Devolution, social democratic visions and policy reality in Scotland

Abstract

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.

Understanding the impacts of industrial change and area-based deprivation on health inequalities, using Swidler’s concepts of cultured capacities and strategies of action

“…At a local government level, ongoing restrictions in central government funding were exacerbated by the diminishing local tax base of deprived areas (Scott and Wright, 2012). This was rooted in persistent unemployment and the spatial polarisation of wealth, and was compounded by the redrawing of local authority boundaries during the mid-1990s in a way that segregated more and less wealthy areas.…”

From Policy to Practice: Exploring Practitioners’ Perspectives on Social Enterprise Policy Claims

“…At a time when new welfare powers are being transferred to the Scottish Government from the Westminster-based UK Government, and devolution of political power is considered by many (see, for instance, Keating 2010) as a potential opportunity to attempt social policy innovation and differentiation (Scott and Wright 2012), we consider that Scotland provides an interesting context to review the connection between public policy and social enterprise. The Scottish Government has publicly endorsed social enterprise and made considerable investment into the sector.…”

Divergence in Community Participation Policy: Analysing Localism and Community Empowerment Using a Theory of Change Approach

“…Having set out a generic theory of change for community participation policy, this article uses the model to identify significant differences between the Scottish Government's Community Empowerment approach, and the UK Coalition Government's Big Society/Localism agenda, offering another example of policy divergence since devolution (Keating 2005, Scott andWright 2012).…”

“…There are three key reasons for examining and comparing the Big Society/Localism and Community Empowerment agendas. Firstly, in the context of the independence/devolution debates, reinforced by the narrow 'no' vote in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and subsequent proposals for greater devolution, there has been considerable discussion about 'policy divergence' since the Scottish Parliament was (re)established in 1999 1 (Keating 2005, Scott andWright 2012). Given the rhetorical similarities between the two policy agendas, detailed exploration is necessary to assess whether community participation policy is diverging or converging.…”

“…Secondly, the contention that the Big Society is being used to justify austerity policies (Clarke and Newman 2012), suggests a need to explore the turn to community in the context of reducing public sector budgets, particularly given evidence of divergence in approaches to austerity (Scott and Wright 2012). This article therefore aims to utilise the ToC approach to analyse the extent of divergence or convergence in community participation policy, and the differing ways in which communities are being expected to take responsibility for gaps left by shrinking state provision.…”