Examination of Witnesses (Questions 261-279)
PROFESSOR JAMES
MITCHELL
26 FEBRUARY 2008
Q261 Chairman: Professor Mitchell, thank
you for joining us this morning. In view of your academic credentials
we thought we would treat you in a more seminar mode than our
previous witnesses and invite you to say a few things by way of
opening and we will throw questions at you as the spirit moves.
Professor Mitchell: Okay. I thought
I would start by talking about the achievements of devolution
as I see them, because when politicians are asked about what does
devolution achieve they normally list legislation and policy and
such like. From my perspective, I think the key achievement of
devolution is that the problem of legitimacy in Scottish politics
has been removed. In the 1980s and 1990s I think there was a growing
problem in Scotland, and it was also true in Wales but I will
restrict my comments to Scotland here, that people perceived the
government of Scotland by Conservatives through the Scottish Office
as lacking legitimacy. That is not to suggest that people saw
it as unlawful but there were questions as to fairness of policy,
the sense of policy being imposed on Scotland against its will,
and I think that was what fuelled the demand for a Scottish Parliament.
There had always been support for a Scottish Parliament going
back to the earliest polls in the late 1940s right through to
devolution but what changed in the 1980s and 1990s was that this
became a much more salient issue and it coalesced around particular
issues. The Poll Tax is the one that is most obviously spoken
about but, in fact, it was many, many other issues from the early
1980s onwards. What I think devolution has done is to remove the
issue of legitimacy. There are clearly differences across the
parties in Scotland as to how Scotland should be governed, and
we have just heard Bruce Crawford who obviously advocates independence
and there are others who would extend devolution, others who would
leave devolution, but no-one, I think, certainly none of the mainstream
parties, and I cannot think of anyone even on the fringe of politics,
who today believes there is a lack of legitimacy in the system
of government. That is the thing that has been a clear achievement
of devolution. It is one that we rarely talk about, we do not
even acknowledge, but it is one that I think is very important.
The other achievement that relates to that is the fact we have
now tackled to some extent a kind of debilitating politics of
grievance that Scotland suffered from over many, many decades
in truth. There has always been that tendency in Scotland and
it is often associated with one party but, in truth, all parties
have tended to blame London for this kind of debilitating politics
that took place. Peter Hennessy in the election here last year
in Edinburgh remarked that there were three great institutions
in the UK which were persistently successful in getting money
out of the Treasury: the military, doctors and the Scottish Office.
In a sense, I always thought that was a good thing from Scotland's
point of view but, ultimately, it is a very debilitating form
of politics. We have injected a degree of responsibility into
our politics, not as much as we perhaps should, but I would say
that is the other achievement. However, and I will finish on this
point, resolving one problem of legitimacy has created a series
of others, the so-called English Question, the West Lothian Question,
the question of Barnett and finance. That is one of the great
problems that we have today, that in a sense we have simply shifted
the problem around within the UK and, whatever is proposed into
the future, we should try and ensure if there are to be further
reforms that we do not simply carry on shifting the problem around
and particularly we should try to avoid encouraging the politics
of grievance.
Q262 Chairman: It was you who produced
the pass the parcel analogy, was it not?
Professor Mitchell: Yes, indeed,
it was.
Q263 Chairman: You have passed the
parcel to England because the legitimacy of government in England
is seen as being undermined once it is possible for Scotland to
decide to do other things while Scottish Members of Parliament
decide different things for England.
Professor Mitchell: I would stress
the potential for a growing problem of grievance in England, a
problem of legitimacy is there. We do not have it yet, the issues
around the West Lothian Question and, of course, Barnett, are
not so salient as the politics of grievance in Scotland in the
1980s and 1990s, but one should remember the potential for grievances
that we had in Scotland in the 1980s and 1990s had always existed
and it is the context of politics that will determine whether
those grievances will arise. The fact that Labour is in power
in London has ensured that this kind of politics has not emerged
very strongly. That said, I would take Barnett, for example, and
my own research has shown if you go back to the early 1980s there
was a tiny handful of us, anoraks you might call us, who were
interested in the Barnett Formula which was restricted really
to civil servants and the academic community but now, of course,
the elites in sections of England are interested in it. It is
not yet a popular matter, it is not a great problem, I do not
think, but it could become one. I guess the issue that I would
suggest has to be addressed is whether, if this is likely to arise,
it is something that ought to be addressed now in the relatively
quiet time of devolution or should we wait until it really does
explode. My suggestion is that it is always best to meet a problem
before it becomes particularly difficult.
