Analyze The Arguments For And Against Devolution In Scotland

1187 Words5 Pages
Devolution in Scotland was a result of the 1997 Referendum, where the Scottish people voted in favour of a devolved Scottish Parliament. It was justified on the basis that it would make government more responsive to the wishes of the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has primary legislative powers, allowing it to pass almost any law they wish. However, some policy areas remain as ‘reserved’ powers for the UK Government, including foreign policy and national security issues. Devolution has always been a widely debated topic, with many arguments both for and against. Many people believe that devolution would allow for more efficient governing and better representation of the people. It was also believed that a regional government would receive greater loyalty from the people. However, some argued that devolution would ultimately lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The expense of creating a Scottish Parliament also raised some criticism, and the West Lothian Question was also a major issue. The idea for some sort of devolution for Scotland had been around since the 1880s, with several campaigns during that period. In the build up to the 1997 election, the Labour Party promised the Scottish people a referendum on the issue of devolution. The results of this referendum led to the system which we see today. The framework for devolution was developed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The SCC is an association of Scottish political parties, churches and…show more content…
It has support from many political parties who are committed to its success and is seen as a good way to make government more efficient. However, it is very costly and many feel it is the first step towards the break-up of the United Kingdom and an independent Scotland. The debate is still on-going as to what the next steps are for the Scottish Parliament; however I feel that we are a long way off becoming an independent
Open Document