|
We write as academics with a thirty-year track-record of studying Scotland
and contributing to the debate about its governance. Edinburgh University's
Unit for the Study of Government in Scotland (USGS) was established in
the mid-1970s, followed by the Governance of Scotland Forum in 1998,
and then by the Institute of Governance in 2002. Our 30 years' involvement
has not been simply as academic observers, but as contributors of relevant
expertise to the constitutional process. We have been involved in the
Consultative Steering Group and its expert panel on standing orders and
procedures; and have been advising parliament and executive on matters
of policy and governance. Professor Brown is convener of the Community
Planning Taskforce, and Professor McCrone is advisor to the Procedures
Committee's review of the CSG principles.
-
It is vital to understand the Scottish Parliament in context, notably
its history and evolution. The relationship between the Scottish
Executive, the Parliament and civil society is the key to the central
principle of power-sharing in Scotland. Our research indicates that
this key relationship of governance is different and, we would argue,
healthier than the one operating at Westminster. It is a fundamental
misconception to see the Scottish Parliament simply as a cut-down
version of Westminster. It has a different history, philosophy and
organisation. Hence, simply applying cuts pro rata is inappropriate.
-
It was a key argument of the likes of John P. Mackintosh, John Smith
and Donald Dewar (in many ways, the 'fathers' of devolution) that
the state in Scotland, far from being too weak, was in fact too powerful,
and had to be democratised, that is, that government had to be opened
up to democratic scrutiny.
-
The key point of 'democratising Scotland' was and is not simply
to confer democratic legitimacy on the apparatus of government in
Scotland, so that it can govern largely as before, simply secure
in knowledge that it has a democratic mandate. Democratising Scotland
is about doing politics in a different kind of way: involving society
in the democratic process rather than simply making the Scottish
Office directly accountable.
-
Hence, the role of the parliament is key. The Scottish Parliament
is the hinge in this democratising process - between the state (especially
in the form of the Scottish Executive), and the people of Scotland.
Weakening the parliament would weaken the whole process.
-
The work of the parliamentary committees is of particular importance.
One distinctive aspect of this is their role as key conduits for
inserting civic ideas into legislative debates. The civic organisations
are the counterweights to the civil service and their influence over
the Scottish Executive.
-
As a unicameral parliament, the Scottish Parliament is, furthermore,
dependent on the scrutiny and expertise of MSPs on committees. If
the number of MSPs were cut, this level of scrutiny and expertise
could not be sustained. We know that committees are under great pressure
in terms of turnover and composition. Even given the present number
of MSPs, they are under strain to scrutinise, to research and to
legislate.
-
The relationship between parties is different and less oppositional
for its own sake. The Scottish Parliament is characterised by a new
kind of politics, most obviously in terms of proportionality, and
gender balance. Reducing the number of MSPs would threaten the achievements
of this 'new politics'.
-
Representing the regional diversity of Scotland, gender balance
and progress towards representing ethnic diversity in the Scottish
Parliament would become more difficult, were the size of the Parliament
reduced.
-
Our survey research shows that the public see the Scottish Parliament
vis-ð-vis Westminster in a quite different way. It has much higher
salience; and people in Scotland place in it far higher levels of
terms of trust to look after Scotland's long-term interests (by a
ratio of 3 to 1). Crucially, the relationship between backbenchers
and committees is quite different, and there is an over-abundance
of work for MSPs. Some MPs steeped in a Westminster culture seem
unable to appreciate this.
-
The Scottish Parliament is carrying out a comprehensive review of
how its founding principles have been implemented. It would be inappropriate
to foreclose on that review at such an early point in the life of
this young institution.
-
As students of politics for over 30 years, we know of no evidence
that people in Scotland are unduly confused about non-coterminous
boundaries. Our knowledge of other countries strongly suggests that
non-coterminous boundaries are workable, and that a devolved parliament
of 129 is not out of line in terms of its size and responsibilities.
-
The number of MSPs is not set in stone. There may well be change,
possibly even upwards, as the Scottish Parliament beds down. Cutting
MSP numbers formulaically is not the way to embed the new parliament,
nor to develop a healthy relationship between Westminster and Holyrood.
Doing so might well have unintended political consequences in Scotland,
if Westminster was perceived as dictating the terms.
We are happy to provide further documentation should this be found useful.
Yours sincerely
Professor Alice Brown Professor David
McCrone Eberhard Bort
(Published Online: 21 March 2002)
 back to top
|