Q264 Alun Michael: I think what you
have said is very interesting because is it not the case that
part of the problem is that the politics of grievance, as you
have described, is fed by the journalism of grievance and the
continual feeding of bad news and there is very rarely very accurate
analysis on which that grievance is based? For instance, the English
Question quite clearly ought to be described as the "England
outside London Question" in order to be anywhere near accurate
as identifying something. How do you see the way that coverage
of politics in Scotland has developed, both in terms of coverage
of Scottish politics within Scotland and the coverage of Scottish
politics in the wider UK in terms of the way that people understand
the changes to which you have referred?
Professor Mitchell: There has
been a big change in the media coverage of Scottish politics post-devolution.
In the early years a section of the media, and it was a small
section of the media, continued to campaign almost as if the referendum
was still going on. The anti-devolution element was in the media.
That seems to have long since gone now and certainly I think the
media is more focused on the everyday issues, the bread and butter
issues of devolution. There are occasions when there are bits
in papers and we shake our heads and think, "Good God, what
kind of coverage is this", but that is always going to happen.
I think we have got very good media coverage of the Scottish Parliament
and devolution. If I have one complaint about the media in Scotland
it is that perhaps there is too much focus on the Scottish Parliament
and I think there is so much more going on in Scotland beyond
the Parliament and we are in danger, and it is not just the media,
the academic community is probably more guilty of this frankly,
of ignoring local government, for example, and politics beyond
the Holyrood village. In a sense we are in danger, and I think
we already have done this, of recreating the Westminster bubble,
the media bubble that takes place down south, here in Scotland
around Holyrood. That said, when one speaks to journalists there
is an effort to move away from that. Saying that, I am certainly
in no position to criticise journalists because there is at least
some journalistic coverage of Scottish politics beyond Holyrood
and I cannot think of very much, if any, academic research beyond
Holyrood and Scottish politics. On the wider issue,—
Q265 Chairman: Just before you leave
that, was there not also in the early days following the first
elections to the Scottish Parliament a media approach which said
that coalition was impossible whenever any kind of dispute arose
and it took quite some time for the media to settle down?
Professor Mitchell: I do not think
that was a media problem. I think there was a public perception
and an academic perception, which is a very British perception,
that coalition is alien. Similarly, I think we have been afflicted
by a sense that a minority government is alien and unworkable.
That is a very British view of politics. One of the interesting
things we have had with minority and coalition government in Scotland
and in Wales is that we are learning a great deal about how this
can operate. In a sense, we ought to look beyond the UK because
there are examples, and Bruce Crawford when he raised the Danish
one was interesting, where minority government is seen as normal.
This is one of the consequences of the electoral system rather
than devolution and that is certainly the case. I do not think
the media can be blamed for that in any way, that is part of our
political culture and we are all guilty of buying into that. The
change has forced us to look at these things again. Certainly
from an academic point of view, for people like myself who have
been brought up very much within the British school of political
science and are having to look again at the coalition theory,
minority government and such like, it has been a very exciting
and interesting thing to do. I really would not blame the media
at all in that respect, it is part of our culture and we have
to change our culture.
Q266 Alun Michael: The second part
of the question was the coverage of Scottish politics in the rest
of the UK which perhaps has a contribution to the way the England
outside London grievance culture starts to develop.
