ippr north

To the regions…and beyond

Last week I wrote on Open Democracy's blog of the Sub-National Review of Economic Development and Regeneration grabbing headlines for culling the regional assemblies. But there was more to the review then that: combined with Brown’s plans for constitutional reform, it gives us a further glimpse at the Prime Minister's approach to power and accountability.

The review offers more power to local authorities, transferring 14-19 education budgets to them, as well as opening consultations on a legal duty for economic development and some flexibility over business rates.  It also strengthens the role of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), adding to their portfolio the Assemblies’ strategic powers over planning, transport and housing.  Bringing these powers together with economic development may result in regional strategies that are more focused, prioritised and coherent.

This will be challenging as RDAs are business-led quangos primarily focused on economic development.  Their new planning role will encompass land use, the green belt and housing - not simply economic matters, but social and environmental ones too. It is here that the role of local authorities is critical, as they must provide RDAs with their knowledge and experience in these matters.  Most importantly they will provide accountability.

The review gives local authority leaders a more integral role in developing and agreeing regional strategies.  Embedding local authorities in the work of their region has to be welcomed but could prove a complicated process.  Two additional government departments will also have to sign off strategies, with regional select committees offering additional scrutiny.  It remains to be seen whether this is the beginning of a bright new relationship between central and local levels or just too many cooks in the kitchen.

In our State of the Union project we argue that Brown must focus on the way England is governed as part of this constitutional reform.  He must address the real curse of the English: not what Scottish MPs can vote on but overbearing centralisation in England. Taken together with the promised concordat between local and central government, maybe, just maybe, this review signals a step in the right direction.

Scotland's Choice

Next month sees the Scottish Parliament’s third election since devolution in 1999, while almost to the day, the Union also celebrates its third centenary.  The question on everybody’s lips is whether Scotland is about to take a leap towards independence thus ending the Union with England.

Previously I've mentioned our State of the Union project, which looks at the prospects for the Union between England and Scotland in the 21st Century, and this of course remains a hot topic as the campaigns for the Scottish Parliamentary elections get underway.  The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) are doing well in the polls, and look set to be the largest party in the Scottish Parliament after the elections - but not large enough to govern without the support of the Liberal Democrats.

However this prospect is by no means guaranteed and will require some tough negotiations, not least because the Lib Dems have publicly declared themselves against holding a referendum on independence in the next four years, a central plank of SNP policy.  More recently the Lib Dems have floated the idea of more powers for the Parliament, which could be a way for both parties to kick the independence issue into the long grass.  That might not be a bad idea for the SNP as recent polls, suggest that support for the party is not translating into support for independence, which currently stands at 27%.

Much of the debate about unionism and nationalism revolves around the performance of the Scottish economy, which has become one of the central issues in the election campaign, but the argument in many ways remains rather superficial.  Some nationalists claim an independent Scotland that cuts corporation tax will be the answer to all Scotland’s economic problems.  On the other side some Unionists dangle the threat of removing the fiscal transfers that Scotland currently enjoys, rather than seeking to positively address the underlying problems that hold the Scottish economy back.  And never far away is the debate about whether an independent Scotland would be able to balance its books, this largely focuses around the value and ownership of North Sea oil - although it hardly seems the most sustainable basis for a successful long-term economy.

Our seminar last week tried to get under the surface of these debates by looking at how interdependent our economies are, considering trade and migration between the two nations and what the implications are for the Union.  We also looked at the fiscal debate, and possible models for replacing the Barnett Formula.  This is work that we will be developing over the next few months, and no matter who wins the Scottish elections, these are not issues that will go away.

Better off together?

ippr north, jointly with our colleagues at the Scottish Council Foundation held a seminar last Friday on the State of the Union between England and Scotland, which set the context for a project we’re hoping to get off the ground this year looking at the relationship between the two nations. Alistair Darling opened proceedings by setting out the case for the Union, mostly in economic terms – his speech is on our website. He put forward a well argued and thoughtful case, which is welcome as so much of the debate about the relationship between England and Scotland is deeply polarised, usually descending into sensationalism and political mudslinging which leaves the public none the wiser. Some Unionists paint a picture of imminent economic collapse, engaging in the politics of fear rather than genuine public debate. Some nationalists are equally to blame, invoking a time of economic utopia if freed of the Union, or glibly responding that Scotland can slip seamlessly from a UK single market into an EU single market with little change.

The truth really is that we simply don’t know what would happen. That's why we're keen to make sure our project gets off the ground - far too often the debate is conducted in these crude terms, and we want to inform the debate providing more light and less heat.