Scotland's Devolution Stramash

The resignation of Nicola Sturgeon as the first minister of Scotland has elicited strongly polarised responses from the politerati in Scotland and the UK. What is not in doubt is her articulate and passionate commitment, ferocious work rate and recognition as a formidable leader. Her ability to eviscerate Boris Johnson and his ministers in both debate and detailed understanding was palpable. Her values on social justice, equality of opportunity and international development helped her deflate the Scottish Labour Party that had dominated Scottish politics for fifty years. It would be churlish to deny any of these qualities. They made her popular with a majority of the Scottish electorate during her period of office, although her star has been waning of late.

Reading the press and listening to political correspondents would suggest that her resignation was a result of her failure to advance independence since the referendum in 2014. The problems of the NHS in Scotland and social care began during her time as Health Minister. Similarly, she asked to be judged on her record for reducing the gap in educational attainment and this has backfired. Together with unpopular policies on gender recognition and a heavily criticised recycling deposit return scheme she has further eroded trust in her ability to manage public services. Whilst there is some truth in these observations, they fail to convey the underlying flaw in the first minister's leadership style. It is her interpretation of devolution that is her weakness.

Devolution in the mind of the architect of the Scottish Government and its first First Minister, Donald Dewar, was never something that stopped at Holyrood, home of the Scottish Parliament. Devolution was something that cascaded to local democratic councils that were responsible for delivering services as well as to local communities themselves. Holyrood was a halfway house. Nicola Sturgeon, along with her mentor and former first minister, Alex Salmond could not swallow this concept. If independence was to be achieved, they believed that power had to be concentrated in Holyrood. This precluded devolving powers to democratically elected councils. It meant that services diminished by austerity measures from the Westminster Government were further eroded by the Scottish Government taking powers and introducing regulatory measures that significantly undermined local democratic control. The Scottish Government now controls a wide swathe of public services through 111 non-elected national public bodies (quangos) and has the whip hand on the delivery of local services.

It is not just the number of services that are controlled by government bodies that restrict local knowledge and involvement in shaping policies but the loss of local initiatives and partnerships between councils. local businesses and communities. This is where well-being, innovation and enterprise are nurtured in what was termed the Common Weal. These were the ingredients that made Scotland such a key player in previous periods of enlightenment. They evolved in the municipalities because it was the common understanding and determination to secure change that was the most vital ingredient. Something that is denied when centralisation trumps devolution.

Perhaps the case for independence would have been better served by empowering councils and communities to deliver a true devolution rather than making them responsible for the opprobrium of reduced public expenditure. Prior to 1996, Scottish Councils were responsible for 41% of public expenditure, since it has been reduced to less than 30%. The Scottish Government has been a barrier to true devolution and like its first minister, the chickens are coming home to roost.