Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:16:15.483Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Evolution of Devolution: Labour‘s Home Rule Strategy in Opposition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

James Mitchell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

THE LITERATURE ON CENTRAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO ETHNIC or peripheral demands suggests a continuum from meeting the challenge head on to conceding some or all of the demand. Strategies also have to be developed by parties in opposition. As the dominant party in Scotland, Labour found itself embroiled in the demand for constitutional change and having to respond in the 1980s. This created party management problems. The evolution of Labour's territorial strategy in opposition between 1979 and 1997 is important in understanding what it did after coming to power. The maintenance of support for Scottish home rule, the alterations in the policy and the method of implementing it can only be explained by understanding the evolution of the policy during the party's eighteen years out of office. During this time, there was a paradigm shift in Labour thinking which made devolution more likely when it came to power.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , October 1998 , pp. 479 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Brass, Paul, ‘Ethnicity and Nationality Formation’, Ethnicity, 3:3 (1983) pp. 41–41 Google Scholar. Connor, Walker, ‘The Politics of Ethnonationalism’, Journal of International Affairs, 27:1 (1977) pp. 21–21 Google Scholar. Esman, Milton, ‘Perspectives on Ethnic Conflict in Industrialized Societies’, in Esman, (ed.), Ethnic Conflict in the Western World, London, Cornell University Press, 1977, pp. 90–90 Google Scholar. Rokkan, Stein and Urwin, Derek, Economy, Territory, Identity: The Politics of West European Peripheries, London, Sage, 1983 Google Scholar; Rudolph, Joseph and Thompson, Robert, ‘Ethnoterritorial Movements and the Policy Process: Accommodating Nationalist Demands in the Developed World’, Comparative Politics, 17:3 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar Teghtsoonian, Katherine, Institutional Structure and Government Policy: Responding to Regional Nationalism in Quebec, Scotland and Wales, Stanford University PhD, USA, unpublished, 1987 Google Scholar.

2 Keating, Michael and Bleiman, David, Labour and Scottish Nationalism, London, Macmillan, 1979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Brown, Gordon, The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland, 1918–1929: The Politics of Five Elections, Edinburgh University PhD, unpublished, 1981 Google Scholar.

4 Keating, and Bleiman, , op. cit., pp. 109–49Google Scholar.

5 Rokkan, S. and Urwin, D., The Politics of Territorial Identity: Studies in European Regionalism, London, Sage, p. 11 Google Scholar.

6 Glasgow Herald, 14 September 1958.

7 Hansard, House of Commons, Vol. 939, Col. 78–79.

8 Rokkan and Urwin, op. cit.

9 Bogdanor, Vernon, ‘The 40 Per Cent Rule’, Parliamentary Affairs, 33 (1980) pp. 249–63Google Scholar.

10 Jenkins, Roy, Gladstone, London, Macmillan, 1995 Google Scholar.

11 Geekie, Jack and Roger, Levy, ‘Devolution and the Tartanisation of the Labour Party’, Parliamentary Affairs, 42:3 (1989) pp. 399–411 Google Scholar.

12 Scotsman, 28 July 1982.

13 McLean, Bob, Labour and Scottish Home Rule, Part 2, Whitburn, Scottish Labour Action, nd, p. 40 Google Scholar.

14 Scotsman, 6 July 1983.

15 These were George Foulkes, John Maxton, Dennis Canavan, and John Home Robertson David Marshall’s name was added later (hand‐written on author’s own copy of the paper sent by one of the other MPs). The Action Plan summary was: 1) Action in Parliament—with the Scottish Whips given a specific mandate to coordinate this; demonstrative action; obstruction of Scottish Committees (packing Committees to reflect Scottish party balance); insisting that majority choose subjects for discussion etc.); initiating Scottish Grand Committee meetings (either official SGC or de facto SGC/All Party Committee of Scottish MPs) on pressing issues (e.g. steel, coal, local government, health service, housing, privatization); forcing votes; calling witnesses; extending activities in Edinburgh (including extra Scottish Question Time); 2) Encouraging local authorities and others to cite the Scottish Grand Committee as a rival of authority to the Secretary of State; 3) Urgent consultation around the country on a draft devolution bill drawn up by the Official position; 4) Establishment of working groups to examine possible action a) by local authorities; b) trade unions; c) representatives on Area Health Boards, the MSC and other quangos; d) in the courts; 5) Devolution canvass and doorstep membership campaign to begin after the Brighton Conference; 6) Follow‐up national campaign highlighting the Scottish dimension in run‐up to District Elections; 7) Consideration of a national plebiscite on devolution; 8) Examination of ways of linking action to local government resistance in England and Wales, other industrial resistance, CND action, and anti‐government campaigns by other bodies.

16 Glasgow Herald/Scotsman, 17 September 1983.

17 McLean, , Labour and Scottish Home Rule, nd, p. 40 Google Scholar.

18 Glasgow Herald, March 1986.

19 Scotsman, 9 March 1985.

20 Scotsman, 6 April 1987.

21 Mitchell, James, Conservatives and the Union, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, pp. 97–113 Google Scholar.

22 Glasgow Herald, 3 September 1987.

23 Scotsman, 31 August 1987.

24 Glasgow Herald, 10 March 1988.

25 Scotsman, 14 March 1988.

26 Glasgow Herald, 19 October, 1988.

27 Glasgow Herald, 17 November 1988.

28 Scotland on Sunday, 12 March 1989.

29 The statement read: We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.

30 BBC, On The Record, 5 03 1989 Google Scholar.

31 Butler, David and Kavanagh, Dennis, The British General Election of 1992, Houndmills, Macmillan, 1992, p. 130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 It attracted little attention though the Daily Express, Financial Times and Daily Telegraph made it their lead story the following day and the Daily Mail made reference to it in a leader and it was given prominent coverage in the Scottish

33 Mitchell, , Strategies for Self‐Government, 1996, pp. 136–71Google Scholar.

34 Constitutional Commission, Further Steps: Towards A Scheme For Scotland’s Parliament, Edinburgh, Constitutional Convention Google Scholar.

35 Mitchell, J., ‘The Battle for Britain? Constitutional Reform and the Election’, in Geddes, A. and Tonge, J. (eds), Labour’s Landslide, Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp. 134–45.Google Scholar

36 Scotsman, 4 April 1997.

37 Connor, op. cit., p. 21.