Devolution and Local Government: Evidence from Scotland

Local Government Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3, 285 – 306, June 2005

Devolution and Local Government: Evidence from Scotland MARK McATEER* & MICHAEL BENNETT{ *Scottish Local Authorities Management Centre, The University of Strathclyde, UK { Deputy Director General, Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (SOLACE), UK

ABSTRACT Devolution in Scotland has had a major impact upon local government. Local government, at both political and managerial levels, perceives central government in the shape of the Scottish Executive to be closer (geographically and politically) and more open to local government in terms of access to ministers and civil servants. However, Scottish central–local relations continues to be characterised by a sense of mistrust of local government, especially among civil servants and a continuing desire for central control of key policy agendas. Equally, the policy process continues to display features of fragmentation across major policy areas. Moreover, Westminster has not yet departed the scene of Scottish politics in both financial and policy terms but also in the enduring presence of a Westminster ‘political culture’

Introduction: Devolution and Local Government With the prospect of devolution to English regions in the near future, this assessment of the impact of devolution on local government in Scotland is timely. It is striking how similar the current debate about English regionalism is to those that preceded Scottish devolution. The rationales that have been deployed by advocates of English regionalism are similar to those that were deployed for Scottish devolution. For example, in the White Paper Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions (ODPM, 2002) there are numerous references to the benefits that regional assemblies would provide within the UK governmental framework. It is claimed that regionalism would enhance democratic control of ‘regional’ public bodies, that it would improve the economic and social well-being of regions, while reducing bureaucracy, and that it would result in the better co-ordination of Correspondence Address: Mark McAteer, Scottish Local Authorities Management Centre, University of Strathclyde, Graham Hills Building, 50 Richmond Street, Glasgow, G1 1XT, UK; Email: [email protected] ISSN 0300-3930 Print/1743-9388 Online ª 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd DOI: 10.1080/03003930500095095

286

M. McAteer & M. Bennett

public service delivery. Above all, it is claimed that it would decentralise decision-making from Whitehall to the regions and bring government closer to the people. In the introduction to the White Paper the Prime Minister states that regionalism (ODPM 2005: 5): gives people living in the English regions the chance to have a greater say over the key issues that affect them as well as the power to devise tailored regional solutions to regional problems. And it builds on the success of devolution elsewhere in the UK – offering people more accountable, more streamlined and more joined-up government. Thus the populist idiom being adopted in England with respect to the benefits of regional assemblies, that they will provide ‘regional solutions to regional problems’, mimics that adopted in Scotland prior to devolution – ‘Scottish solutions to Scottish problems’. Scottish devolution was the outcome of a long and hard fought battle within UK and Scottish politics. Public backing for devolution culminated in the formation of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which was formed after the Conservatives’ 1987 general election victory as a crossparty forum to pursue devolution.1 It built wide political and popular support for devolution and helped put in place the framework that would create the Scottish Parliament (Brown et al., 1998). The Scotland Act (1997), which followed from Labour’s 1997 general election victory, largely followed the Convention framework. It mapped out the Scottish Executive and Parliament’s areas of responsibility and all have major implications for the operations of local government (Bennett et al., 2002). Despite some reservations that devolution might have detrimental consequences for local government (see Himsworth, 1998; Midwinter, 1995; 1997; 2002), its support was a critical factor in the delivery of devolution. One of the people central to the work of the Constitutional Convention commented in interview: ‘I think local government support for the Constitutional Convention was absolutely crucial.’ However, from a constitutional perspective, devolution has changed little for Scottish local government, as it remains a ‘creature of Parliament’ subject to the doctrine of ‘ultra vires’ (McAteer & Bennett, 1999). Nevertheless, local government does have a degree of freedom and discretion in the implementation of the law and statutory guidance it receives from the Scottish Executive. As the lessons of the poll tax, compulsory competitive tendering and the current debate regarding proportional representation for local elections show, local government ‘resistance’ can prove to be an effective barrier to central government policy agendas. This paper does not assess the details of specific policy developments in the first term of devolution. Rather it records and analyses the perceptions of key actors from within the Scottish political system on the impact of devolution on local government. In so doing it highlights issues regarding devolution

Devolution and Local Government: Scotland

287

and local government. In the conclusions, we consider whether these lessons are of relevance to the on-going debates on English regionalism. Research Methods The field research upon which this article draws was conducted between March and November 2001 and consisted of research in 11 case study local authorities. The case study authorities included large urban authorities and small rural and island authorities as well as a range of councils controlled by different political parties or independents. Some 120 interviews were carried out with senior politicians and officers within the 11 participating councils, ministers within the Scottish Executive and senior civil servants in Edinburgh and Whitehall. Members of the Local Government Committee and chairs of other parliamentary committees relevant to local government were interviewed, as were the local government spokespersons of the major political parties. Lastly, the leaders of two of the main local government trade unions and a range of commentators on local government and devolution from across Scottish public life also participated in interviews. To supplement the qualitative research data, quantitative research methods were employed. Postal surveys of elected local councillors and members of some local government professional bodies were conducted. The councillors’ survey produced a response rate of 47%, which represented 22% of all Scottish councillors.2 Table 1 illustrates that the political composition of Scottish local government was broadly reflective within the councillors’ survey. Whilst both Labour and Independents were slightly under-represented in the sample and the other three main parties slightly over-represented, the differences were not significant enough to impact on the general validity of the survey response. The local government associations surveyed were the Scottish Branch of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (SOLACE), the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland (ADES), the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers (ALACHO) and the Scottish Local Authority Economic Development Group (SLAED).3

Table 1. Councillors’ survey response by political affiliation (%)

