michael O’Neill (ed.), Devolution and British Politics, Harlow: Longman/ Pearson Education, 2004, p. 295-318.

    14 For a fuller analysis of the 2003 election result, see Ross Burnside, Stephen Herbert and Stephen Curtis (eds), Election 2003, Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe), 03/25 (6 May 2003), www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/briefings-03/sb03-25.pdf; See also Eberhard Bort and Christopher Harvie, “After the Albatross: A New Start for the Scottish Parliament?”, Scottish Affairs, no. 50 (Winter), 2005, p. 26-38.

    15 Michael Keating (ed.), Scottish Social Democracy: Progressive Ideas for Public Policy, Berne: Peter Lang, 2007.

    16 See Eberhard Bort, “Scotland and Europe, or: Room at the Top for ‘Constitutional Regions’”, Romanian Journal of European Affairs, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2004, p. 55-64.

    17 See Tom Devine, The Scottish Nation, 1700-2007, London: Penguin, 2006, p. 633.

    18 See Stephen Herbert and Tom Edwards, Rejected Ballot Papers, Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe), 07/36 (26 June 2007); The Electoral Commission, Scottish Elections 2007: The independent review of the Scottish Parliamentary and local government elections 3 May 2007 (Gould Report), Edinburgh, (October) 2007.

    19 Douglas Fraser, “McConnell: we don’t need more powers for Holyrood”, The Herald, 25 October 2006.

    20 Andrew McDonald and Robert Hazell, “What happened next: constitutional change under New Labour” in Andrew McDonald (ed.), Reinventing Britain: Constitutional change under New Labour, London: Politico’s, 2007, p. 16.

    21 ICM Scottish Omnibus Poll (for the BBC), conducted 29-31 March 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6526715.stm\#table

    22 Alex Salmond, BBC Radio Good Morning Scotland, 11 October 2006.

    23 Quoted in Douglas Fraser, “Support for independence falls to ten year low”, The Herald, 31 October 2007.

    24 Lorraine Davidson on BBC Newsnight Scotland, 23 January 2007.

    25 The Populus poll was conducted for the Times between 13-15 April 2007. See Philip Webster, “Blair prepares for final test as polls plunge to new low”, The Times, 17 April 2007.

    26 Scotland on Sunday stated in an editorial that an SNP-led government “offers the best chance of restoring public confidence in our democracy, and a new sense of possibility in the people of this country” (29 April 2007); The Scotsman also argued for an SNP role in government; The Sunday Herald editorialised that “a vote for change is a leap of faith. It’s a leap this newspaper is prepared to make.” (29 April 2007); and the Sunday Times concluded “that an SNP-led coalition is the best option for voters” (29 April 2007). By contrast, most of the tabloids stuck with the Labour rhetoric about “sleepwalking into independence” (Daily Record, 3 May 2007), while the Sun’s front page on election day carried the image of a noose—Salmond as the hangman and “wrecker” of Scotland—and an editorial to the tune of “only Labour can save us from a living nightmare” (3 May 2007).

    27 Peter Jones, “The Smooth Wooing: the SNP’s Victory in the 2007 Scottish Parliament Elections”, Scottish Affairs, No. 60 (Summer 2007), p. 19.

    28 The tabloid newspaper had printed all kinds of allegations about Tommy Sheridan’s sexual capers, which had led to his resignation as the convener of the SSP on 9 November 2004. In August 2006, Sheridan won his case, but four of his fellow SSPMSPs had given evidence against him. In October, he formed his own party, Solidarity.

    29 Paul Hutcheon, “Greens ready to support SNP government”, Sunday Herald, 7 May 2006.

    30 Michael Keating, “Policy Convergence and Divergence in Scotland under Devolution”, in Gilles Leydier, La devolution des pouvoirs à l’Écosse et au pays de Galles, 1966- 1999, Paris: ellipses, 2007, p. 157.

    31 Peter MacMahon, “The ‘blueprint’ for devolution suddenly has new lease of life”, The Scotsman, 11 May 2007.

    32 Iain Macwhirter, “The SNP didn’t just hit the ground running, they lapped the political field”, Sunday Herald, 24 June 2007.

    33 George Kerevan, “The London media (and Brown) just don’t get it”, The Scotsman, 21 June 2007.

    34 Paul Hutcheon, “Salmond to demand a ‘Scottish Six’ and call for broadcasting to be devolved”, Sunday Herald, 5 August 2007. A Scottish Six would be, as the BBC’s Brian Taylor explained in his blog, “a TV news programme, made in Scotland, which covered global, UK and Scottish news. Contrary to some comments, it would not focus exclusively on Scottish news.” (Brian Taylor, “Broadcasting Scotland”, BBC Blog, 8 August 2007, www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2007/08/08/index.html).

    35 Douglas Fraser, “Tram scheme goes ahead after SNP defeat”, The Herald, 28 June 2007.

    36 Nicholas Leonard, “Independent Scotland is Gordon Brown’s worst nightmare”, Irish Independent, 15 January 2007.

    37 Hélène Mulholland, “Scottish ministers attack No 10 over Lockerbie bomber”, The Guardian, 8 June 2007.

    38 See Tim Reid, “Westminster v Holyrood, round one”, BBC News Online, 8 June 2007.

    39 See Tom Nairn, After Britain: New Labour and the Return of Scotland, London: Granta, 2000, p. 278, 305. Nairn revisited the idea in his Gordon Brown: The Bard of Britishness, Cardiff: Institute of Welsh Affairs, 2006, p. 27-29.

    40 “Scottish neighbour Salmond may well be a friend in disguise”, Irish Independent, 27 June 2007.

    41 Eddie Barnes, “SNP spells out ‘Council of the Isles’ plan”, Scotland on Sunday, 25 February 2007.

    42 The number of councils in which Labour holds a ruling majority dropped from 13 to 2. Labour lost 160 councillors; the SNP gained 182. For the first time, the SNP has more councillors (363) than Labour (348). See H. M. Bochel and D. T. Denver, Scottish Council Elections 2007: Results and Statistics, Lincoln: Policy Studies Research Centre (University of Lincoln), 2007.

    43 Ian Bell, “Can we plot a fourth way for Scotland?”, The Guardian, 8 December 2007.

    44 The culpable donation of £ 950 came from Jersey-based property developer Paul Green. It was illegal as only people registered to vote in the UK are entitled to donate money to political parties. Jersey is a crown dependency but not part of the UK.

    45 Douglas Fraser, “What now for Wendy Alexander?”, The Herald, 3 December 2007.

    46 A Scottish Daily Mail poll on 10 August 2007 put the SNP at 48 %—but with only 31 % in favour of independence. A YouGov poll in December (commissioned by the SNP) had the SNP at 40 per cent, Labour at 29. Robbie Dinwoodie, “Latest poll gives SNP 11-point lead”, The Herald, 6 December 2007.

    47 Hamish Macdonell and Louise Gray, “The SNP and the mystery of the vanishing bobbies”, The Scotsman, 13 November 2007; Lucy Adams, “U-turn claims on pledge of extra police”, The Herald, 13 November 2007.

    48 Severin Carrell, “Salmond accused of spin as SNP reviews first 100 days in power”, The Guardian, 24 August 2007.

    49 Severin Carrell, “Opposition parties mock SNP as Salmond unveils reforms”, The Guardian, 6 September 2007.

    50 The Scotsman (editorial), “First Minister has to play safe”, 6 September 2007.

    51 Douglas Fraser, “Salmond unveils first eleven”, The Herald, 6 September 2007.

    52 Douglas Fraser, “Sharp jolt of reality leads to broken promises”, The Herald, 15 November 2007.

    53 Lyndsay Moss, “SNP accused of broken promises as free prescriptions plan is unveiled”, The Scotsman, 6 December 2007.

    54 Robbie Dinwoodie, “Political coup for Swinney as councils all sign up to agreement for a tax freeze”, The Herald, 17 November 2007.

    55 See Peter MacMahon, “SNP in no position to claim moral high ground”, The Scotsman, 4 December 2007.

    56 Eddie Barnes, “Tories back vote on independence”, Scotland on Sunday, 17 June 2007.

    57 Allan Wilson, “Time to call Salmond’s bluff”, The Sunday Times, 11 November 2007.

    58 Hamish Macdonell, “Kerr backs talks on independence poll”, The Scotsman, 12 November 2007.

    59 Scottish Executive, Choosing Scotland’s Future: A National Conversation, Edinburgh, 2007. www.anationalconversation.com By December 2007, the website had counted more than 40,000 hits, over 7,000 downloads of the White Paper, and thousands of comments.

