THE UNIVERSITY of EDINBURGH

SOCIAL & POLITICAL SCIENCE

COMPARING

SCOTTISH

DEVOLUTION

PLIT 11080

2013/14 Honours Option

Course Guide

Semester One

Alan Convery (course convener)

Dr Wilfried Swenden

Professor Ailsa Henderson

2

1. Introduction

Comparing Scottish Devolution is a Politics/IR Honours option, convened by Alan

Convery and co-taught by Dr Wilfried Swenden and Professor Ailsa Henderson. It builds on the course Scotland: Society and Politics (offered as an option to all second

year Politics and IR students). It is recommended (but not required) that students who take the course attended Scotland: Society and Politics previously. Students who did not take Scotland: Society and Politics previously may be expected to do some

preliminary readings on Scottish politics.

This course guide must be read in conjunction with the Honours Handbook, which contains essential information about how to submit your essay and the procedure for requesting a late penalty waver. It is available here:

http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/subject_and_programme_specific_information/pir/honours

Questions about the course should be addressed in the first instance to the course convener, Alan Convery: Room 4.03, School of Social and Political Science, Chrystal

Macmillan Building; Tel: 0131 650 8255; email: aconvery@exseed.ed.ac.uk; office hours (semester 1): Mondays, 2-4pm. If these times are not convenient, please email to

make an appointment. 2. Learning Outcomes

By the end of the course, students should be able to:

understand the meaning of different forms of territorial governance, especially

devolution, federalism, multi- level governance, regionalism and nationalism;

critically appraise competing theoretical perspectives and empirical analyses on the

development of regionalism and multi-level government in Scotland and other comparative cases;

place Scottish devolution in a comparative perspective, and draw comparisons and contrasts with devolution across the UK, and with other forms of territorial

government in other multi-level and multi-national states;

effectively apply the comparative method;

develop research, analytical and presentation skills, through guided research in

preparation for assessment and tutorial presentations. 3. Course Structure

This course adopts a lecture-tutorial format. Lectures are on Mondays, 16:10-17:00, in Room 7.01 in the David Hume Tower. The first lecture is on Monday 16 September

2013. Tutorials are on Thursdays:

Tutorial 1: Thursday, 10:00-10:50 (Room 2.06, Appleton Tower)

Tutorial 2: Thursday, 11:10-12:00 (Seminar Room 4, Chrystal Macmillan Building) Tutorial 3: Thursday, 15:10-16:00 (Room 4.18, David Hume Tower) Tutorial 4: Thursday, 16:10-17:00 (Room 4.18, David Hume Tower)

Students should sign up for a tutorial group via the course Learn page in week 1.

Tutorials begin in week 2 on Thursday 26 September 2013.

3

4. Tutorial Format

All students are expected to participate in tutorial discussions, and take part in group presentations. In the first tutorial (week 2), students will be divided in groups of three

or four and will remain in these groups throughout the semester. Each group will lead two tutorial discussions, including delivering a 15-minute Powerpoint presentation (see annex 1). Tutorial participation will be assessed and count towards 15 per cent of

your final mark.

5. Course Material: Course Guide and Learn

This course guide is your first source of information. It provides a list of core, tutorial, and further readings. Most of the core or tutorial readings can be accessed as e-journals

or e-publications. We will make some tutorial readings available on Learn. Book chapters or books can be found in the Library (the most important books are on reserve).

Lecture handouts will be made available on Learn on the day of the lecture. 6. Course Assessment

This course has three components of assessment:

One 2,500 word essay (50% of the mark)

One 1,500 word research briefing paper (35% of the mark)

Tutorial participation (15% of the mark)

DEADLINES:

Research briefing paper deadline: Friday 1 November 2013, 12 noon Essay deadline: Friday 29 November 2013, 12 noon.

All coursework will be marked and returned to students within three working weeks of the submission deadline. Feedback will be provided for all assessed work. All marks

are provisional until confirmed by the Exam Board, which meets in early June 2014. Topics and guidance for the research briefing paper and the essay are listed in

annexes 2 and 3 of this document.

7. Coursework Submission

Please see the Honours Handbook for information on submission of coursework; late penalty waivers; plagiarism; learning disabilities, special circumstances; common marking descriptors, re-marking procedures and appeals.

8. General Readings

There is no set textbook for this course, but students may find the following books or review essays helpful:

Alonso, S. (2012) Challenging the State: Devolution and the Battle for Partisan Credibility: A Comparison of Belgium, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Bednar, J. (2011), ‘The Political Science of Federalism’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science 7: 269-288.

Greer, S. (ed.) (2006) Territory, Justice and Democracy: Regionalism and Federalism in Western Democracies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

4

Hueglin T.O. and Fenna, A (2006) Comparative Federalism: A Systematic Inquiry. Peterborough, Ontario.

Keating, M. (2001) Plurinational Democracy: Stateless Nations in a Post-Sovereignty Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press (e-book).

Loughlin, J., Hendriks, F. and Lidström, A. (eds.) (2010) The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Loughlin, J., Kincaid J. and Swenden, W. (eds.) (2013) The Routledge Handbook of

Federalism and Regionalism. London: Routledge.

Cairney, P. and McGarvey, N. (2013) Scottish Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Mitchell, J. (2009) Devolution in the United Kingdom. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Swenden, W (2006) Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe: A Comparative and Thematic Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wibbels, E. (2006) 'Madison in Baghdad? Decentralization and Federalism in Comparative Politics', Annual Review of Political Science 9: 165-188.

Multiple copies of all these books are available in the library.

Journal articles are also a valuable source of good quality academic research. Many social science journals carry articles of relevance to this course, especially Regional & Federal Studies and Publius, the journal of federalism. Other journals which students

may find useful to consult include: British Politics, Parliamentary Affairs, European Journal of Political Research, West European Politics, Government and Opposition,

Scottish Affairs, Regional Studies and Nations and Nationalism. All of these are available as electronic journals via the Information Services website.

5

Course Overview

Week Date LECTURE (Monday) TUTORIAL (Thursday)

1 16 Sept

Introduction: Scottish devolution in comparative

perspective (AC)

No tutorial this week. Please

sign up for a tutorial via

Learn.

2 23 Sept

Devolution, federalism and confederation: Scotland’s

constitutional settlement in comparative perspective (WS)

Introduction and discussion: How does UK devolution differ

from federalism?

3 30 Sept

Intergovernmental relations in multi- level states (WS)

How well have the UK and Scottish governments handled intergovernmental relations?

4 7 Oct

The politics of territorial finance (WS)

What should Scotland and the UK learn from fiscal federalism

in other multi- level states?

5 14

Oct

Does accommodating

nationalism through devolution appease or further

nationalist demands? (WS)

What lessons can Unionists and

nationalists learn from other nationalist movements?

6 21 Oct

Political parties in multi- level states (AC)

What are the best strategies for Scotland’s statewide parties in

dealing with multi- level politics?

7 28 Oct

Multi-level elections and voting behaviour (AH)

Are Scottish Parliament elections second order?

Research Briefing Paper deadline: Friday 1 November, 12 noon

8 4 Nov

Scotland and Quebec (AH) Is Scottish national identity similar to Québécois national

identity?

9 11 Nov

Social citizenship and the territorial politics of welfare

(AC)

To what extent has devolution resulted in policy divergence in

Scotland?

10 18

Nov

Interdependence,

independence and the future of Scotland (AC)

Does Scottish independence

mean swapping one form of interdependence for another?

Essay deadline: Friday 29 November, 12 noon

6

Monday 16 September 2013

Lecture 1: Introduction to Scottish devolution in comparative perspective (AC)

This lecture will provide an overview of course learning outcomes and administration, and clarify the key concepts at the centre of an analysis of Scottish devolution in comparative perspective. Scottish devolution is not unique, but it is interesting. How

did Scotland get here?

Core Reading

Jeffery, C. and Wincott, D. (2006) ‘Devolution in the United Kingdom. Statehood and Citizenship in Transition’, Publius: the Journal of Federalism 36(1): 19-35.

Keating, M (2008) ‘Thirty Years of Territorial Politics’, West European Politics 31(1-2): 60-81.

Mitchell, J. (2006) ‘Evolution, and Devolution: Citizenship, Institutions, and Public Policy’, Publius 36(1): 153-168.

Swenden, W. (2010) ‘Beyond UK Exceptionalism? Comparing Strategies for

Territorial Management’ in Stolz, K. (eds.) (2010) Ten Years of Devolutuion in the United Kingdom: Snapshots at a Moving Target. Augsburg: Wißner Verlag, 13-36

(uploaded on Learn). Further Reading

Ansell, C. (2004), Restructuring Territoriality, esp chapters by Bartolini and Tarrow, Beck, U. and Sznaider, N. (2006) ‘Unpacking Cosmopolitanism for the Social

Sciences: a Research Agenda’, British Journal of Sociology 57(1): 1-23. Bogdanor, V. (1999) Devolution in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Cairney, P. and McGarvey, N. (2013) Scottish Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, chapter two on ‘Devolution: Historical and Social Context’.

Erk, J, and Koning, E. (2010) ‘New Structuralism and Institutional Change: Federalism between Centralization and Decentralization’, Comparative Political Studies 43(3): 353-78

Erk, J. (2008) Explaining Federalism: State, Society and Congruence in Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany and Swtizerland. London: Routledge.

Hooghe, L, G Marks (2003) ‘Unravelling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance’, American Political Science Review 97(2).

Jeffery, C (2008) ‘The Challenge of Territorial Politics’, Policy and Politics, 36(4):

545-57. Kidd, C. (2008) Union and Unionisms: Political Thought in Scotland, 1500-2000.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loughlin, J. (2000) ‘Regional Autonomy and State Paradigm Shifts in Western Europe’,

Regional and Federal Studies 10(2).

Marks, G., Hooghe, L. and Schakel, A. (2008) ‘Patterns of Regional Authority’, Regional & Federal Studies 18 (2-3): 167-182.

Mitchell, J. (2009) Devolution in the United Kingdom. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Rodden, J. (2004) ‘Comparative Federalism and Decentralization: On Meaning and

Measurement’, Comparative Politics 36: 481-500. Swenden W. (2006) Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe. A Comparative

and Thematic Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, chapter 1.

7

Monday 23 September 2013

Lecture 2: Devolution, federalism and confederation: Scotland’s constitutional

settlement in comparative perspective (WS)

What is Scotland’s constitutional power when placed in a comparative perspective? Is

Scotland more or less powerful than other sub-state units of other multi-level states? The lecture discusses various dimensions (self-rule, shared rule) to assess the

competencies of Scotland and the other devolved territories in the UK. Why is the UK not federal, and if so, would it make a difference?

Core Reading

Jeffery, C. (2008), ‘The Dynamics of Devolution’, Oxford Handbook of British Politics,

[uploaded on Web-CT] Gamble, A. (2006), ‘The Constitutional Revolution in the United Kingdom’, Publius:

the Journal of Federalism, 36, (1), 19-35

Thorlakson L., ‘Comparing Federal Institutions: Power and Representation in Six Federations,’ West European Politics, vol.26, (April 2003), No.2, pp. 1-22.

Marks, G. Hooghe, L. and Schakel, A. (2007), ‘Patterns of Regional Authority’, Regional and Federal Studies, vol. 18, no.2-3, especially 111-122

Further Reading

Anderson, George (2008), Federalism: An Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University

Press) Bogdanor, V. (2009), ‘Devolution’ in Bogdanor, V., The New British Constitution

(Oxford: Hart Publishers), 89-120.

Burgess, M. (2006), ‘The comparative study of federal political institutions’ in Burgess, Michael, Comparative Federalism. Theory and Practice, (London: Routledge), 135-

161 Hazell, R. and B. O’Leary (1999), ‘A Rolling Programme of Devolution: Slippery

Slope or Safeguard of the Union’, in R. Hazell (ed.), Constitutional Futures. A

History of the Next Ten Years Jeffery, C. (2008), ‘Where Stands the Union Now?: Scottish-English Relations after

Devolution’, forthcoming in an anthology on the Anglo-Scottish union, [uploaded on Web-CT]

Keating, M. (2009), ‘Constitutional Futures: State and Nation in the Twenty-First

Century’’ in Keating, M (2009), The Independence of Scotland. Self-government & the Shifting Politics of Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 125-143

Mitchell, J. (2007), ‘The United Kingdom as a State of Unions: Unity of Government, Equality of Political Rights and Diversity of Institutions’, in A Trench (ed), Devolution and Power, Manchester University Press.

Steel Commission (2006), ‘Steel Commission Report – Moving to Federalism’, Scottish Liberal Democrats [document available on-line:

ttp://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/files/steelcommission.pdf Swenden, W. (2006), Federalism and Regionalisn in Western Europe. A comparative

and thematic analysis, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, Macmillan), chapter 3

Swenden, W., ‘Is the European Union in Need of a Competence Catalogue? Insights from Comparative Federalism, Journal of Common Market Studies, 42 (2), 371-392

8

Watts, R. L. (2007), ‘The United Kingdom as a Federalised or Regionalised Union’, in A Trench (ed), Devolution and Power Manchester University Press.

9

Monday 30 September 2013

Lecture 3: Intergovernmental relations in multi-level states (WS)

What are intergovernmental relations and what are they for? What makes UK

intergovernmental relations peculiar when they are placed in a comparative perspective? What has been the effect of party incongruence between the central and devolved governments on the character and formalization of intergovernmental

relations?

Core Reading

Bolleyer, Nicole (2006), ‘Intergovernmental Arrangements in Spanish and Swiss Federalism: the impact of Power-Concentrating and Power-Sharing Executives on

Intergovernmental Institutionalization’, Regional & Federal Studies, 16, 4, 385-40 Cairney, Paul (2007) 'Using Devolution to Set the Agenda? Venue shift and the

smoking ban in Scotland', British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9, 1, 73-89

Nicola McEwen, Wilfried Swenden and Nicole Bolleyer (2012), ‘Intergovernmental

Relations in the UK. Continuity in a time of Change?’ in Nicola McEwen, Wilfried Swenden and Nicole Bolleyer, eds., Governments in Opposition? Intergovernmental

Relations in the UK in a context of party political incongruence, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 14 (2), 323-342

Swenden, Wilfried (2010), ‘Subnational participation in national decisions: the role of

second chambers’ in Enderlein H., Wälti, S. and M. Zürn, eds. Handbook on Multi-Level Governance (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), 103-123 [copy uploaded on Learn]

Further Reading Agranoff, R, ‘Autonomy, Devolution and Intergovernmental Relations’, Regional and

Federal Studies, 14/1

Bolleyer, Nicole (2009), Intergovernmental cooperation: rational choices in federal

systems and beyond. Oxford University Press (e-book) Bolleyer, Nicole (2006), ‘Federal Dynamics in Canada, the United States and

Switzerland - How Sub-states’ Internal Organization Affects Intergovernmental

Relations', Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 36, 4, 1-32. Hanf K., Toonen T.A.J. (1985), Policy Implementation in Federal and Unitary Systems

Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Jeffery, C (2002), ‘Uniformity and Diversity in Policy Provision: Insights from the US,

Germany and Canada’, in J. Adams and P. Robinson (eds), Devolution in Practice.

Public Policy Differences within the UK, IPPR. Keating, M. and N. McEwen (2005), ‘Devolution and Public Policy in Comparative

Perspective’, Regional and Federal Studies, 15/4. Scharpf F.W., (1997) “The Problem Solving Capacity of Multi-Level Governance,”

Journal of European Public Policy, No.4, pp.520-538

Trench, Alan, “Intergovernmental Relations: In Search of a Theory” in Greer, Scott L., ed. Territory, Democracy and Justice. Regionalism and Federalism in Western

Democracies (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2006), pp. 224-257 Trench, A. (2007), ‘Washing Dirty Linen in Private: The Processes of

Intergovernmental Relations and the Resolution of Disputes, in A Trench (ed),

Devolution and Power, Manchester University Press. Wright Deil S., 1982, Understanding Intergovernmental Relations (Brooks/Cole

Publishing Monterrey, CA) pp. 1-40.

10

Weissert, C S., C W. Stenberg, and R L Cole, 2009, Continuity and Change: A Ranking of Key Issues Affecting U.S. Intergovernmental Relations (1995–2005), Publius

39(4): 677-695

11

Monday 7 October 2013

Lecture 4: The politics of territorial finance (WS)

Where does the Scottish Government get its financial resources from? To what extent

is the mechanism for funding Scotland unusual when it is compared with other federal or multi-level polities? How is political autonomy affected by the level of fiscal autonomy? What are the costs and benefits of extending fiscal autonomy, and the

possible consequences for sub-state policy-making and inter-regional territorial integration?

Core Reading

Enderlein, H. (2009), ‘Economic Policy-Making and Multi-level Governance’ in

Henrik Enderlien, Sonja Wälti and Michael Zürn, eds., Handbook of Multi-level Governance, 2009 [uploaded on Learn]

Jeffery, C. and Scott, A., Scotland’s Economy. The Fiscal Debate – Discussion Paper, Scottish Council for Development and Industry can be downloaded from:

http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/europa/files/scd41899fiscaldiscussionpaper.pdf

Swenden, W (2006), Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe. A Comparative and Thematic Analysis, Ch. 4.

Trench, A., (2013) ‘Funding Devo More. Fiscal Options for Strengthening the Union’, Paper commissioned by IPPR North for its Devolution More Project. Can be downloaded from

http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2013/01/funding-devo-more_Jan2013_10210.pdf

Further Reading

Ahmad E. and Craig J., (1997), ‘Intergovernmental Transfers’, in Ter-Minassian T.,

Fiscal Federalism in Theory and Practice (Washington: IMF), pp. 73-108 Boadway R. and Shah, A, eds. (2007)., Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers. Principles

and Practice (Washington DC: World Bank) Braun, D., ‘Making fiscal federalism self-enforcing: Germany, Australia and

Switzerland Compared’ in Erk J. and Swenden, W. eds., New Directions in

Federalism Studies, (London: Routledge), 172-187 Braun, D. (2002), Fiscal Policies and Federal States (Aldershot: Ashgate)

Deschouwer, K, and Verdonck, M (2003), ‘Patterns and Principles of Fiscal Equalisation in Belgium’, Regional and Federal Studies, 13/4, 91-110

Hankla, Charles R., (2009), ‘When Is Fiscal Decentralization Good for Governance?’,

Publius, Vol. 39, No. 4 632-650 Heald, D. and McLeod, A, 2003, ‘Revenue-raising by UK Devolved Administrations

in the Context of an Expenditure-based Financing System,’ Regional and Federal Studies, 13 (2003) 4, 67-90

Jeffery, C (2003), Cycles of Conflict: Fiscal Equalisation in Germany, Regional and

Federal Studies, 13/4, 22-40 Quebec Commission on Fiscal Imbalance, 2001, Intergovernmental Fiscal

Arrangements. Germany, Australia, Belgium, Spain, United States and Switzerland (Quebec City: Quebec): on line information: http://www.desequilibrefiscal.gouv.qc.ca/en/pdf/internationnal_ang.pdf

Rodden, J.(2002) ‘The Dilemma of Fiscal Federalism: Grants and Fiscal Performance around the World’, American Journal of Political Science 46.3 (July 2002): 670-687

12

Rodden, J. 2006, ‘Promise and Peril’ in Jonathan A. Rodden, Hamilton’s Paradox. The Promise and Peril of Fiscal Federalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press),

15-47 Tiebout, C. (1956), ‘A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures’, Journal of Political

Economy, 64, 416-24 Wellisch Dietmar, 2000, Theory of Public Finance in a Federal State (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press), pp. 1-22.

13

Monday 14 October 2013

Lecture 5: Constitutional futures: Does accommodating nationalism through

devolution appease or further nationalist demands? (WS)

What does Scottish devolution lead to? Is independence inevitable or does granting

limited self-government appease nationalist sentiment? What are the comparative lessons we can learn by studying the politics of territorial identity and constitutional change in other multi-level and multi-national polities with devolution or federalism,

such as Spain, Belgium or Canada? Is multi-level government inherently unstable - is more power ever good enough?

Core Reading

Erk, J and L Anderson, 2009, ‘The paradox of federalism: does self-rule accommodate

or exacerbate ethnic divisions’ Regional & Federal Studies, vol19, no.2, 191-202. Keating, M, 2001, Nations against the State: The New Politics of Nationalism in

Quebec, Catalonia, and Scotland, 2nd edition (Macmillan). McGarry, John & O'Leary, Brendan (2009): Must Pluri-national Federations Fail?,

Ethnopolitics, 8:1, 5-25 [e-journal with limited access but this article can be

downloaded for free] Swenden, W. ‘Territorial Strategies for Managing Plurinational States’ in Loughlin, J.,

Kincaid J. and Swenden, W., eds. Routledge Handbook of Federalism and Regionalism (London: Routledge, 2013) pp. 61-75.

Tierney, S., (2005), ‘Refraining Sovereignty. Sub-State National Societies and

Contemporary Challenges to the Nation-State’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 54 (1), 161-183.

Further Reading

Colino, C, 2009, Constitutional Change without Constitutional Reform: Spanish

Federalism and the Revision of Catalonia's Statute of Autonomy Publius, Vol. 39, No. 2, 262-288

Behnke, N. and A Benz, 2009, ‘The Politics of Constitutional Change between Reform and Evolution, Publius, Vol. 39, No. 2, 213-240

Commission on Scottish Devolution (2009). Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the

United Kingdom in the 21st Century. Final Report, June, available at: http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/uploads/2009-06-12-csd-final-

report-2009fbookmarked.pdf Deschouwer, K 2009, The Politics of Belgium. Governing a Divided Society

(Basingstoke Palgrave-Macmillan), especially conclusion.

Deschouwer K and P Van Parijs (2009), ‘Electoral Engineering for a Stalled Federation?’ http://www.rethinkingbelgium.eu/rebel-initiative-ebooks/ebook-4-

electoral-engineering-stalled-federation (see also other e-books published in this ‘Re-Bel’ (‘Rethinking Belgium’) series.

Deschouwer, K and Reuchamps, M. (2013), eds, Special Issue. The Future of Belgian

Federalism, Regional & Federal Studies, 23, (3). Jeffery, C, 2009, Devolution in the United Kingdom: Problems of a Piecemeal

Approach to Constitutional Change Publius, Vol. 39, No. 2: 289-313 Keating, M, 2009, The Independence of Scotland (Oxford: Oxford University Press) (e-

book)

Moreno, Luis (2001), The Federalization of Spain (London: Frank Cass)

14

Simeon, R. 2009, Constitutional Design and Change in Federal Systems: Issues and Questions, Publius, Vol. 39, No. 2, 241-261

Swenden, W and T J Maarten, 2006, ‘Will it stay or will it go? Federalism and the Sustainability of Belgium’, West European Politics, 29 (5), special issue on the

politics of Belgium, see also other articles in this special issue Scottish Government, 2009, Your Scotland, Your Voice: A National Conversation,

available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2009/11/26155932/0

Tierney, S. (2012) Constitutional Referendums. A theory of republican deliberation (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Wilson, A and M Keating, 2009, ‘Renegotiating the State of Autonomies: Statute Reform and Multi-Level Politics in Spain’, West European Politics, 32, 3: 536-558.

15

Monday 21 October 2013

Lecture 6: Political parties in multi-level states (AC)

How have parties adapted their organisation, campaigns and policies after devolution?

What has been the role of autonomist parties in devolution? To what extent can we compare the multi-level organisation and strategies of parties in Scotland with parties in other multi- level polities?

Core Reading

Convery, A. (2012) ‘The 2011 Scottish Conservative Party Leadership Election: Dilemmas for Statewide Parties in Regional Contexts’, Parliamentary Affairs Advance Access, doi:10.1093/pa/gss035 (uploaded on Learn).

Elias, A. and Tronconi, F. (2011) ‘From Protest to Power: Autonomist Parties in Government’, Party Politics 17(4): 505-524.

Hopkin, J. (2009) ‘Party Matters: Devolution and Party Politics in Britain and Spain’, Party Politics 15: 179-198.

Roller, E and Van Houten, P. (2003) ‘A National Party in a Regional Party System:

The PSC-PSOE in Catalonia’, Regional and Federal Studies 13: 1-22.

Further Reading

Deschouwer, K. (2003) ‘Political Parties in Multi-Layered Systems’, European Urban and Regional Studies 10: 213-226.

Deschouwer, K. (2005) ‘Political Parties as Multi-Level Organizations’ in Katz, R.S. and Crotty, W. (eds.) Handbook of Party Politics. London: Sage.

Detterbeck, K. (2012), Multi-level Party Politics in Western Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fabre, E. (2008) ‘Party Organisation in a Multi-level System: Party Organisational

Change in Spain and the UK’, Regional and Federal Studies, 18(4): 309-329. Fabre, E. and Swenden, W. (2013) ‘Territorial Politics and the Statewide Party’,

Regional Studies 47(3): 342-355. Laffin, M., Shaw, E. and Taylor G. (2007) ‘The New Sub-National Politics of the

British Labour Party’, Party Politics 13: 88-108.

Swenden, W. and Maddens, B. (eds.) (2009) Territorial Party Politics in Western Europe. Palgrave: Macmillan.

Van Houten, P. (2009) ‘Multi-Level Relations in Political Parties: A Delegation Approach’, Party Politics 15: 137-156.

Detterbeck, K. and Hepburn, E. (2010), ‘Party Politics in Multi-level Systems: Party

Responses to New Challenges in European Democracies’ in Erk, J. and Swenden, W. (eds.) New Directions in Federalism Studies. London: Routledge (uploaded on

Learn). Montero, A.P. (2005) ‘The Politics of Decentralization in a Centralized Party System:

The Case of Democratic Spain’, Comparative Politics 38(1): 63-82.

Thorlakson, L. (2009) ‘Patterns of Party Integration, Influence and Autonomy in Seven Federations’, Party Politics 15(2): 157-177.

De Winter, L. and Türsan, H. (1998) Regionalist Parties in Western Europe. London: Routledge (in particular: chapters 1, 2 and 13).

Hough, D. and Jeffery, C. (eds.) (2006) Devolution and Electoral Politics. Manchester:

Manchester University Press.

16

Hepburn, E. (2009) ‘Introduction: Re-conceptualizing Sub-state Mobilization’ Regional and Federal Studies 19(4–5): 477–499 (see also other articles in this

special issue). Mitchell, J. and Convery, A. (2012) ‘Conservative Unionism: Prisoned in Marble’ in

Torrance, D. (ed.) Whatever Happened to Tory Scotland? Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

17

Monday 28 October 2013

Lecture 7: Multi-level elections and voting behaviour (AH)

Why is turnout usually higher in state-wide than in regional or devolved elections? Are

devolved and regional elections second order? How do national and sub-national elections relate to each other in other multi-level polities in Europe and beyond? What impact does voting for stateless nationalist and regionalist parties have on electoral

competition and outcomes?

Core Reading

Christopher Carman, Robert Johns and James Mitchell (2013) More Scottish than

British: the 2011 Scottish Parliament Election. Palgrave. Chapter 5: How Scottish Was this Election? (uploaded on Learn).

Ailsa Henderson and Nicola McEwen (2010) ‘A Comparative Analysis of Voter Turnout in Regional Elections’, Electoral Studies 29(3): 405-16

Karlheinz Reif and H Schmitt (1980) ‘Nine second order national elections: a

conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results’, European Journal of Political Research 8: 3-44.

Richard Wyn Jones and Roger Scully (2006) ‘Devolution and electoral politics in Scotland and Wales’, Publius 36(1): 115-34.

Further Reading

Robert Johns, James Mitchell, David Denver and Charles Pattie (2009) “Valence

Politics in Scotland: Towards an Explanation of the 2007 Election”, Political Studies 57(1): 207-33

Robert Johns, James Mitchell, David Denver and Charles Pattie (2010) Voting for a

Scottish Government: The Scottish Parliament Election of 2007. Manchester University Press

RJ Johnston and CJ Pattie (2002) ‘Campaigning and split-ticket voting in new electoral systems: the first MMP elections in New Zealand, Scotland and Wales’ Electoral Studies.

Alberto Alesina and Howard Rosenthal (1996) ‘A Theory of Divided Government’, Econometrica 64: 1311–41.

Cliff Carrubba and Richard J Timpone (2005) ‘Explaining Vote Switching Across First- and Second-Order Elections: Evidence From Europe’, Comparative Political Studies 38(3): 260-81

Arjan Schakel (2013) ‘Congruence between regional and national elections’, Comparative Political Studies.

Charlie Jeffery and Dan Hough ‘Regional Elections in Multi-Level Systems’, European Urban and Regional Studies 10(3): 199-212.

Francesc Pallarés and Michael Keating (2003) ‘Multi-Level Electoral Competition:

Regional Elections and Party Systems in Spain’, European Urban and Regional Studies 10(3): 239-55.

18

Monday 4 November 2013

Lecture 8: Scotland and Quebec (AH)

In what ways have scholars tried to compare Scotland and Quebec? How does national

identity in Quebec compare with Scotland? Are Scotland and Quebec ‘stateless nations’?

Core Reading

Ailsa Henderson (2007) Hierarchies of Belonging: National Identity and Political

Culture in Scotland and Quebec. McGill-Queen’s University Press. chapter 3: The Political Use of National Identity chapter 4: Measuring National Identity

Plus any two of:

Eve Hepburn (2010) ‘Small worlds in Canada and Europe: A comparison of regional party systems in Quebec, Bavaria and Scotland’, Regional and Federal Studies 20(4/5)

Michael Keating (2001) Nations Against the State: The New Politics of Nationalism in Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland (2nd ed.), Chapter 3: The New Territorial Politics,

pp.48-76. Nicola McEwen (2005) ‘The territorial politics of social policy development in multi-

level states’, Regional and Federal Studies 15(4): 537-54.

Stephen Tierney (2005) ‘Reframing Sovereignty: Sub-State National Societies and Contemporary Challenges to the Nation-State’, International and Comparative

Law Quarterly 54 (Jan) 161-83. Further Reading

Matthew Mendelsohn (2007) ‘Measuring national identity and patterns of attachment: Quebec and nationalist mobilization’, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 8(3): 72-94.

Montserrat Guibernau (2006) ‘National identity, devolution and secession in Canada, Britain and Spain’, Nations and Nationalism 12(1): 51-76.

Ailsa Henderson and Nicola McEwen (2005) ‘Do shared values underpin national

identity? Examining the role of values in national identity in Canada and the United Kingdom’ National Identities.

Enric Martinez-Herrera (2002) ‘From nation-building to building identification with political communities: Consequences of political decentralisation in Spain, the Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia, 1978-2001’, European Journal of Political

Research 41(4): 421-53. Michael Keating (1997) ‘Stateless nation-building: Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland in

the changing state system’, Nations and Nationalism. Nicola McEwen (2006) Nationalism and the State: welfare and identity in Scotland and

Quebec. Edward Elgar Press.

David Criekemans (2010) ‘Regional sub-state diplomacy from a comparative perspective: Quebec, Scotland, Bavaria, Catalonia, Wallonia and Flanders’,

Special Issue of the Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol 5. Stephen Tierney (2004) Constitutional Law and National Pluralism. Oxford University

Press.

19

Monday 11 November 2013

Lecture 9: Social citizenship and the territorial politics of welfare (AC)

Has devolution resulted in policy divergence? Have the devolved authorities and the

UK (as the government for England) shared best practices in devolved policy areas and used it as a basis for policy innovation? To what extent is there evidence of policy divergence, innovation and emulation in other multi-level polities? Does policy

divergence come at the cost of equal civic, political or social citizenship rights and if so, should this be seen as a problem?

Core Reading

Béland, D. and Lecours, A. (2005) ‘The Politics of Territorial Solidarity’, Comparative

Political Studies 38(6): 676-703. Jeffery, C. (2009) ‘Devolution, Public Attitudes and Social Citizenship’, in Greer, S.

(ed.). Devolution and Social Citizenship in the UK. Bristol: Policy Press. Keating, M. (2009) ‘Social Citizenship, Solidarity and Welfare in Regionalized and

Plurinational States’, Citizenship Studies 13(5): 501-514.

Keating, M., Hepburn, E. and Cairney, P. (2012) ‘Policy Convergence, Transfer and Learning in the UK under Devolution’, Regional and Federal Studies, 22(3): 289-

307. Further Reading

Banting, K.G. (1987) The Welfare State and Canadian Federalism. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Béland, D and Lecours, A. (2008) Nationalism and Social Policy. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. Birrell, D. (2009) The Impact of Devolution on Social Policy. Bristol: Policy Press. Curtice, A. (2010), ‘Intergovernmental Relations and Social Citizenship: Opportunities

Labour Missed’ in Lodge, G and Schmuecker, K. (eds.) Devolution in Practice. London: IPPR.

Dwyer, P. (2004) Understanding Social Citizenship. Bristol: Policy Press. Greer, S. (2004) Territorial Politics and Health Policy: UK Health Policy in

Comparative Perspective. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Jeffery, C. (2005) ‘Devolution and Social Citizenship: Which Society, Whose Citizenship?’ in Greer, S. (ed.) Territory, Democracy and Justice. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan. Keating, M. (2012) ‘Intergovernmental Relations and Innovation: From Co-operative

to Competitive Welfare Federalism in the UK’, British Journal of Politics and

International Relations 14(2): 214-230. Keating, M. and McEwen, N. (2005) ‘Devolution and Public Policy in Comparative

Perspective’, Regional and Federal Studies, 15(4).

McEwen, N. (2006) Does the Recognition of National Minorities Undermine the Welfare State?’ in Banting, K. and Kymlicka, W. (eds.) Multiculturalism and the

Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McEwen, N. (2006) Nationalism and the State. PIE Peter Lang.

McEwen, N. and Moreno, L. (eds.) (2005) The Territorial Politics of Welfare. London: Routledge.

McGarvey, N. and McConnell, A. (2012) ‘Process, Policy and Politics: Examining

Some Convenient Scottish Political Myths’. Paper presented to the Political Studies

20

Association Annual Conference, Belfast: www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2012/785_407.pdf.

Obinger, H., Leibfried, S. and Castles, F. (eds.) (2005) Federalism and the Welfare State: New World and European Experiences. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Wallner, J. (2010) ‘Beyond National Standards: Reconciling Tension between

Federalism and the Welfare State’, Publius 40(4): 646-671.

21

Monday 18 November 2013

Lecture 10: Independence, interdependence and the future of Scotland (AC)

What does ‘independence’ mean in the 21st century? What is the difference between

‘devo max’, ‘devo plus’ and independence? Do we live in a ‘post-sovereign’ era? Is Scotland heading towards independence?

Core reading

Hassan, G. (2011) ‘Anatomy of a Scottish Revolution: The Potential of Postnationalist

Scotland and the Future of the United Kingdom’, The Political Quarterly 82(3): 365-78.

Keating, M. (2010) ‘The Strange Death of Unionist Scotland’, Government and

Opposition 45(3): 365-85. McCrone, D. (2012) ‘Scotland Out of the Union? The Rise and Rise of the Nationalist

Agenda’, The Political Quarterly 83(1): 69-76. Further reading

Bulmer, W.E. (2011) A Model Constitution for Scotland: Making Democracy Work in an Independent State. Edinburgh: Luath.

Convery, A. (2013) ‘Devolution and the Limits of Tory Statecraft: The Conservatives in Coalition Government and Scotland and Wales’, Parliamentary Affairs. Advance Access (available on Learn).

Devo Plus (2012) A New Union: Third Report of the Devo Plus Group. Available at http://www.devoplus.com/storage/documents/A%20New%20Union.pdf

Goudie, A. (ed.) (2013) Scotland’s Future: The Economics of Constitutional Change. Dundee: Dundee University Press.

Hassan, G. and Ilett, R. (eds.) (2011) Radical Scotland: Arguments for Self-

Determination. Edinburgh: Luath Press. Hepburn, E. (2009) 'Degrees of Independence: SNP Thinking in an International

Context' in Hassan, G. (ed.) The Modern SNP: From Protest to Power. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Keating, M. (2001) Plurinational Democracy: Stateless Nations in a Post-Sovereignty

Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Keating, M. (2009) The Independence of Scotland: Self-Government and the Shifting

Politics of Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCrone, G. (2013) Scottish Independence: Weighing Up the Economics. Edinburgh:

Birlinn.

McLean, I. (2001) ‘Scotland: Towards Quebec – or Slovakia?’, Regional Studies 35(7): 637-44.

McLean, I., Gallagher, J. and Lodge, G. (2013) Scotland’s Choices: The Referendum and What Happens Afterwards. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Melding, D. (2009) Will Britain Survive Beyond 2020? Cardiff: Institute of Welsh

Affairs. Midwinter, A. (2012) ‘Fiscal Autonomy in Scotland: An Assessment and Critique’,

Public Money & Management 32(1): 49-52. Paterson, L. (2009) ‘Civil Society and the Parliament’ in Jeffrey, C. and Mitchell, J.

(eds.) The Scottish Parliament, 1999-2009: The First Decade. London: Hansard

Society.

22

Royal Society of Edinburgh (2012) Scotland and the United Kingdom. Available at http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/files/advice-

papers/2012/scotland_in_the_uk.pdf Scottish Government (2009) Your Scotland, Your Voice. A National Conversation.

Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/293639/0090721.pdf.

Trench, A. (2013) Funding Devo More: Fiscal Options for Strengthening the Union.

London: IPPR. Available at http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2013/01/funding-devo-

more_Jan2013_10210.pdf

23

ANNEX 1:

GUIDELINES ON TUTORIAL PRESENTATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

At the first tutorial meeting, students will be divided into four groups of 3-4 students in

each (Groups A, B, C and D). Members of group A will lead a tutorial discussion in weeks 3 and 7

Members of group B will lead tutorial discussion in weeks 4 and 8 Members of group C will lead tutorial discussions in week 5 and 9

Members of group D will lead tutorial discussions in week 6 and 10 There will be three elements to the tutorial presentations:

Members of the group leading the tutorial should prepare a 15-minute

Powerpoint presentation which directly addresses the tutorial question. At the end of the presentation, groups will be asked to answer questions from

the rest of the class, based on their presentation.

The leading group should then present a set of questions and discussion points to help foster discussion and debate among the tutorial class.

Assessment

After each presentation, the course convener will give ONE collective mark that reflects the collective effort of the group to fulfil each of the requirements above, i.e.: (i) to

address their assigned research question in a clear, concise and engaging presentation; (ii) to respond well to the questions posed by the rest of the class; and (iii) to lead a vibrant and relevant discussion on this theme. To this effect, the moderator will prepare

a feedback sheet for the group (with a mark), which will be circulated to each member of the group. A sample of this feedback sheet can be found on the next page.

Since each group will lead two discussions, the final tutorial mark will be the average mark for two group presentations. The final tutorial mark will represent 15 per cent of

the overall mark.

24

SAMPLE TUTORIAL FEEDBACK MARK SHEET

COMPARING SCOTTISH DEVOLUTION

GROUP PRESENTATIONS FEEDBACK SHEET

Prepared by Monitor: Alan Convery

GROUP A

Question Addressed:

Some factors informing assessment: Firs

t 2:1 2:2 3 Fail

Presentation addresses the question set, and with sufficient focus?

Presentation engages critically with the literature and

shows grasp of relevant concepts and knowledge?

Presentation follows a logical and effective pattern of

argument?

Presentation supports arguments with examples that are drawn from the literature on comparative

territorial politics

Quality of the power point presentation (clarity, use

of visual images)

Capacity to respond appropriately to questions from the class

Discussion questions that follow from the presentation are clearly linked to the set question

Group members make sufficient effort to engage their audience during the discussion

Comments:

Grade:

25

ANNEX 2: THE RESEARCH BRIEFING PAPER

Why a Research Briefing?

The aim of the Research Briefing Paper is to test students’ capacity to apply their

research skills, knowledge and understanding to the task of producing an informative, relevant and user-friendly document. Students of politics go on to a wide variety of careers after their degree and many find themselves working for members of parliament,

voluntary organisations, political parties, trade unions, business groups, the civil service etc. In these kinds of roles, the ability to compile a concise, reliable and readable

summary of key issues is a valuable skill. The main aims and features of the exercise are outlined below to guide you towards writing a successful research briefing paper.

Who is it aimed at? The research briefing paper aims to present a concise summary of research findings to

an informed, but not necessarily expert, audience. In government, parliament and the public sector, officials, ministers and parliamentarians must have access to information on a wide range of topics and issues which change rapidly. Concise, clear, reliable

research briefings help keep decision makers informed about the issues for which they are responsible.

Students are required to choose the intended recipient of their research briefing paper. He or she may be, for example, an individual Member of the Scottish Parliament, a

local councillor, a Scottish Government Minister, a private sector chief executive, or you may write the briefing paper for an institutional actor, such as a parliamentary

committee, a voluntary organisation, a quango or an interest group. It is up to you to decide for whom you are writing the research briefing, and you must make this clear on the first page of your paper. (Please note: you do not need to name the individual

concerned – their position is what is important). You should anticipate the degree of familiarity that your intended recipient may have with the topic, and provide relevant

background information, as appropriate. You should recognise that he or she cannot spend time doing their own research and thus needs a capsule version of the key points and considerations about the issues raised.

Scotland is not unique. Its devolved system of government, and the multi-level context

in which it is placed, shares some features with other stateless nations and regions in other multi-level states. Yet, in Scottish political life, often little is known about experiences from other countries and contexts.

Thus a primary objective of this exercise is to produce a Research Briefing Paper

which situates the policy or political problem in a comparative context, and draws

upon whatever lessons your intended recipient might usefully learn from

comparative analysis.

The research briefing paper should be accurate, well-informed, impartial and written

with the needs of the user in mind. For example, a research briefing paper on fiscal autonomy may be differently orientated were it written for an SNP MSP, a Labour MSP, UK government minister, a trade union or the Confederation of British Industry. The

distinctive orientation of your research briefing paper should highlight the issues of most concern to the intended recipient without compromising the impartiality and

accuracy of its content.

26

Research Briefing Topics

Research briefing papers should address ONE of the questions listed below:

1. Is it possible for Scotland to have further fiscal autonomy and remain in the UK? 2. Do Scottish voters treat UK elections and Scottish Parliament elections differently?

3. Should the Barnett Formula be replaced with a needs-based system of territorial

finance? 4. Should the Scottish territorial branches of UK statewide parties separate from the

UK parties entirely in order to be more electorally successful?

5. Are proposals for ‘English votes for English laws’ a viable answer to the West Lothian Question?

In addressing these questions, you can choose a particular focus of relevance to your

intended recipient, and be sure to orientate the briefing towards his/her/its interests

and concerns. Before you start writing, be sure you are clear about:

the precise focus of the research briefing paper; why you are writing the research briefing (your purpose);

who you are writing the research briefing for (your reader); what that person most needs to know; the points you will cover;

and how you will structure your information.

What structure should it follow?

The research briefing should be written and presented in a readily digestible form and should not exceed 1,500 words in length (+/- 10%). While the structure may vary,

each paper should include three main parts: (i) the purpose (usually stated as the issue, topic or purpose); (ii) a summary of the facts/key debates/lines of argument (what

this section contains and the headings used will be determined by the purpose of the briefing note); and (iii) the conclusion (this may be a conclusion, a recommendation or other advice, or both). The following section headings may help you to structure

your research briefing paper, but remember that your paper should only have the sections that are relevant to your purpose and audience.

Issue (also topic, purpose): A concise statement of the issue, proposal or problem. This section should explain in one or two lines why the paper matters to the reader. It sets out in the form of a question or a statement what the rest of the paper is about.

Background: The details the reader needs in order to understand what follows (how a situation arose, previous decisions/problems, actions leading up to the current

situation/when and why a particular proposal under examination was introduced). Typically this section gives a brief summary of the history of the topic and other

background information. What led up to this problem, issue or proposal? How has it evolved?

27

Current Status: Describes only the current or recent situation, who is involved,

what is happening now, the current state of the matter, issue, situation, etc.

Key Considerations: A summary of important facts, considerations, developments —everything that needs to be considered now. While you will have to decide what

to include and what to leave out, this section should be as unbiased as possible. Your aim is to present all the details required for the reader to be informed or to

make an informed decision. Keep the reader's needs uppermost in your mind when selecting and presenting the facts. Remember to substantiate any statements with evidence (including references) and to double-check your facts.

Options (also Next Steps, Comments): observations about the key considerations and what they mean; a concise description either of the options and sometimes their

pros and cons or of what will happen next.

Conclusion and/or Recommendations: Conclusions summarise what you want

your reader to infer from the paper. Do not introduce anything new in the Conclusion. If you are including a recommendations section, it should offer the best

and most sound advice you can offer. Make sure the recommendation is clear, direct and substantiated by the facts you have put forward.

Submission and Assessment

Papers should be submitted via by 12 noon on Friday 1 November 2013. Please read

the Honours Handbook for instructions on how to submit your paper. To succeed, a research briefing paper should be short, concise, clear, reliable and readable. It should be accurate, informed, logical, impartial and written with the needs of the user in mind.

The research briefing paper will represent 35% of the mark for the course .

Sources

Although this is a Research Briefing Paper for a non-academic audience, you should still follow proper scholarly conventions about attributing sources and ideas. Your

paper must contain references to evidence and to scholarly arguments. The point is to express insights from academic work in a crisp and readable manner.

28

ANNEX 3: THE ESSAY

Essay Questions

Choose ONE of the following: 1. How well have Scotland’s statewide parties dealt with the ‘regional versus national’

dilemma (Roller and Van Houten, 2003)? (You may focus on one or more party in Scotland, but you must draw on the comparative literature in your answer.)

2. To what extent does the Scotland Act (2012) make the Scottish Parliament more fiscally accountable?

3. Do UK intergovernmental relations need to become more formalised?

4. Could the UK exist as a federal state?

5. To what extent are the territorial goals of the Scottish National Party similar to other regionalist or nationalist parties? (You must refer to at least one other regionalist or

nationalist party in your answer.) 6. Does policy divergence in Scotland undermine the UK welfare state?

The essay should be 2,500 words in length (+/-10%) and is worth 50% of the overall

mark for this course. The deadline is 12 noon on Friday 29 November 2013 (see the Honours Handbook for instructions on how to submit).

Note on Writing Essays

Do the simple things well:

Answer the question. Read the question carefully. Work out what you want to

say, and make your points explicitly.

A good introduction shows that you understand the context and significance of the question to be addressed, and helps the reader by explaining how you will answer it. Each paragraph should be coherent in itself and in relation to others:

pay particular attention to the first sentence of a paragraph.

Ensure you provide a good explanation of the key concepts addressed by the question and your argument/analysis.

Avoid description. You should be offering analyses and explanations of political developments, and informed coherent arguments. You should not be

telling the story of what happened, when, etc. Your conclusion should be consistent with the material and argument you

present. Don't introduce new ideas into your conclusion - use it to draw together the main strands of your argument.

29

Referencing

It is strongly recommended that you use the ‘Harvard’ or ‘author-date’ system of

referencing. This referencing system is easy to understand and is used in the vast majority of the political science literature.