Labour SNP Lib. Dem Conservative Independent n = 302

Scottish Councillors

Survey Respondents

45.1 16.7 12.8 8.8 16.6

36.8 13.2 14.9 13.2 14.2

288


Westminster and Whitehall: A World Removed? Prior to devolution, policy-making within Scotland was conducted within a UK policy framework (Midwinter et al., 1991) wherein the government in Westminster played the key role in establishing the policy agenda. Consequently, the ‘Scottish’ policy process produced similar policy outcomes to the rest of the UK but it was characterised by a difference in approach as to how policy decisions were arrived at (Rhodes, 1988; Kellas & Madgwick, 1982). In particular, emphasis was placed on the importance of inter-personal relations between policy actors given the small scale of Scottish policy-making (McPherson & Raab, 1988). Midwinter (1995: 22) concluded that ‘Scottish central–local relations’ were ‘distinctive for how decisions are made, rather than the substantive decisions themselves’. Consequently, in the research, a line of questioning was pursued that focused on the enduring impact of Westminster within Scottish central–local relations. A strong consensus was shared among many of the research participants that Westminster had become less relevant to Scottish local government on a day-to-day basis. While it is important to record such views, it has to be borne in mind that Westminster remains an important arena for establishing the financial and policy frameworks within which all Scottish public bodies operate (Keating, 2001). In the survey of elected councillors, respondents were asked how important Westminster was to the governance of Scotland since devolution: 62% of respondents felt that Westminster had become less important to local government since devolution, with only 5% saying that it had become more important; 33% said that it was about the same (see Table 2). When these figures were further broken down, Labour councillors were the least likely to describe Westminster as being less important to local government; only among Independent councillors did a lower percentage regard Westminster as less important, while SNP councillors were the most likely to say that Westminster was less important than before devolution.

Table 2. The importance of Westminster to the governance of Scotland since devolution (Councillors %)

SNP Lib. Dem. Conservative Labour Independent Total n = 274

More

Less

About same

Unsure

0 2.3 5.1 6.5 7.0 4.7

79.5 70.5 61.5 55.6 51.2 61.7

17.9 27.3 33.3 37.0 39.5 32.5

2.6 0 0 0.9 2.3 1.1


289

The position of Labour councillors on this issue is perhaps not too surprising as there remains within the Scottish Labour Party a vein of opinion that is sceptical of devolution on the grounds that it may threaten the Union and play into the hands of the SNP. One Labour council leader commented: I am broadly anti-devolution. There are three reasons for this. The first is that I saw devolution as a step towards independence; second I thought that it would bring down local government in Scotland; and third is finance. I think the money [for the construction of the Parliament, etc.] could be better spent elsewhere. While the actions of the Scottish Labour Party were critical to the pursuit of devolution, strong commitments to retaining the link with Westminster remain prevalent throughout the party. This view was put forcefully by a number of Labour councillors. However, almost all of the interviewees said that the formal level of contact between their council and local MPs had declined since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. One interviewee noted: ‘I think MSPs have taken over from MPs in raising most issues with the council.’ In order to provide a more objective measure one council that participated in the research collated statistics on the level of formal contact between it and both MSPs and MPs (see Table 3). While the data represent only one council’s direct experience, similar points were raised by interviewees in most of the case study councils. However, while formal contact has declined, the informal links between Scottish local councillors and Westminster-based MPs remained strong at the time of the research, indicating the continuing importance of UK party political relations in post-devolution Scotland. At a simplistic level, this reflects the fact that many councillors have known and worked with MPs for many years – some share ‘constituency’ accommodation or surgeries with MPs – but at a deeper level this is reflective of the duality of central–local relations in post-devolution Scotland. Westminster and Westminster-based politicians were marginalised in the immediate aftermath of devolution, but they remain significantly important actors within the local politics of Scotland.

Table 3. Number of contacts between a council and MPs/MSPs

MPs MSPs (Constituency) MSPs (List)

1998/99

1999/2000

2000/01

598 N/A N/A

304 559 33

213 552 58

290


The Executive and Parliament: A Matter of Distinction! While both the Scottish Executive and Parliament are interlinked and form central elements of the governance framework of Scotland, they were perceived in very different terms by many of the research participants. While outright hostility towards the Executive was almost absent, the general consensus was that the Executive, while better than the Scottish Office before it, was still a centralising political force and as such attempted to dominate relations with local government. The Parliament was generally seen more favourably, for example one interviewee commented: ‘There is a distinction made between the Scottish Executive and the Parliament. The Parliament is regarded positively; the Executive is less than satisfactory.’ When elected councillors were asked if the creation of the Executive or the Parliament had reduced the importance of local government in Scotland the responses were as shown in Table 4. On this, as on many issues, a divide occurred between different parties. Labour councillors were generally less critical of both the Executive and Parliament than other parties. The Liberal Democrats, while more critical of the Executive than Labour councillors, were still less critical than other councillors. While SNP and Conservative respondents tended to be the most critical of the Executive. The SNP, however, were less inclined to criticise the Parliament while Conservatives remained fairly steadfast in their criticism of the post-devolution institutions. This in itself is perhaps not surprising as both the SNP and Conservatives were represented in the Parliament but not in the Executive. Secondly, for many SNP councillors there was a hope expressed that the devolved Parliament would instil a sense of selfconfidence amongst the Scottish electorate, which in time would lead to independence. Therefore, many were reluctant to be overly critical of the Parliament as an institution but were clear in their criticisms of the Labour/ Liberal Democrat Executive. One of the key narratives deployed in the campaign for devolution was that it would create a ‘new politics’ for Scotland. The ‘new politics’ was to be

Table 4. The Scottish Executive/Scottish Parliament has reduced the importance of local government (Councillors %) Scottish Executive

Labour Lib Dem SNP Conservative Independent All

Scottish Parliament

Agree

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

38 46 55 73 48 48

51 15 38 15 43 42

38 36 41 65 44 43

52 52 59 25 49 48

n = Scottish Executive (SE) 278; Scottish Parliament (SP) 273


291

the embodiment of a new set of aspirations for Scottish politics, which would be more consensual, open and communal than the adversarial politics of Westminster (Hassan, 1998). However, the extent to which such developments were achieved in the first term of devolution is questionable and among the research participants a clear party split on the issue emerged. When asked if such a ‘new politics’ had been created between the Executive and local government 56% of Labour respondents agreed that a ‘new politics’ had been created while 53% of SNP respondents disagreed. Moreover, when asked in more detail if the underpinnings of such a ‘new politics’ had emerged again there was divergence in the assessments made by respondents from different parties. For example, when councillors were asked if ‘local government shared the same objectives as both the Executive and the Parliament’ there were differences in perceptions between parties (Table 5). Once again the performance of the Parliament and the Executive were judged differently. Although both institutions were adjudged not to share objectives with local government, the Executive was seen in a more negative light than the Parliament. The different level of interference and scrutiny of local government by the Executive and the Parliament possibly explains this difference in perception among councillors: 78% of responding councillors felt that the creation of the Executive had increased interference in local government affairs; this was a consistently held view across all major parties. Such ‘interference’ may be attributed to the pressures that the Scottish Executive perceives itself to be under to ‘deliver’ to the electorate. Consequently it passes that pressure on to those upon whom it depends for delivery, in particular local government. In contrast the Parliament has no direct responsibility for policy or service delivery matters and as such may be regarded as more empathetic towards local government and the circumstances in which it finds itself. Arguably what these figures reveal is that despite the claims that devolution would forge a ‘new politics’ it has yet to result in a new set of political relations between local government, the Executive and the

Table 5. Does local government share the same objectives as the Scottish Executive/Scottish Parliament (Councillors %) Scottish Executive

Labour Lib Dem SNP Conservative Independent All n = SE 278; SP 272

Scottish Parliament

Agree

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

44 27 10 5 32 29

38 56 85 82 58 58

47 32 24 18 33 33

36 48 63 72 50 50

292


Parliament. Rather, devolution has simply provided a new locality for the articulation of old lines of argument between the different levels of government and the main political parties in Scotland. However, a further dimension emerged in our findings. When the issues were broken down in terms of the roles that councillors occupy within councils it was found that council leaders and non-office-bearing councillors diverged in their assessments in significant areas. For example, 54% of leaders disagreed with the assertion that the Executive had reduced the importance of local government while 31% agreed that it had. The equivalent figures for non-office-bearing councillors were 42% and 47% respectively. Moreover, when the issue of shared objectives was examined on the basis of leadership role the figures were as shown in Table 6. It would appear that in some respects the position a councillor occupies within council hierarchies plays an important role in shaping their views regarding the impact of devolution on local government. Two factors are of importance in this respect. First the party dimension. Given that Labour controlled 15 of Scotland’s 32 councils at the time of the research a significant percentage of those in leadership categories who responded to the survey were Labour councillors and, as outlined above, their assessment of devolution tends to be more favourable. Secondly, there is also an issue that relates to how internal council hierarchies affect councillor activities. Not surprisingly, in all councils it is leaders who participate in external organisations, such as COSLA, and who engage more with the Executive and Parliament. Consequently, those councillors are in a different position when making judgements of the Executive or Parliament than the majority of councillors because they have a different experience of the relationship. Therefore, to draw general conclusions about ‘local government’s’ views of devolution is somewhat misleading as the situation within local government is complex and highly variegated. Different types of councillors arrive at different assessments based partly on their party political background and partly on the political role that they play as a consequence of internal council hierarchies. When these issues were explored with local government officials they shared similarly ambiguous perspectives to councillors. In the survey of

Table 6. Does local government share the same objectives as the Scottish Executive/Scottish Parliament (Councillors by leadership role %) Scottish Executive

Leaders Non-office-bearing All n = SE 295; SP 286

Scottish Parliament

Agree

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

54 25 28

46 64 57

54 32 33

38 53 50


293

SOLACE members, while only 11% of the respondents said that the Scottish Parliament had reduced the importance of local government, only 21% believed that devolution had actually strengthened it. However, devolution was seen to have increased democratic accountability, with 82% saying that the Scottish Parliament had increased scrutiny of local government. In terms of the differences between the Parliament and the Executive, 68% of SOLACE respondents said that the Scottish Parliament was more open to local government than the Scottish Executive. While the status of local government continued to concern SOLACE members, other issues were regarded in more clear-cut terms. 100% of respondents thought that devolution had created more capacity for government to focus on Scottish issues: 93% characterised Westminster as less important to the governance of Scotland, with 71% stating that chief officers’ contact with Westminster MPs had diminished. In addition, 61% thought that the role of councils as community leaders had increased since devolution. This collection of results suggests that perceptions regarding the relations between the Executive, the Parliament and local government are complex and subject to variations between different types of local government activists. It would appear that there is no simple ‘local government’ view of the impact that devolution had on local government in the first term. As Bennett et al. (2002) argued, devolution has had different impacts in different professional, service and policy areas within local government. However, a note of caution should be sounded at this point because in the research interviews many senior officers argued that it was too early to pass a definitive judgement on the impact of devolution and its institutions on local government. Moreover, new developments may occur as relationships mature over time and as the post-devolution landscape is further altered.4 One further area of interest that emerged in the research interviews in relation to the Parliament was the role of List MSPs. Within the Parliament, 73 MSPs are elected from constituencies and a further 56 are elected using an Additional Member System (AMS) based on eight regional constituencies, with each constituency returning seven List MSPs. The List seats are allocated based on the total number of votes cast for the political parties in the AMS ballot within each regional constituency. This is to ensure that the composition of the Parliament is broadly reflective of the total votes cast for the parties. Among the interviewees, there was a very widely held view that the role that list MSPs were playing in relation to councils was problematic. List MSPs were largely seen as a negative influence as they invariably raised issues with councils that the councils regarded as being outside their remit. Many commented that list MSPs simply chased headlines in local newspapers in order to raise their own and their party’s profile. Few councils reported having positive relations with their list MSPs and few said that they attempted to build positive relations with them. While all said that

294


they replied to enquiries from list MSPs, very few councils provided them with regular policy briefings. This situation was partly explained by the fact that, in most instances, the list MSPs were of a different political party than the controlling party within a local authority. In Labour-run council areas, list MSPs tended to be from other parties and the opposite applied in nonLabour council areas. Thus the tension between parties generated issues in terms of relations between the list MSPs and councils. While outright conflict in these relations was largely absent, there was, nevertheless, a significant amount of tension and frustration. Local Government’s Role in Post-Devolution Policy-Making In 1997, the Consultative Steering Group (CSG) was established as a crossparty forum to devise the principles and processes that were to underpin the operations of the Scottish Parliament, and by implication the Scottish Executive. The CSG devised the following principles: that political power should be shared across Scotland; that accountability should be clear; that policy-making processes should be open, participative and responsive; and that equal opportunities should be promoted throughout the whole of the Scottish governance system (Consultative Steering Group, 1998). While the intention was that the Scottish Parliament would be more involved in policy-making than its Westminster counterpart, particularly through its committees, the Scottish Executive has proven to be the principal player in policy-making in Scotland. In general, most research participants were positive in their assessment of developments in policy-making since the inception of devolution. One senior council officer commented: We now need to deal with fast-moving legislation and we now find the Scottish Executive is asking for more and more input. We are also now more involved in pre-legislative consultation than ever before. The Executive wants other voices heard but I don’t think local authorities have yet been marginalised in the process. Most of what has been published as consultation from the Executive we have been involved in before the event so nothing much has come as a surprise. Moreover, despite criticisms that were made of the Executive, when research participants were asked if policy-making was any different than it had been prior to devolution most said things had improved for local government. Some interviewees commented: ‘Ministers and the Civil service are more open and responsive than in the past’; ‘Things are better than they were before devolution. They are not as good as they could be but I think that is a development issue; things will improve.’ When elected councillors were asked if the Executive was more open than the former Scottish Office, almost 53% of the respondents said yes, while only 28% said that it was not


295

(Table 7). Again, as on other issues, there was an element of party bias in the responses received. When these issues were raised in the officers’ surveys only 39% of SOLACE respondents described the Scottish Executive as an open organisation in its relations with local government. However, 75% said that the Executive was more open than the pre-devolution Scottish Office. This highlighted one theme that was evident throughout the research. While devolution and the creation of the Scottish Executive was seen to have improved local government’s role in policy-making, there remained unease in the relationship and certainly room for improvement from local government’s perspective, although, as detailed below, such a generalisation was not evident in all policy areas. Paterson (2000a) argued that historically Scottish national identity has been bound up with a clear sense of distinctiveness from the rest of the UK in education policy. In interview many of the Directors of Education were quite clear that they saw themselves as the custodians of something distinctively Scottish. Moreover, they argued that devolution had not resulted in the local authority role in education services being challenged, as has happened elsewhere in the UK in recent years. Indeed, a representative of ADES commented that the association was involved in developing most of the post-devolution policy changes within Scotland. This depth of institutionalisation in policy-making may go some way towards explaining education directors’ generally more positive attitudes towards the Parliament and the Scottish Executive. As one senior member of ADES commented in interview: We are well connected to policy-making circles . . . It [the Scottish Executive Education Department] is offering real partnership, it is getting more pragmatic on interpreting guidance, more involved in pre-legislative scrutiny. They now say ‘how do we achieve the following?’ That is a significant change . . . There is a more open exchange of views across and between actors.

Table 7. Is the Scottish Executive more open to local government than the Scottish Office was before devolution? (Councillors %)

Labour Lib. Dem. SNP Independent Conservative Total n = 277

Yes

No

Unsure

69.4 66.7 42.5 37.2 20.0 52.7

18.0 14.3 37.5 37.2 50.0 28.2

12.6 19.0 20.0 25.6 30.0 19.1

296


In contrast, within local authority housing services, while many of the directors were supportive of devolution, they were generally less positive regarding its impacts than their education counterparts. While many commented positively about the way in which housing was placed more prominently on the policy agenda, in particular as a consequence of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and the proximity to Scottish local government of the Housing Minister, they also commented in less positive terms regarding the overall financial situation confronting Scottish local authority housing. One director said: ‘What is disappointing is the Parliament and the politicians haven’t even really tried to stretch the PSBR [Public Sector Borrowing Requirement] conventions or even work more imaginatively within them.’ Local authority housing finance remains ring-fenced in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), separate from the rest of local government finance. Consequently, for many Scottish local authority housing departments there are two critically important issues to be managed, first, low levels of capital investment in stock maintenance and renewal and, second, high levels of debt that have to be paid from within the HRA and passed on to tenants’ rents. Neither of these issues was addressed in post-devolution Scotland, as capital investment remained subject to UK Treasury control, which linked the cancelling of council housing debt to the transfer of stock to independent housing providers. Consequently, for many directors of housing, despite the gains that devolution had brought, the key policy issues remained unresolved. Moreover, some were concerned that while they have not been excluded from policy-making neither had local housing authorities been formally institutionalised into the policy-making process. One director commented: I think the invitations to participate in policy discussions is ad hoc; we have no national policy development role. It really seems to be at the behest of ministers; still it is more open than it was pre-devolution but I am not quite sure if this is good for local government. Local government now has to work harder to be heard. Within economic development, two key policy developments were most significant. First, the development of Community Planning, which required all 32 Scottish councils to work in partnership with other major public agencies to develop a Community Plan for their council area. Community planning seeks to integrate and co-ordinate public services at local level through a partnership of all major public sector providers and the community. Local economic development was identified as a key theme in each of the Community Plans produced across Scotland. In addition Local Economic Forums (LEFs), following recommendations from the Parliament’s Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, were formed in 2001 to further promote and co-ordinate the activities of a range of agencies


297

within economic development. While many in local government welcomed the thinking behind the LEFs, which was broadly similar to that which underpinned Community Planning, many interviewees generally felt that the decision to create them on Local Enterprise Company (LEC) boundaries was a mistake, as they felt that this would make Community Planning more difficult. Overall, for many from an economic development background, devolution was seen to have centralised economic development policy (Bennett & Fairley, 2003). While the balance of opinion among research interviewees reflected a generally positive view of relations with the Scottish Executive at a political level, a different picture emerged when interactions between local government and the civil service were discussed. Most local government interviewees regarded the civil service with a degree of suspicion and mistrust and felt that it was largely dismissive of local government and on some issues were even hostile to it. One Chief Executive commented: ‘Historically there has been distrust between the civil service and local government and it is too early to detect if this has changed as a consequence of devolution . . . Also there has never been a clear basis for joint working between local government and the Civil service.’ However, most recognised that matters were changing as the civil service adapted to a more overtly political environment and the scrutiny of 129 MSPs and 21 ministers within the Executive. A further issue that devolution brought to the fore was the direct political connections to Executive ministers and MSPs of many councils. Of those MSPs elected in the 2003 parliamentary elections some 36.4% had previously been a local councillor; this was up from an equivalent figure of 32% in 1999 (Burnside et al. 2003). Such channels are regarded as a key local resource in dealings with the ‘national’ level of government. For example one senior local government official commented: ‘I think the civil service is now more receptive to local government; they know most councils have an ‘‘in’’ with ministers and if necessary we can use those ‘‘ins’’ to exert pressure.’ While not guaranteeing that local government would always get its way regarding policy developments, many nevertheless held that the close political connections between local government and ministers was a powerful connection for local government denied to many other policy actors in Scottish policy-making circles. However, the degree to which these political connections have delivered to local government is certainly challengeable and a matter that requires further research. Many commentators (see Hassan 1999) hoped that devolution would provide the basis for a more ‘joined up’ approach to policy-making in Scotland. However, many of the research participants challenged the view that this had been achieved in practice. In particular many pointed to the internal structures and policy development processes of the Civil service as a key reason why the policy agenda had yet to become ‘joined up’. Through

298


the surveys when asked if ‘devolution has provided a joined-up policy agenda’ local government officers responded as shown in Table 8. In interviews with senior officers and councillors the continuing fragmentation of central–local relations was raised as an issue of some concern. One head of economic development said in interview: I think it is more inclusive than it was pre-devolution and we also have a higher profile. I think economic development now also feeds into wider issues for example Life Long Learning. We have still to see the full joining up of the Scottish Executive itself but bits of it are better than it was. It was noted that in many instances alliances were forged between different local government services and the civil service. For example, some Chief Executives commented that, whenever the Scottish Executive Education Department wanted a local government adviser to participate on a panel, it sought someone from within education services and not someone from the corporate centre of councils. This was perceived as one mechanism through which a division of the national government sought to strengthen itself by empowering an ‘ally’ within local government. In addition, it was noted by many that in local government, different services continued to use their contacts within the Executive to ‘protect’ themselves in interdepartmental disagreements within councils. In all such manoeuvres, personal contacts were deemed to be of critical importance in securing support from a local or national counterpart. As one council Chief Executive noted: ‘With the civil service it is still a case of who you know that matters.’ A further issue that became evident was the depth of mistrust between the different levels of government that continues to be institutionalised into central–local relations within Scotland, despite the many positive instances of personal working relations between individuals that were reported: 70% of respondents to the SOLACE survey disagreed when asked if the ‘civil service has the right ethos and culture to adapt to post-devolution Scotland’, none agreed that it did have the right ethos and culture, while 30% were unsure. On the civil service side of the ‘divide’ an equal sense of mistrust of local government was found to prevail. Unease was expressed about local

Table 8. Devolution has provided a joined-up policy agenda? By professional association (Officers %)

SOLACE (n = 28) SLAED (n = 24) ALACHO (n = 28) ADES (n = 52)

Agree

Disagree

Unsure

3.6 20.8 17.9 5.9

96.4 66.7 60.7 52.9

0 12.5 21.4 41.2


299

government’s ability to deliver key public services. Some civil servants were eager to point out that while ‘English’ or ‘Welsh’ models of central intervention in ‘failed’ local services were not being advocated within Scotland, nevertheless, if any major service within a Scottish council was seen to fail, pressures would build for ministers to step in. The subsequent problems of the Borders Council in 2001/02 concerning an overspend in education services and the Executive’s response to it would seem to bear out such concerns. Such views were accompanied by a sense that local government could not be trusted to ‘do things properly’ or that the expectations of change that local authorities felt devolution would bring were largely unrealistic. One senior civil servant commented: ‘Councils seem to have held the naive view that once we got the Parliament then it would be ‘‘happy families’’. There will always be friction between tiers of government. That’s life.’ Moreover some civil servants argued that a genuine partnership between local government and the Executive was unlikely to develop partly because of the levels of mistrust in the working relations of the civil service and local government and partly because local government, unlike the civil service, was not capable of meeting the demands of such a partnership. One civil servant summed up this view by saying: ‘some of us think we are superior and perhaps with justification’. Further evidence of an incomplete ‘partnership’ between local government and the Executive emerged from the SOLACE survey. While 46% of SOLACE respondents indicated that devolution gave local government a more important role in developing national policy, the fact that only 21% believed that the Scottish Executive and local government worked well together supported the view that relationships remain imbued with tension and friction. This was underlined by the fact that only 18% of SOLACE members indicated that the Scottish Executive understood local government and 96% believed that the Executive’s policy development and consultation processes were not well co-ordinated. Issues relating to working relationships were further explored when the professional associations were asked if ‘devolution has strengthened the position of local government/your service as a local service’ (Table 9). Once again, a significant variation between ADES and the other associations emerged. As noted above, this may be reflective of ADES’s key role in

Table 9. Devolution has strengthened the position of local government/your service as a local service (Officials %)

ADES (n = 52) SOLACE (n = 28) ALACHO (n = 28) SLAED (n = 24)

Agree

Disagree

Unsure

51.9 21.4 21.4 8.3

23.1 46.4 60.7 75.0

25.0 32.1 17.9 16.7

300


developing ‘national’ education policies where it has been institutionalised into working relations with the Scottish Executive, unlike many other parts of local government. While there was no clear consensus among SOLACE members, housing and economic development respondents were clear that their service had not been strengthened. The emerging picture from the research therefore is of a complex pattern of interactions, relationships and perspectives among local government officers as to the immediate impact of devolution across a number of service areas. Such different perceptions may be reflective of Parry’s (1997) argument that devolution would not alter significantly the power of entrenched interests within Scottish policy-making circles. Where entrenched interests occur, as in the case of ADES they remain a key part of policy-making processes. Where other actors were perhaps less entrenched prior to devolution their perception is that they remain more marginal to developments, many of which were not regarded in overly positive terms. One issue that generated a clear consensus across the professional associations was in relation to the general impact of devolution as the key policy driver within each service area. All of the professional associations were asked if the policy agenda would have been the same if devolution had not occurred (Table 10). The responses received indicated the significant impact that devolution has been seen to make on the policy agenda of local government in a very short period of time. While in some areas of policy, such as housing transfer, the policy issues predated devolution in most respects, it was argued that it was devolution that drove the policy agenda. These findings were mirrored in many of the research interviews. One senior councillor commented: ‘I think devolution has made a bigger difference than the 1997–1999 period. I think devolution was needed to improve decision-making structures and processes in Scotland.’ One of the major fears within local government circles prior to devolution was that the delivery of many key local government services would be centralised as a direct consequence of devolution. This issue was pursued both in the interviews and in the surveys. Among both the professional associations and councillors there was a strong majority who felt that central control had increased since devolution (Table 11). When these issues were raised during interviews, interviewees were asked in what ways centralisation had increased and a fairly consistent

Table 10. Devolution has had no impact, policy would have been same (Officers %)

ADES (n = 52) SOLACE (n = 28) ALACHO (n = 28) SLAED (n = 24)

Agree

Disagree

Unsure

3.8 7.1 10.7 12.5

96.2 82.1 75.0 70.8

0 10.7 14.3 16.7


301

Table 11. Central control has increased since devolution (Officers %)

ALACHO (n = 28) SLAED (n = 24) ADES (n = 52) SOLACE (n = 28) Council Leaders (n = 13) Non-office-bearing councillors (n = 57)

Agree

Disagree

Unsure

78.6 69.6 63.5 57.1 85.0 70.0

7.1 21.7 17.3 7.1 8.0 20.0

14.3 8.7 19.2 35.7 7.0 10.0

set of opinions emerged. Financial control by the centre was highlighted, while some pointed to direct centralisation of service delivery, such as in the inspection of social work residential homes, while others spoke of backdoor centralisation where existing quangos were further empowered at local government’s expense. These views were echoed in the SOLACE survey where central control was deemed to have increased as a consequence of Scottish Executive policy initiatives (26%), through financial mechanisms (24%) and via increased audit and inspection processes (23%). Despite some of the concerns detailed above, most of the respondents within the four professional associations were positive about the overall impact of devolution within either local government as a whole or within their own service area. Among both SOLACE and ADES respondents, there was a strong response to this question; 75% of SOLACE respondents and 84% of ADES respondents said that the general impact of devolution was positive. Among ALACHO respondents the equivalent figure was 68%. It was only among SLAED respondents that less than 50% responded positively; 43% said that devolution had had a positive impact on economic development, with 35% saying they were unsure. Overall, most of the respondents concluded, devolution had improved the governance of Scotland. While it had not resolved all problems, there had been some important changes and it had not significantly reduced the role of local government in the governance process. In some service areas, notably education, the general perception was of an enhanced local government role and improving partnership with the Executive. Conclusions One of the aspirations underpinning Scottish devolution was that a new form of governance would be created, or, to use the term adopted by many, a ‘new politics’ would emerge (Brown et al., 1998; Hassan, 1998). However, the new Scottish governance system had to deal with the legacies of the past and their ongoing impacts. As Nairn (1999: 50) noted of the ‘new politics’: ‘Unfortunately, many of the old-time attitudes have been deposited alongside it.’

302


Consequently Westminster remains a major influence not just in financial and policy terms but also as a mindset and political culture, which does not always sit in accordance with the aspirations of devolution and a ‘new politics’. While the operating environment in which central–local relations are conducted has changed, they remain immersed in complexity, tension and fragmentation. It is a series of relationships within which key players are connected to one another in very close proximity, but within which mistrust between different levels of government continues to be clearly present. However, these aspects of continuity were tempered by a genuine attempt to open up the policy process and allow greater access to local authorities, and other organisations, to policy-making circles. Those senior officers and members who more regularly worked with the Executive painted a picture of it in which it was by no means perfect but which, through various channels, at least afforded local government greater opportunities to engage in policy discussions than was the case prior to devolution. Of more concern to many from local government were relations with the civil service. While acknowledging that the civil service was operating under unprecedented pressure, it was still regarded as being too slow to change and to embrace a new more open and engaged culture. The ‘old’ centralist way of thinking, according to many research respondents, had not disappeared nor had its considerable influence on policy matters. The difference in perceptions between those within different local government professions regarding the impact of devolution on policymaking processes is significant on a number of levels. First, it would seem that where there was considerable policy autonomy for Scotland prior to devolution, such as in education, policy actors record a more favourable assessment of devolution’s impact on their service than in areas where there was historically less policy freedom. Moreover, the variation among policy actors uncovered by this research is of importance as it indicates that those who held relatively empowered positions within Scottish policy-making prior to devolution perceive themselves as remaining relatively empowered and embedded within the policy process. Paterson (1998) argued that the Scottish Parliament would be entangled in the same web of interdependencies as the old machinery of Scottish government, and suggested that devolution would amount to no more than an incremental change to the political and policy-making process. Equally, Parry (1997) was sceptical that devolution would alter significantly the power of entrenched interests within Scottish policy-making circles. ADES as a professional association was well established in Scottish policy-making prior to devolution (Paterson 2000a) and remains so in the post-devolution policy process. Some of the other associations which participated in this research were less well placed in policy-making terms prior to devolution and remain in relatively weak positions. Thus, in terms of the devolution impact on local government and its role within policy-making, devolution has been positive in some respects and less so in others. The parts of local government that were well


303

established in policy-making terms prior to devolution would appear to remain so, but for those that were more marginal to the policy process, while nothing untoward may have occurred, neither have they made any significant gain in their policy-making role. Thus, the exogenous change pressures placed upon the Scottish policy process in the guise of devolution have yet to fully translate into change within the policy-making process itself. Constitutional and institutional change on their own will not necessarily deliver change in policy-making practices. Rhodes (1997) argued that to secure change across a ‘differentiated polity’ governments must recognise the need to manage networks rather than simply change institutional structures and processes. Moreover, Bevir and Rhodes (2003) argue that different actors within the policy process will interpret and subsequently react to change in different ways. That is, they will socially construct interpretations of change and respond to it in ways that they regard as appropriate. Consequently, if we are to fully understand devolution’s impact upon local government we must explore further how different policy actors are interpreting its impact across different policy sectors and, secondly, how devolved institutions, in particular the Executive, are formulating strategies in an attempt to manage the ‘differentiated polity’ of post-devolution Scottish politics. In relation to English regionalism, while the research suggests a number of issues of relevance there are three important differences. Firstly, the Scottish Parliament has considerably more ‘va va voom’ than the proposed English regional assemblies (Bennet & McAteer, 2002). The English regions would have powers over planning, economy and transport, but none of the social or economic policy that Edinburgh’s Parliament controls. Secondly, the nationalist underpinnings of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the populist fight for devolution are weaker, if not entirely absent, in the English regions. Thus the appetite for change, which in Scotland was shared by the political and managerial elites as well as by the broader population, seems less relevant to the process of regionalism in England. The third main difference is the requirement for reorganisation of English two-tier local government as a condition for regionalism. Scotland already had unitary local government in 1999, but the spectre of another reorganisation still hangs over Scottish councils. Midwinter (2002) stated that as a consequence of the abolition of the Scottish regional authorities in 1996 and the creation of the new Parliament, local government in Scotland has diminished in its influence. Midwinter argued that major public services should now be subject to more direct control by the Scottish Parliament; councils should oversee smaller, less strategic services around which local choice can be properly exercised. Among many of the research participants there was a shared perception that devolution would result in a major reorganisation of local government structures and service delivery arrangements. When elected councillors were asked in the survey if they thought there would be a reorganisation

304


of local government a broad consensus of opinion was evident across all parties that a reorganisation would occur (Table 12). In Scotland, this fear of a reorganisation may in part help explain the at times negative views of those in local government concerning devolution. Despite the widely held views that it has brought many benefits there is also an unease that it has perhaps not yet ‘done enough’ for local government and may yet prove to be the source of further major upheaval and change. Consequently, many of the local government research participants recorded contingent assessments of devolution’s impact on local government, which allowed them to acknowledge its benefits while still expressing their concerns. If devolution is to occur in the English regions the lessons from the devolutionary process in Scotland are fairly clear. Whereas local government reorganisation was not a requirement for Scottish devolution, as unitary authorities had been established in 1996, any devolution to English regions will require the reorganisation of English local government. While the direct threat of reorganisation was absent in Scotland, it still managed to overshadow much of the positive feeling with respect to devolution’s impact on local government. Consequently, English local authorities may view regionalism and its potential impact upon local government in terms of how to ensure their own survival under a regional assembly rather than in terms of the merits of regional devolution itself. The second key lesson from the Scottish experience is in relation to ‘joined-up’ government. The evidence from Scotland suggests that established political, departmental and professional networks continue to exist post-devolution and that creating a larger, unitary political structure does not always produce a more coherent or unified policy-making process. In conclusion, devolution has produced a more open political system, a system that is certainly closer to local government and a system that has allowed greater input into policy-making than pre-devolution arrangements did, although we found this varied across service areas. However, devolution has not fundamentally altered all policy-making practices nor has it changed how many actors regard their role within the system, for

Table 12. Devolution will lead to a further re-organisation of local government in the near future (Councillors%)

Labour Lib Dem SNP Conservative Independent All n = 277

Agree

Disagree

76 70 80 65 74 74

13 12 13 18 9 13


305

example the centralising tendencies of central government remain a prominent feature of post-devolution Scottish politics. ‘Old’ attitudes and practices feature prominently in the ‘new politics’ of devolution. That being said, the overwhelming majority of those who participated in the research were clear in their final judgment that despite its limitations the devolved political system had improved matters overall for local government and that they would not return willingly to the situation that existed prior to its introduction. Acknowledgements The Joseph Rowntree Foundation funded the research upon which this article draws. The third member of the research team was Professor John Fairley of the Department of Environmental Planning, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. Notes 1 Both the Conservatives and SNP refused to participate in the workings of the Convention. 2 The councillors’ survey response was checked against the actual profile of Scottish local government and was found to be consistent between urban and rural Scotland, between different council areas, to be reflective of the balance of office-holding and non-office-bearing councillors and reflective of the balance of political parties. 3 The surveys were distributed directly by the professional associations to their members, as they were reluctant to divulge members’ addresses. Consequently, the overall response rate from each professional association survey was impossible to determine, all that could be determined was the number of total responses to each survey and the number of different councils that were represented in each sample. Moreover, the overall numbers produced from each survey were low because the associations themselves have restricted memberships and draw their members from only 32 Scottish councils. The SOLACE survey generated 28 responses from 21 of Scotland’s 32 councils, ALACHO produced returns from 28 councils, ADES produced 52 returns from 18 different councils and SLAED generated 24 returns from 22 different councils. 4 The 2003 Scottish parliamentary elections produced a loss of 6 seats for the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats remained static, as did the Conservatives and the SNP lost 8 seats. The Greens gained 5 seats while the Scottish Socialist Party gained 5 with Independents gaining 3. It is too early to determine the impact that this will have on Scottish politics or local government.

References Bennett, M. & Fairley, J. (2003) Policy conflict in inter-governmental relations: the changing role of local authorities in the governance of local economic development in post-devolution Scotland, International Journal of Economic Development, 5(1), pp. 1–25. Bennett, M. & McAteer, M. (2002) Scottish devolution and local political culture: expectations and delivery in the ‘new politics’, in: P. Benneworth & N. McInroy (Eds) Our Regions Our Choices: Debating the Future for the English Regions, pp. 12–17 (Manchester: Centre for Local Economic Strategies).

306


Bennett, M., Fairley, J. & McAteer, M. (2002) Devolution in Scotland: The Impact on Local Government (York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation). Bevir, M. & Rhodes, R.A.W. (2003) Interpreting British Governance (London: Routledge). Brown, A., McCrone, D. & Paterson, L. (1998) Politics and Society in Scotland, 2nd edn. (London: Macmillan). Burnside, R., Herbert, S & Curtis, S. (2003) Election 2003, Spice Briefing, 6 May, Edinburgh, Scottish Parliament. Consultative Steering Group (1998) Shaping Scotland’s Parliament (Edinburgh: HMSO). Hassan, G., Ed. (1998) The New Scotland (London: Fabian Society). Hassan, G. (1999) Modernising Scotland: New narratives, new possibilities, in: G. Hassan & C. Warhurst (Eds) A Different Future: A Moderniser’s Guide to Scotland, pp. 15–27, (Glasgow: Centre for Scottish Public Policy Edinburgh; The Big Issue in Scotland). Himsworth, C.M.G. (1998) New devolution: new dangers for local government, Scottish Affairs, Summer, pp.6–28. Keating, M. (2001) Devolution and public policy convergence in the United Kingdom. Divergence or convergence. Seminar on Devolution in Practice, 31 October, Institute of Public Policy Research, London. Kellas, J.G. & Madgwick, P. (1982) Territorial ministries: the Scottish and Welsh offices, in: P. Madgwick & R. Rose (Eds) The Territorial Dimension in United Kingdom Politics, pp. 20–35, (London: Macmillan). McAteer, M. & Bennett, M. (1999) The Scottish Parliament and local government, in: G. Hassan (Ed) The Guide to The Scottish Parliament, pp. 109–118, (Edinburgh: HMSO). McPherson, A. & Raab, C.D. (1988) Governing Education (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Midwinter, A., Keating, M. & Mitchell, J. (1991) Politics and Public Policy in Scotland (London: Macmillan). Midwinter, A. (1995) Local Government in Scotland – Reform or Decline (London: Macmillan). Midwinter, A. (1997) Local government in a devolved Scotland, Scottish Affairs, Winter, pp.24– 35. Midwinter, A. (2002) Written evidence to the Local Government Committee, 6th Report 2002, Report of Inquiry into Local Government Finance, Scottish Parliament, volume 1, SP Paper 551, Stationery Office. Nairn, T. (1999) A new song for Scotland: the making of the Scottish constitution, in: G. Hassan & C. Warhurst (Eds) A Modernisers’ Guide to Scotland: A Different Future, pp. 43–54, (Edinburgh: Centre for Scottish Public Policy). Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2002) Your Region Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions (London: ODPM). Parry R. (1997) The Scottish Parliament and social policy, Scottish Affairs, Summer, pp.34–46. Paterson, L. (1998) Scottish home rule. Radical break or pragmatic adjustment?, in: H. Elcock & M. Keating (Eds) Remaking the Union. Devolution and British Politics in the 1990s, pp. 53– 67, (London: Frank Cass). Paterson, L. (2000a) Education and the Scottish Parliament (Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press). Paterson, L. (2000b) Scottish democracy and Scottish Utopias: the first year of the Scottish Parliament’, Scottish Affairs, 33, pp. 45–61. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997) Understanding Governance, Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability (Buckingham: Open University Press). Rhodes, R.A.W. (1988) Beyond Westminster and Whitehall (London: Unwin-Hyman).