    60 Scotland on Sunday (editorial), “Time to rethink devolution”, 29 July 2007.

    61 The Scotsman (Editorial), “Referendum is the right way”, 15 August 2007.

    62 Edinburgh Evening News (editorial), “Chance to kick independence out of bounds”, 19 June 2007.

    63 See Andrew Picken, “Support grows for SNP but not independence”, Edinburgh Evening News, 10 August 2007.

    64 Iain Macwhirter, “Why we haven’t the constitution to go it alone”, The Herald, 6 Auguyst 2007.

    65 Peter Jones, “The conflict at the heart of SNP’s programme”, The Scotsman, 4 September 2007.

    66 Peter Wishart, “Independence or nothing”, The Sunday Times, 16 September 2007.

    67 Edinburgh Evening News (editorial), “It’s not an open debate if Alex is the chairman”, 15 August 2007.

    68 Kevin Schofield, “Why the unionists finally got together”, The Herald, 14 August 2007. See also Eddie Barnes, “Unionists team up to steal SNP thunder over Holyrood powers”, Scotland on Sunday, 26 August 2007.

    69 Sunday Herald (editorial), Scotland’s changed. . . so should unionist parties’ attitudes, 19 August 2007.

    70 Douglas Fraser, “Alexander calls for tax powers to replace the Barnett formula”, The Herald, 1 December 2007.

    71 The Scotsman (editorial), “Labour fails to get the message”, 22 June 2007.

    72 See www.constitutionalcommission.org

    73 David Steel, “A new convention? Now you’re talking”, The Scotsman, 25 August 2007.

    74 Ian Bell, “Can we plot a fourth way for Scotland?”, The Herald, 8 December 2007.

    75 Louise Gray, “Parties join forces to bulldoze SNP”, The Scotsman, 7 December 2007.

    76 The Scotsman (editorial), “Dual approach to devolution debate can’t succeed”, 7 December 2007.

    77 The Herald (editorial), “It’s all part of the process”, 7 December 2007.

    78 Eddie Barnes, “Unionist pact to debate devolution may hasten independence vote”, Scotland on Sunday, 9 December 2007.

    79 Eberhard Bort, “Election 2007: Devolution Come of Age?”, in Gilles Leydier (ed.), La dévolution des pouvoirs à l’Écosse et au pays de Galles, 1966-1999, Paris: Éditions Ellipses, 2007 (also: www.institute-of-governance.org/onlinepub/election2007_devolutionofage.html).

    80 Paul Hutcheon, “If Alex Salmon’s referendum was held today, 50 % would vote NO to independence, 35 % would vote YES”, Sunday Herald, 2 September 2007.

    81 Frank Bechhofer and David McCrone, “Being British: A Crisis of Identity?”, Political Quarterly, Vol. 78, No. 2 (April-June 2007), p. 259.

    82 George Kerevan, “Out with spin—and in with smoke and mirrors”, The Scotsman, 5 July 2007.

    83 The fact that Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote on English laws, while English MPs cannot vote on devolved legislation for Scotland, first raised by Tam Dalyell, then Labour MP for West Lothian, in the run-up to the 1979 referendum.

    84 Christopher Harvie, “English regionalism: the dog that never barked”, in Bernard Crick (ed.), National Identities: Constitution of the United Kingdom (Political Quarterly Special Issue), Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, p. 105-19.

    85 See Arthur Aughey, The Politics of Englishness, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007. See also Robert Haszell (ed.), The English Question, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006.

    86 See Archie Brown, “Asymmetrical Devolution: The Scottish Case”, Political Quarterly 69 (3), 1998, p. 215-23; also: Michael Keating, “Asymmetrical Government: Multinational States in an Integrating Europe”, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 29 (Winter 1999), p. 71-110.

    87 Douglas Fraser, “Funding ‘will be next step in UK devolution’”, The Herald, 8 December 2007.

    88 Ian Swanson, “Cameron says ‘Union comes first’ at party rally in Capital”, Edinburgh Evening News, 10 December 2007.

    89 Alex Salmond, “Only Scottish independence can solve the ‘English Question’”, The Daily Telegraph, 20 March 2007.

    90 Henry McLeish and Tom Brown, Scotland: The Road Divides, Edinburgh: Luath Press, 2007.

    91 Michael Russell and Dennis McLeod, Grasping the Thistle: How Scotland Must React to the Three Key Challenges of the Twenty First Century, Glendaruel: Argyll Publishing, 2006.

    92 Alex Salmond, “Sotland and Ireland”, Scottish Affairs, No. 25 (Autumn 1998), p. 68-77. See also: Douglas Fraser, “Alex Salmond: set England free”, New Statesman, 26 March 2007.

    93 BBC News at Ten, 14 September 2007.

    94 David McCrone, “Semi-detached”, Holyrood, 162, 15 January 2007, p. 45.

    95 Brian Taylor, The Scottish Parliament: The Road to Devolution, Edinburgh: Edinburgh university press, (2nd rev. ed.), 2002, p. 21.

    96 Will Hutton, “How Scotland could end up with best of both worlds”, The Herald, 15 August 2007.

    97 Pierre Trudeau coined the phrase in a speech at the Washington Press Club in 1969 when he said, that Canada’s relationship with the United States was like that of “a mouse in bed with an elephant. . . no matter how friendly the beast. . . one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”

    98 Quoted in Ian Swanson, “Alexander commits Labour to increasing Holyrood’s powers”, Edinburgh Evening News, 30 November 2007.

    99 Iain Macwhirter, “Finally, we all agree: devolution is a process, not an event”, Sunday Herald, 9 December 2007.

    100 Magnus Gardham, “Scotland independent by 2017 says Salmond”, Daily Record, 14 November 2007.

    101 Brian Taylor, “Strategic economics”, 13 November 2007,
    www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2007/11/strategic_economics.html

    102 Edinburgh Evening News (editorial), “Alexander has already scored a few hits”, 25 August 2007.

    103 Scotland on Sunday (editorial), “Time to look ahead”, 9 September 2007.

    104 Edinburgh Evening News (editorial), “We need to give devolution time to be a success”, 16 January 2007.

    105 Joyce McMillan, “SNP’s ascension has given us renewed hope”, The Scotsman, 1 September 2007.

    106 Iain Macwhirter, “Long journey into night”, The Guardian, 6 December 2007.

    107 Quoted in Andrew Picken, “Support grows for SNP but not for independence”, Edinburgh Evening News, 10 August 2007.

    108 Although sub-state regions have been recognised in the European constitutional process, they have not made it beyond the margins of recognition. An intergovernmental EU tends to be a strong argument for “Independence in Europe”, particularly if Scotland feels under- or misrepresented by the UK; while real participation of sub-state regions and nations in European policy-making could be an argument for devolution.

    109 BBC News Online (Northern Ireland), “Adams predicts united Ireland”, 14 January 2000 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/601115.stm.

    110 Tom Nairn, The Break-up of Britain, London: New Left Books, 1977.

    111 Douglas Fraser, “An extraordinary year of blistering political change”, The Herald, 11 December 2007.

    Dévolution, identités et nationalismes

    X Facebook Email

    Dévolution, identités et nationalismes

    Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque Acheter ce livre aux formats PDF et ePub

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Dévolution, identités et nationalismes

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Bort, E. (2009). Devolution in Scotland: “Settled Will” or “Staging Post”?. In A.-M. Motard (éd.), Dévolution, identités et nationalismes. Montpellier: Presses universitaires de la Méditerranée. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pulm.13268
    Bort, Eberhard. « Devolution in Scotland: “Settled Will” or “Staging Post”? ». In Dévolution, identités Et Nationalismes, édité par Anne-Marie Motard. Montpellier: Presses universitaires de la Méditerranée, 2009. doi:10.4000/books.pulm.13268.
    Bort, Eberhard. « Devolution in Scotland: “Settled Will” or “Staging Post”? ». Dévolution, identités Et Nationalismes, édité par Anne-Marie Motard, Presses universitaires de la Méditerranée, 2009, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pulm.13268.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Motard, A.-M. (éd.). (2009). Dévolution, identités et nationalismes. Montpellier: Presses universitaires de la Méditerranée. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pulm.13178
    Motard, Anne-Marie, éd. Dévolution, identités Et Nationalismes. Montpellier: Presses universitaires de la Méditerranée, 2009. doi:10.4000/books.pulm.13178.
    Motard, Anne-Marie, éditeur. Dévolution, identités Et Nationalismes. Presses universitaires de la Méditerranée, 2009, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pulm.13178.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Presses universitaires de la Méditerranée

    Presses universitaires de la Méditerranée

    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Flux RSS

    URL : http://www.pulm.fr

    Email : pulm@univ-montp3.fr

    Adresse :

    Université de Montpellier Paul-Valéry Université de Montpellier Paul-Valéry

    Route de Mende

    34199

    Montpellier

    France

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement