It has been claimed that paradoxically, following the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Scottish criminal justice policy, hitherto more liberal and less punitive than 'south of the Border', became more closely aligned with London-based policies. It has also been argued that the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) Scottish government has, since gaining power in 2007, reversed that trend in a process of 'retartanization'. Closer examination reveals a far more complex picture. Based on interviews with key players and observers, this article suggests that there is room for a more nuanced understanding of policy, policy shifts and reform in the years leading up to and following 1999. The Scottish example raises important questions about the impact of new legislative and executive institutions, the respective influences of civil servants, special advisers, politicians, local government, media, public opinion and individual personalities on criminal justice policy, particularly in a small jurisdiction. It also raises questions about the relative importance of local, national, territorial and global influences on criminal justice policy of relevance to other devolved nations.

The Scottish National Party's election win in 2011 produced the first overall majority for any party since the Scottish Parliament's inception in 1999, despite the proportional representation system that was supposed to prevent single party governments. This historic election has been followed by much discussion of how much further the powers of the Scottish Parliament could be extended and whether devolution would allow Scotland to have a superior welfare settlement. In this context policy divergence has been the major focus of the developing devolution debate but discussions about greater powers or even independence for the Parliament have increased significantly. They are often presented as a means to achieve a 'better' or more 'fair' society. This article argues that shortcomings in the steps towards fairness achieved under the current arrangements of devolution highlight the need for a far-reaching and innovative approach to social justice to be carried out alongside any further discussions of independence. Such an approach cannot be taken for granted.

This paper argues both that devolution is central to our understanding of developments in social policy in the contemporary UK and that social policy is a key means through which we can develop a critical understanding of the process of devolution itself. Much of the devolved powers available to the governments in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff centre on social policy innovation and practice. Devolution was widely welcomed as opening up the potential for the development of radically different social policies. However, the discussion of devolution has been largely dominated by an approach that focuses on institutional and/or organizational differences marginalizing, in the process, the wider social relations of welfare around which social policy is organized. In bringing the study of devolution into the heartland of social policy analysis, it is argued that we can begin to develop a more critically informed appreciation of social policy across the entire devolved UK. Through critical social policy analysis we can both evaluate and explain the complex interrelations between devolved governance and the continuing reproduction of inequalities and social divisions throughout the UK.

No abstract

No abstract