Search

In this paper, we theorize the 2016 Brexit referendum as a critical juncture in UK politics and analyse its effects on devolution using the concept of regional authority. We argue that Brexit raised the option of re-balancing the self-rule and shared rule dimensions of regional authority present in UK devolution. We generate hypotheses regarding parties' territorial strategies and test them against a content analysis of 2015 and 2017 UK general election manifestos. We demonstrate that proposals dealing with shared rule grew between 2015 and 2017, within the context of consistency in parties' overall territorial positioning. The governing Conservatives also offered more proposals on shared rule but not ones that increased devolved influence. Overall, they moved from favouring an increase in regional authority in 2015 to the cusp of maintaining existing regional authority and somewhat reducing it in 2017. This helps to explain whypost-Brexit UK government policy in practice maintained a primary focus on self-rule within a general approach of limiting the further growth of regional authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The creation of the Scottish Parliament provided Scottish citizens with an additional layer of politicians to represent them. But to whom do constituents turn when seeking help with a problem—councillors, MSPs or MPs? We assess how partisanship, national identity and shared competences affect public perceptions of the governing responsibilities of the UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament and local councils. We find that an individual's national identity considerably affects perceptions of the political powers delegated to Scottish political institutions. We conclude by considering the implications for efforts to further devolve powers to the devolved legislatures in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women are historically under-represented amongst government ministers. While most research on gender and executives concentrates on who gets to (and stays at) the top, we examine the executive as a gendered institution, investigating how ministers experience the ‘heart of the machine’ once they get there. Using documentary sources and interviews with former ministers, we explore these dynamics through a case study of the early years of the (then) Scottish Executive (1999-2007), examining how men and women ministers navigated the complex rules and relationships of government in a new institution, and moving the research agenda on gender and the executive in the UK beyond Westminster and Whitehall. While we find evidence of both nominal and substantive change – in terms of ministerial recruitment, portfolio allocation and different ways of working – our findings highlight the continuing drag of the Westminster model on the ‘making’ of the Scottish Executive, limiting possibilities for innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Scottish independence movement and its leadership have claimed ‘time is on our side’, citing the increased support for independence among younger citizens as evidence a future referendum would be more likely to deliver a ‘Yes’ result. Even amid protracted crises and tumultuous leadership changes within the Scottish National Party, observers still point to robust support for independence among younger voters as evidence of future change. Assessing this claim is important because it clarifies the role of different cleavages in Scottish and British politics and it helps us understand the motivations on both sides for trying to control the timing of any future independence referendum. In this research note, we assess the claim that time sides with the pro-independence movement, using data from the Scottish Social Attitudes Surveys and the Scottish Election Study from 1999 to 2021. Overall, we find limited support for the claim that generational replacement will help the pro-independence movement. Based on data from 1999 to 2021, the most appropriate interpretation is that time will neither help nor hurt the independence movement. Therefore, we need to treat claims on this topic from political actors with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In most democratic regimes, the public often dislikes and distrusts parliamentarians. This should not surprise: the public likes neither compromise nor conflict, both of which are legislative hallmarks. One of the most famous examples of parliamentary conflict is Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) in the British House of Commons. It is the most viewed and commented upon part of the parliamentary week, but attracts strong criticism as a noisy charade promoting a poor image of politics. Does PMQs undermine individual levels of political efficacy and trust in Parliament, as some commentators suggest? We use an experimental design to answer this question and find evidence to suggest that, contrary to its negative reputation, PMQs does not adversely affect most citizens' perceptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although there has been extensive research on electoral system choice at the national level, we know relatively little about the dynamics of deciding the rules of the game for sub-state institutions. This article examines the factors that influenced the choice of a proportional electoral system for the new Scottish Parliament in 1999. Through the use of archival sources and interviews with key participants, we challenge the conventional rational choice explanation for the adoption of the mixed-member proportional (MMP) system. Although rational considerations on the part of the Labour Party were involved in the choice of MMP, our findings suggest that, as at the national level, theories of electoral system choice need to consider normative values as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2011 Scottish Conservative leadership election presented the party with two radically different visions for the future. The Scottish Conservatives rejected Murdo Fraser's plan to create a new independent Scottish Party of the centre right and elected Ruth Davidson, who promised to reform the party within the UK Conservative Party. The Conservatives' rejection of a radical break with the past suggests they will continue along a path of incremental change and supports an institutionalist analysis of party adaptation to devolution. This article explores why Davidson won and examines some of the implications for the Scottish and UK Conservative parties. The centre-periphery tension played out during the campaign is a dilemma for all territorial branches of statewide parties but poses especially difficult problems for the Conservatives because of the tension between unionist and centre-right agendas. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article examines the territorial statecraft of the Conservative Party both internally and in the Coalition Government since 2010. Using Bulpitt's statecraft framework alongside some more recent work on UK intergovernmental relations, it argues that the Conservative Party has pursued broadly the same strategy as the previous Labour administration: centre autonomy management. Thus, as long as the devolved administrations and Welsh and Scottish Conservatives stick to their low politics remit, territorial policy divergence and autonomy remain mostly irrelevant to the centre. In terms of intergovernmental relations, the Conservatives have handled territorial politics in coalition reasonably well. However, the recent Scotland Act and the Commission on Welsh Devolution point towards a future of sharing Treasury control over UK public finances. With the centre's governing autonomy increasingly compromised, the Conservative Party faces the challenge of creating a new strategy which allows it to pursue its priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]