Professor Mitchell: There is a
lot less media coverage of Scotland in the UK. In truth, those
who follow Scottish politics, all commentators, and in this I
include academics, will know all the names and faces of the MSPs
but in many cases we do struggle to know who the MPs are representing
Scottish constituencies. Obviously we know the Prime Minister,
but for the most part we do not and part of that is because there
has been a turnover post-devolution. Nonetheless, I think there
has been a greater focus on the Parliament, so less interest in
what is happening at Westminster. I think it is fair to say, and
I am sure I could be corrected, that the media has focused their
attention more on what goes on in the Parliament. That is hardly
surprising, it is a very important institution. That has happened
and it has had the consequence that we are probably less informed
as to what is going on at Westminster. One thing that is covered
frequently, of course, is the clashes, the divisions, the differences,
and perhaps we are less aware of what actually happens underneath
the surface. My understanding is intergovernmental relations work
very well in the UK between Scotland and London. Some of the expectations
that there would be these great bust-ups with the SNP in power
and so on just have not happened and the everyday workings are
very, very good. Of course, the theatre of politics, the huffing
and puffing of politicians, will invite media coverage, and rightly
so, and perhaps the public at large have a flawed view of what
really is happening on a day-by-day basis as a consequence, but
that is always going to be true in politics. Clashes and so on,
I suppose, will be the stuff of media coverage and people are
not going to want to read or hear about the fact that civil servants
speak to one another and so on. I am quite relaxed about that
in as much as I know it works very well under the surface. I am
also pretty sure that many of the public clashes are for public
consumption, for media consumption, and it seems to work.
Q267 Julie Morgan: I was interested
in the point you were making about the change in culture and the
fact we are going to live in Scotland with coalitions and minority
government. How widely do you think that is accepted now by political
parties and by the public?
Professor Mitchell: The public
seem to accept it. As part of our research study on the Scottish
elections 2007, we did a survey at the end of last year, a third
wave of this, and people seem to have accepted minority government
and there is no question as to its legitimacy or anything like
that. Some of the parties have struggled to come to terms with
it, they have all struggled to come to terms with it in different
ways, and that is inevitable. You can change institutions but
cultures do not change overnight. There was some naivety in the
expectations of some supporters of devolution in the years leading
up to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in the sense
that we would have this new politics and everyone would be consensual
and such like. It was always very naive, it was never going to
be like that. Also, it takes time for things to bed down and for
people to change. One of the interesting things about the Scottish
Parliament is that most of the politicians in the Parliament are
new to full-time politics so they have not brought with them perhaps
the experiences, the socialisation of having been MPs, and that
may make a difference. If the Parliament consisted largely of
MPs I suspect the approach to politics of MPs in a much more confrontational
arena would have made for a very different type of Scottish parliamentary
politics. That has been very important. One of the interesting
things will be whether over time, as I suspect will happen, as
the number of politicians change as politicians who were socialised
under pre-devolution politics give way to a new generation of
politicians, then I think we will come to accept many of the inevitable
consequences of devolution, the fact that there is difference
and there is diversity. Baggio made that point on the English
Constitution, that you can change the institutions of the state
but unless you change the politicians who worked the old system
you will not feel the full benefits of institutional change.
Q268 Julie Morgan: So you think the
MPs' views are different, for example, from the MSPs' views about
this culture change?
Professor Mitchell: Yes. Take
those MPs who were elected post-devolution, their whole socialisation
is within the Westminster model of politics which is quite different
from the Scottish Parliament and I guess that leads to some interesting
tensions. I do not think tension is a bad thing, it is a creative
thing, a good thing. God help us if we all had the same experience
of politics. It means that we can learn from one another and I
think that has to be a very healthy thing.
Q269 Julie Morgan: What do you think
is the future of Scottish MPs representing seats in Scotland when
you look at the English Question and the wider issues?
Professor Mitchell: I think there
are problems for Scottish MPs in trying to cut a distinct role.
Research was done back in the 1970s on the role of the Scottish
MP, it was Michael Keating's thesis in fact, and Michael showed
very clearly that Scottish MPs then were very Scottish, focused
on Scottish issues, much more so than English MPs on English issues.
That is obviously going to have to change because many of the
matters which were then the focus of attention of Scottish MPs
have been devolved. I think MPs are going to have to come to terms
with that, and they are. The obvious role for an MP from Scotland
would be to focus on the retained matters. Some of them have difficulty
with this, not least because their constituents expect them to
have a view on health and so on and so forth. Some of my constitutionalist
colleagues think it is wrong, for example, that the Speaker should
dare to speak out on a health matter concerning his constituency.
I have to say, I think it would be absurd for any MP not to speak
out on such a matter whether or not the Parliament to which he
is elected has responsibility. One of the roles of an MP is as
an advocate and I think that will always be the case. I am probably
a bit more relaxed than some of my colleagues on this matter.
Q270 Mr Turner: On the English Question,
I must say my view is that in parts of the UK it is a very serious
issue. Would you agree?
Professor Mitchell: I think it
is a serious issue. Whether or not the public think it is an issue,
I think it is a serious issue because it has the potential to
create a politics of grievance, which I have to say from a Scottish
angle is very worrying. It is a problem from an English perspective
but it is also a problem from a Scottish perspective. If there
is to be a backlash then Scotland could suffer, so I do think
there is a problem. It is certainly the case that in certain parts
of England it is more of an issue than in other parts. We tend
to find that border areas provoke backlashes more than other areas,
so it is no great surprise that the north of England has witnessed
a great deal of coverage on this. In fact, it goes way back to
the 1970s. The Journal in Newcastle was arguing against
devolution then and played a very significant part in encouraging
Labour MPs in the north of England to oppose devolution. There
are issues there and it comes down to the West Lothian Question
but also Barnett and the perception, and it is important that
it is a perception, whether right or wrong, that Scotland gets
more resources than is justified. That is likely to be a major
problem. Over the last few years it has not become as salient
as it is likely to become for two reasons. First of all, Labour
has been in power in London, Wales and Scotland. Secondly, it
has been a period when money has been freely available, we have
had rising expenditure, and the question arises what happens when
money is tight. I think that will be a more problematic area to
work with than simply different parties in power. The financial
dimension will create more tensions than anything else, and we
are now moving into that period. That is why I think it is very
important that we address this question now before it really takes
off and becomes difficult. Having said that, I am not entirely
sure how to resolve it, that is a difficult one. The only thing
I would argue very strongly for is that any resolution has to
be consensual, it has to involve all parts of the UK agreeing
to any change and has to involve cross-party support. If anything
is done which is perceived to benefit either a party or a part
of the UK at the expense of another it will simply pass the parcel
around. In a sense, what I think is important is what I call losers'
consent has to be found. In other words, those who are perceived
to be the losers under any change have to recognise that they
may be losing but they are losing because justice is being done,
and we are nowhere near that position at the moment.
Q271 Mr Turner: You are saying the
fact that Labour is in power in London makes it less likely, but
presumably the change to a different government would make it
more likely still?
Professor Mitchell: It would,
but the financial regime is the key thing. If, for example, a
Conservative Government was to come to power in London and if
that government was to decide that it would throw money at Scotland,
I think Scotland would be quite happy, there would not be the
tensions. The problem is that the likelihood is that these two
would go together, that if we moved into a period when a Conservative
Government came to power, and that may happen because there are
financial difficulties in the country and the Conservatives win
for that reason, then we have a potentially explosive situation
depending on what the Conservative Government does, of course.
I do think it would be very important, whichever party was in
power in London, to operate in a consensual way rather than simply
pass the parcel. That is where I think English votes for English
laws have the potential to simply pass the parcel around, although
at this stage it is not quite clear what English votes for English
laws would actually entail.
Q272 Mrs James: You said a little
earlier that you had done a lot of work in the 1970s and 1980s
on the Barnett Formula. I think the Barnett Formula has come as
a great revelation for lots of people in different parts of Britain,
whereas in Wales and Scotland we have been very au fait with
it and the question is of people in the south-east of Britain
realising this. What do you think are the pros and cons of the
Barnett Formula? There is a review being undertaken currently
in the Welsh Assembly on the Barnett Formula.
Professor Mitchell: The key attraction
of the Barnett Formula is that it exists, it has worked, it is
relatively easy to work and. in terms of changing it, bringing
back some other thing is very difficult. Finding an alternative
is the great difficulty. That is the key attraction of the Barnett
Formula. The problems with the Barnett Formula go back to its
origins. It was a quick-fix really. Contrary to much of the mythology
around the Barnett Formula, it was not invented by Joel Barnett,
it was not even invented when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury,
this is a great myth. When I wrote to Joel Barnett in 1985 and
I was doing research on this subject to ask him about the Barnett
Formula he responded by asking me, "What are you talking
about, I don't even know what this is". I explained the formula,
he recognised the formula, but he did not even know that we were
calling it that, it was the academic community that called it
the Barnett Formula. He said then that it was a civil servant,
as far as he was aware, who had invented it, and he was right,
it was a civil servant.
Q273 Alun Michael: Yes, but it was
nailed down at that time as part of the proposition of the then
devolution settlement going forward.
Professor Mitchell: It was and
it was not. It came about before then, in fact. Even before February
1974 I came across a reference in Treasury files which showed
that the 10/5/85 formula was used in certain circumstances.
Q274 Alun Michael: With respect,
that is not my point. I suspect you are creating a new mythology
that it was not—
Professor Mitchell: I was going
to come on to explain how it evolved from its origins when it
was used as a quick-fix.
Q275 Alun Michael: The reason the
Barnett name is there is that was the point when it became an
accepted part of the—
Professor Mitchell: Not quite.
Q276 Alun Michael: —process
towards devolution.
Professor Mitchell: It was originally
used for bits of public expenditure and then in the 1970s it got
wrapped up in some of the debates on what might happen post-devolution
and then it was named the Barnett Formula in 1980 in an article
by David Heald. In fact, its evolution is quite murky and in essence
it was a fix. It was not anything other than a fix. Currently
it is not based on need and it is something which I think provokes
hostility in Scotland and in England. It is one of these odd policies
which seems to have very little support. Having said that, the
reason it continues to exist is because it is very difficult to
find an alternative and if it continues at all I think that will
be the reason for it continuing to exist. The very fact that it
has become a symbol of the politics of devolution is important.
The key change that came about with devolution was simply that
this issue became more salient. The Formula had existed throughout
the 1980s and 1990s, it really only took off as an issue because
we started talking about devolution and that focused attention
on territorial public finance in a way that it had not previously.
Q277 Chairman: Did it not become
an issue in this sense, that devolution created a situation, which
I personally would argue for, where the Government in Scotland
had a totality of resource which you could then move about according
to different policy priorities?
Professor Mitchell: Yes.
Q278 Chairman: Rather than simply
having public expenditure which amounted to that amount mediated
by different departments according to their own London decided
policies. It is that ability to do different things with that
set amount of money which has brought it into focus.
Professor Mitchell: Absolutely.
That always existed as well. You can go back to the 1960s and
the Scottish Secretary was able to reallocate within his budget.
George Younger used to boast frequently when he was Secretary
of State for Scotland that he did that and would give examples.
He would put more money into education and law and order at the
expense of housing. That certainly was happening. With devolution,
of course, the public focus on this and the media attention given
to this issue has grown. It is not as if there has been any great
change in the policy, it is the perception of the issue that has
changed and it has become very much wrapped up in the politics
of devolution throughout the UK.
Q279 Chairman: You have not got a
bright idea for what could be put in its place?
Professor Mitchell: Ultimately,
I think that there has to be a needs assessment of some sort.
That is a highly political thing and, of course, we will all disagree
on needs, but at the end of the day at least there will be a transparent
formula in existence about which we can argue. After all, this
is what happens in terms of local government crown distribution,
it is not as if we do not do this. It is the way that territorial
finance operates almost everywhere else. I cannot think of another
example of a formula such as Barnett operating anywhere in the
world like this. A needs based formula would be a good thing.
I have to say the probability is, of course, that Scotland would
lose out and that makes me kind of unusual in Scotland. I do think
it would be a good thing for our politics. There is something
debilitating in politics which allows Scotland to have more generous
public policies but not have to pay for them. That will encourage
a politics of grievance south of the border and we are seeing
it in the North of England, it is understandable, who could really
complain about this. Frankly, if I was living in the north of
England I would be complaining about it. There is no problem with
a part of the UK having more public finances if it is in response
to greater need but I do not think that applies in Scotland, so
I do think that needs to be addressed. The way I would square
that circle is to give the Scottish Parliament powers to raise
its own revenue in some measure. We would have to operate alongside
a reform formula, I am not suggesting Scotland should only have
its own revenues, I think there has to be a grant mechanism. All
I am suggesting is the kinds of mechanisms that exist elsewhere
in the world. This is not something radical or novel, whatever.
Coming back to my point about the change in political culture
and gaining the experience of a minority and coalition, perhaps
we need to look beyond the UK because the kinds of things I am
talking about here are common in intergovernmental systems of
public finance.
|
