Political Traditions and Scottish Devolution by Matthew Hall A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Political Science and International Studies School of Government and Society The University of Birmingham April 2009 1 Abstract This thesis seeks to develop a conception of the political traditions operating in the UK and then apply it to the development of Scottish Devolution. I argue that the concept of tradition has been under-valued and theorised in social science and that the notion of political traditions has heuristic value when applied to British politics. Discussion of a distinctive British Political Tradition has been kept to the margins in explanations of the British political system with only a few authors seeking to explore the ideational underpinnings of the institutions and process of British government and the Westminster Model. The recent work of Bevir and Rhodes has raised the profile of political traditions, however I contend that their conceptualisation is flawed and thus, heuristically limited. I argue that we can identify a dominant political tradition, the British Political Tradition, which has decisively influenced the nature and conduct of British political life over time. This tradition expresses and facilitates the ideas and interests of dominant socio-economic groups in UK society. However it has not gone uncontested. We can also identify the existence of competing political traditions which challenge aspects or the entirety of, the British Political Tradition. Although competing political traditions resonate asymmetrically, it is through the process of conflict and contestation that changes in the British political system can be explained. From this I then narrate the history of Scottish Devolution to date and offer comment on how this interactive and iterative process continues to inform outcomes since 1999. Overall I argue that the dominant political tradition continues to have a major impact on the British political system. 2 Contents Introduction...............................................................................4 Chapter 1 Variations on a theme: The BPT and explanations of British politics...............................................................12 Chapter 2 Tradition or Traditions: The Challenge of Bevir and Rhodes......53 Chapter 3 Political Traditions in the UK..........................82 Chapter 4 From Union to Devolution...............................123 Chapter 5 The Scottish Parliament and Political Traditions in the UK........176 Chapter 6 Aspects of Devolution since 1998....................200 Conclusion................................................................................245 Appendix 1 Exploring Tradition…………………………..253 Appendix 2 On Change……………………………………275 Appendix 3 Economic Interests and Political Traditions….286 Appendix 4 Multi-Level Governance………………...........295 Bibliography.............................................................................303 3 Introduction 4 On November 19th 1998 the Scottish Devolution Bill received Royal Assent. This established a Scottish Parliament at Holyrood for the first time since 1707. Devolution, alongside other changes instituted by the Labour government, marks a significant moment in the history and development of the British political system. These changes, described by Tony Blair as: “the biggest programme of change to our democracy ever proposed”(Blair 1994), have seen reform of numerous aspects of the institutions and processes of British government1. Of these, Scottish Devolution was undoubtedly the most radical and introduced with speed and without any significant attempt to de-radicalize the original proposal2. As we might expect a wide range of authors have sought to explain what on the surface appears to be a major change in the pre-existing territorial relations of the UK. In this undertaking we are inevitably drawn to an explanation that is simple and straight forward. Such a view posits that Scottish Devolution marks a break with the traditional institutions and practices associated with the Westminster Model (WM) narrative of British politics. For some authors, (see for example Pierre and Stoker 2000) this has witnessed the emergence of a new style of governance termed, Multi-Level Governance (MLG). For other authors, (Redwood 1999: Marr 2000; Hitchens 2000; Nairn 2000) Scottish Devolution is the unravelling of the unitary state and if not the end of the UK, then the beginnings of the end. In both views devolution is viewed as a rupture with the past, with the UK state entering a new and unprecedented stage of its development. Here change is emphasised, almost to the exclusion of possible continuities with the past, despite the demonstrable nature of the latter. Other narratives point to a degree of continuity between the pre 1998 and post 1998 era (Mitchell 2002; O’Neill 2004; Jeffrey 2006). These authors stress the continued importance of Westminster and its sovereignty. Such narratives often suggest that concepts such as the Unitary State did not fully explain the actual nature of territorial relations, which involved negotiation and the recognition of a degree of distinctiveness. Instead they appeal to the idea of ‘the Union State’(Rokkan and Urwin 1982). For these authors pre-existing territorial relations or aspects thereof, continue to inform the post 1998 Devolution Settlement. As such the institutions, processes and practices associated with the WM remain centrally important. However their ideational underpinnings are ignored and thus those continuities (and changes) that exist are only partially explained. 1 Labour’s constitutional reform programme has seen reform of the House of Lords (1999); the introduction of both the Human Rights Act (1998) and the Freedom of Information Act (2000); the creation of a Supreme Court for the UK (2005); and the introduction of devolution for Scotland and Wales (1998). 2 As compared with other reforms such as Freedom of Information, which was significantly de- radicalized and Electoral Reform for Westminster which did not occur (Marsh and Hall 2007; Marsh 2008a). 5 Any consideration of the development and realisation of Scottish Devolution encounters two notable trends in accounts of the British political system. Firstly, historically the majority of explanations of the British political system are characterised by reference to the WM3. Secondly, a sense of British exceptionalism rooted in the Whig interpretation of history pervades much of the literature. Both of these require detailed consideration when seeking to explain the nature and development of the British political system. Narratives of Scottish Devolution are no exception. Both explanations of Scottish Devolution identified above highlight the centrality of the WM. Indeed they take it as read that the WM explained how British politics operated historically. There is no doubt that the WM has until recently, been the dominant organising perspective in British politics (Gamble 1990; Kerr and Kettell 2006) for those attempting a broader explanation of the British political system. In such explanations there has been a tendency to imply that the WM was a paradigm that should be exported around the world . Nor can it be doubted that actors believed in that model and acted accordingly (Marsh, Richards and Smith 2001; Judge 2005). However in recent years the WM has become increasingly contested (see for example Rhodes 1997; Marsh, Richards and Smith 2001; Bevir and Rhodes 2003). Any discussion of Scottish Devolution must respond to these sustained criticisms of the WM and seek to explain if it remains, in any way relevant to British politics. Furthermore we must seek to explain how the institutions, processes and practices associated with the WM have impacted on the development of the devolution settlement. In this thesis the WM is characterised as a narrative of the British political system that whilst widely believed and influential, was in fact a self image rather than a reality. The WM narrative never accurately described the British political system or its fundamental nature. Rather than accept this model as a reality as much political analysis has done (Norton 1984; Hanson and Walles 1990) or see it as ‘the other’ to now be rejected as the ‘governance thesis’ does (Rhodes 1997; Bevir and Rhodes 2003), I seek to identify the ideational underpinnings of the institutions, processes and discourses of that narrative through discussion of the notion of ‘political traditions’. In doing so I aim to more fully explain those features of British political life and also to consider the relationship between dominant socio-economic and political elites and the ideas and institutions of the British political system. As part of this 3 A range of authors have noted the dominance of the WM in explanations of British politics (Gamble 1990; McAnulla 2006; Kerr and Kettell 2006). 6 undertaking I must consider the relationship between structure and agency; the material and the ideational; institutions and ideas; and crucially given the focus on devolution, continuity and change. A case study on Scottish Devolution provides an excellent opportunity to test this approach. Similarly the development of new approaches such as the ‘Differentiated Polity’ (Rhodes 1997; Bevir and Rhodes 2008) and the ‘Asymmetrical Power Model’ (Marsh, Richards and Smith 2001; Marsh 2008a) has provided a fresh challenge for analysts of the British political system. Which