Devolution Commissions in the shadow of Whitehall: the Smith Commission and the creation of a ‘Powerhouse Parliament’

Original Article
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

In the UK, it has become common for commissions to be convened to recommend changes to the devolved settlements in Scotland and Wales. The most recent of these commissions was the Smith Commission, convened in September 2014 to agree on a new package of powers for the Scottish Parliament. In this article, we investigate the Smith Commission, offering both a first cut history of a pivotal moment in the UK’s constitutional development, and a case study that sheds new light on the workings of such commissions, on the culture and practices of civil servants, and on power dynamics both within Whitehall and between Whitehall and devolved governments. We set down a marker for what we hope will be the further comparative study of such commissions.

Keywords

Devolution Civil service Commissions Treasury Intergovernmental relations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research for this article was conducted under the auspices of an urgency grant from the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ES/M010856/1). The authors are grateful to their colleagues on the grant—Jan Eichhorn, Lindsay Paterson, and Alexandra Remond—for their thoughts and insights and to all those who agreed to grant us interviews for this project. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

  1. Bolleyer, N., W. Swenden, and N. McEwen. 2016. A Theoretical Perspective on Multi-level Systems in Europe: Constitutional Power and Partisan Conflict. Comparative European Politics 12 (4/5): 367–383.Google Scholar
  2. Calman Commission. 2009. Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century. Commission on Scottish Devolution: Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  3. Convery, A., and T. Lundberg. 2016. Decentralization and the Centre Right in the UK and Spain: Central Power and Regional Responsibility. Territory, Politics, Governance.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2016.1234406.Google Scholar
  4. Deakin, N., and R. Parry. 2000. The Treasury and Social Policy. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gallagher, J. 2012. Intergovernmental Relations in the UK: Cooperation, Competition and Constitutional Change. British Journal of Politics & International Relations 14 (2): 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. GERS (2014) Government and Expenditure ReviewScotland 2013/14, http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00472877.pdf.
  7. GERS (2016) Government and Expenditure RevenueScotland 2015/16, http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132.
  8. Hazell, R., and B. Yong. 2012. The Politics of Coalition: How the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government Works. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Hood, A., and A. N. Keiller. 2016 ‘A Survey of the UK Benefit System’, Institute for Fiscal Studies Briefing Note BN13, https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/bn13.pdf.
  10. Hunter, A., and C. Boswell. 2015. Comparing the Political Functions of Independent Commissions: the Case of UK Migrant Integration Policy. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 17 (1): 10–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Keating, M. 2012. Intergovernmental Relations and Innovation: From Co-operative to Competitive Welfare Federalism in the UK. British Journal of Politics & International Relations 14 (2): 214–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kenealy, D. 2012. The Scotland Bill: Whence and Whither. Scottish Affairs 79 (Spring): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kenealy, D., J. Eichhorn, R. Parry, L. Paterson, and A. Remond. 2017. Publics, Elites and Constitutional Change in the UK: A Missed Opportunity?. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levitt, I. (ed.). 2014. Treasury Control and Public Expenditure in Scotland, 1885-1979. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Marier, P. 2009. The Power of Institutionalised Learning: The Uses and Practices of Commissions to Generate Policy Change. Journal of European Public Policy 16 (8): 1204–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McAllister, L. 2005a. Proving the Potential of Independent Commissions: A Critical Review of the Richard Commission on the Powers and Electoral Arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales. Public Administration 83 (2): 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McAllister, L. 2005b. The Value of Independent Commissions: An Insider’s Perspective on the Richard Commission. Parliamentary Affairs 58 (1): 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McEwen, N., W. Swenden, and N. Bolleyer. 2012. Introduction: Political Opposition in a Multi-level Context. British Journal of Politics & International Relations 14 (2): 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mellett, R. 2009. The Importance of Raising Your Own Revenues. Scottish Affairs 67 (Spring): 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchell, J. 2003. Governing Scotland: The Invention of Administrative Devolution. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mitchell, J. 2009. Devolution in the UK. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parry, R. 2011. The United Kingdom Civil Service: A Devolving System. In International Handbook on Civil Service Systems, ed. A. Massey. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  23. Parry, R. 2012. The Civil Service and Intergovernmental Relations in the Post-devolution UK. British Journal of Politics & International Relations 14 (2): 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parry, R. 2016. Civil Service and the Machinery of Government. In Politics in Scotland, ed. D. McTavish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Paun, A., and R. Munro. 2015. Governing in an Ever Looser Union: How the Four Governments of the UK Co-operate, Negotiate and Compete. London: Institute for Government.Google Scholar
  26. Scottish Conservatives. 2014. Commission on the Future Governance of Scotland. Glasgow: Hill and Hay Ltd.Google Scholar
  27. Scottish Government. 2009. Your Scotland, Your Voice: A National Conversation. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  28. Scottish Government. 2014. More Powers for the Scottish Parliament. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  29. Scottish Labour. 2014. Powers for a Purpose: Strengthening Accountability and Empowering People. Scottish Labour Party: Glasgow.Google Scholar
  30. Scottish Liberal Democrats. 2012. Federalism: the best future for Scotland—The report of the Home Rule and Community Rule Commission of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Edinburgh: Scottish Liberal Democrats.Google Scholar
  31. Seldon, A., and P. Snowdon. 2016. Cameron at Ten: The Verdict. London: William Collins.Google Scholar
  32. Smith Commission. 2014. Report of the Smith Commission for Further Devolution of Powers to the Scottish Parliament. Edinburgh: The Smith Commission.Google Scholar
  33. Swenden, W., and W. McEwen. 2016. UK Devolution in the Shadow of Hierarchy? Intergovernmental Relations and Party Politics. Comparative European Politics 12 (4/5): 488–509.Google Scholar
  34. Thain, C. 2009. A Very Peculiar Crisis? Institutions, Ideas and Policy Responses to the Credit Crunch. British Politics 4 (4): 434–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thain, C., and M. Wright. 1995. The Treasury and Whitehall: Planning and Controlling Public Spending. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trench, A. (2009) The Calman Commission and Scotland’s Disjointed Constitutional Debate, Public Law, October: 686–696.Google Scholar
  37. UK Government (2015) Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement, Cm. 8990. London: HMSO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social and Political ScienceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations