Scottish devolution in 1979

Hello everyone. I'm new to the forum, although I have been reading the posts for quite a while. I hadn't come across alternative histoy before, but now that I have I've become hooked. Now that I am hooked, I thought I should attempt my own timeline and thought about the Scottish devolution referendum in 1979. The result was a close vote in favour, although an amendment to the bill meant that 40% of the ELECTORATE had to vote yes for the bill to pass. My timeline would be based on the Commons voting against the Cunninghame ammendement, meaning the result of the referendum would stand. The problem is I would like Scotland, in this alternative timeline, to be independent by now and wonder what sort of scenario would make that happen. Great to be a part of such a fantastic forum. :)
 
I'm not sure how doable independence is but I'd shake a stick at a left-wing Scottish Government butting heads with a Thatcherite Ministry in London at least laying the groundwork for a strong pro-independence opinion eventually leading to a referendum in the future.
 
Well what's stopping Thatcher from just scrapping the thing when she's got the Falklands majority?
Because it would be such a stupid move it would defy belief, especially seeing as her high point in Scotland had already passed by this point. She needed Scotland, if only for the North Sea Oil. Such a move would almost certainly lead to the end of the union and she was, despite being an english nationalist also a Unionist.

The Assembly could have gone a number of ways.

  • Labour, who would almost certainly win the first election(under FPTP) consolidate their grip on Scotland and retain power until today.
  • The Tories, who would almost certainly be the main opposition don't decline as per-Otl and actually are the largest party by 1990. Malcolm Rifkind was a leading choice to lead the Tories, especially as he was in charge of their yes campaign. He may have ended up First Secretary.
  • The Nationalists actually get rid of that bore Gordon Wilson and revive quicker than otl. In this scenario you see an independent Scotland by today.
  • The Liberals end up in a number of coalitions with the various parties(although less likely as Otl due to Fptp)
Thats only a few off the top of my head.
 
I wonder if Jim Sillars breakaway Scottish Labour Party would have had a role to play in the 1979 assembly, if they had been a bit smarter. Possibly by trying to get some trade union support and if Sillars had tried to bring some Labour Party banches with him at the beginning (particularly his own South Ayrshire branch, which he astonishingly refusd to do)? They had quite a bit of support in 1976 and a pretty sympahetic press. Is it concievable they could have replaced the British Labour Party as the centre-left party of choice in Scotland, particularly during the poll-tax period?
 
Hello everyone. I'm new to the forum, although I have been reading the posts for quite a while. I hadn't come across alternative histoy before, but now that I have I've become hooked. Now that I am hooked, I thought I should attempt my own timeline and thought about the Scottish devolution referendum in 1979. The result was a close vote in favour, although an amendment to the bill meant that 40% of the ELECTORATE had to vote yes for the bill to pass. My timeline would be based on the Commons voting against the Cunninghame ammendement, meaning the result of the referendum would stand. The problem is I would like Scotland, in this alternative timeline, to be independent by now and wonder what sort of scenario would make that happen. Great to be a part of such a fantastic forum. :)

Yes, it is a fantastic forum, and welcome to it! Please enjoy your stay. :D

In any case, I don't honestly know any specifics but it's always possible it could be fully independent by, say, 1990 or so with a referendum in 1979.
 
I wonder if Jim Sillars breakaway Scottish Labour Party would have had a role to play in the 1979 assembly, if they had been a bit smarter. Possibly by trying to get some trade union support and if Sillars had tried to bring some Labour Party banches with him at the beginning (particularly his own South Ayrshire branch, which he astonishingly refusd to do)? They had quite a bit of support in 1976 and a pretty sympahetic press. Is it concievable they could have replaced the British Labour Party as the centre-left party of choice in Scotland, particularly during the poll-tax period?
Naw.

He'd end up like Tommy Sheridan without the sex-scandal. A minor third party which emerges. That is if he gets elected at all(it was a FPTP Assembly). The Labour machine is and was too strong.

An interesting thing is devolution means no poll-tax in Scotland. Its one of the many interesting policy changes. In fact you probably wouldn't see half the privatisations
 
The Assembly could have gone a number of ways.

  • Labour, who would almost certainly win the first election(under FPTP) consolidate their grip on Scotland and retain power until today.
  • The Tories, who would almost certainly be the main opposition don't decline as per-Otl and actually are the largest party by 1990. Malcolm Rifkind was a leading choice to lead the Tories, especially as he was in charge of their yes campaign. He may have ended up First Secretary.
Thats only a few off the top of my head.

Personally I think Thatcher missed a huge trick after the 1979 GE. There was a slight swing to Labour in Scotland defying the national trend that saw Labour unseat the Tories' arch anti-devolutionist Teddy Taylor in Glasgow Cathcart. In contrast the Tories' arch pro-devolutionist Alick Buchannan-Smith saw his majority in Angus North go through the roof. The lesson of the vote was that Scotland wanted devolution.

If I had been Thatcher I would have put the home rule proposals back to the people, removing the 40% threshold and in order to address the West Lothian Question, in the event of home rule being established, Scotland would have had it's Westminster MP's cut to 40 or less and they would have been barred from voting on England only issues. This would have given Labour a huge dilemma as without Scotland it is very difficult for Labour to be the largest party at Westminster except in the rare occurance of a 1945/1997/2001 style landslide, I could well see who had a large section of the Labour movement in Scotland supported the 1979 referendum calling for a No vote under these circumstances.

As I see it, it would have been a win/win for Thatcher, either the vote is carried and the Tories have a much easier task of holding on to power nationally or it's rejected decisively and Scottish devolution is killed as an issue for a generation. As you say the Tories were still very strong in Scotland in the early 1980's and eventually they would have been able to form a Scottish government most likely as a coalition.
 
Thatcher did miss a trick, The Tories performance and election results bear this out. A now little known fact is that the SNP victory is often incorrectly called as Labours first defeat in Scotland since 1955. The Tories polled more votes in the 1979 European elections than Labour in Scotland.

I agree with some of what you say, but 40 would be far too few. In the devolution bill of the time and indeed the one of 1997, it included cutting the Scottish members from 72-59. This would suffice.

As to the English votes idea, I have gone on record a few times about this but it sucks like a professional whore. In such a scenario, say Labour wins a majority, but the Tories win in England. Would you have a leader of the oppositions questions? It wouldn't work.

You could, I suppose have an English(and Welsh as they voted no to devolution)Grand Committee, where English MPs debate English only matters in say Westminster hall, and in such a place you could have one member elected from the number as English First Secretary, but that is a difficult idea as it splits the power of the Commons, and reduces the post of Prime Minister even further.

This is why I support English devolution!
 
Welcome...

Welcome from me too, Irish Scot.

This has been done in a few books and AH forums and finishes as a rather sour tempered Labour Scotland vs Conservative England. That may be a shade simplistic I feel.

On the assumption Labour would lead the initial devolution Governments and given that the Conservatives would enjoy a healthy majority at Westminster, it seems probable that relations between the two would be at times prickly but at other times more constructive.

It would provide an interesting juxtaposition to the evolution of the main parties in the 1980s and 1990s. Labour became strongly influenced by Scots in the Kinnock era - John Smith being the obvious example and one Gordon Brown worth mentioning. Would the seeming inevitability of Opposition at Westminster make the probability of power at Holyrood seem more attractive? Would Gordon Brown be Finance Minister in a Scottish Government led by Donald Dewar?

The same is true on the Conservative side - what of Michael Forsyth, the combative Scottish Conservative who was Defence Minister under John Major as well as Malcolm Rifkind, the Foreign Secretary?

It seems probable the SNP and Liberals would provide the opposition to Labour in Scotland in the 80s and 90s and could they form a coalition in 1999 by which time Labour under Blair have won power at Westminster?

What then for the Westminster-Holyrood relationship?
 

Thande

Donor
I didn't know about the cutting the Westminster MPs part, that's very interesting.

I tend to think that Thatcher wanted to eliminate any forum but Westminster as it provided a potential place where Labour could get into a governing position and then speak with authority--see also the GLC.

Scotland might also be a place where the Liberal-SDP Alliance could get into power (perhaps as part of a coalition?) and implement voting reform, giving them more credibility earlier on.
 
It would provide an interesting juxtaposition to the evolution of the main parties in the 1980s and 1990s. Labour became strongly influenced by Scots in the Kinnock era - John Smith being the obvious example and one Gordon Brown worth mentioning. Would the seeming inevitability of Opposition at Westminster make the probability of power at Holyrood seem more attractive? Would Gordon Brown be Finance Minister in a Scottish Government led by Donald Dewar?

The same is true on the Conservative side - what of Michael Forsyth, the combative Scottish Conservative who was Defence Minister under John Major as well as Malcolm Rifkind, the Foreign Secretary?

A big reason why Scots such as Smith, Dewar and Robin Cook as well as Welshmen like Kinnock became so dominant in 1980's Labour was because the Party had been so decimated in England at Westminster level. An entire generation of potential English Labour MP's never got elected in the same way that the Tories are to a degree still feeling the effects of the 1997-2005 period on their available talent pool. Had Thatcher only won more modest majorities then Labour would have been less influenced by it's Celtic regions.
 
I tend to think that Thatcher wanted to eliminate any forum but Westminster as it provided a potential place where Labour could get into a governing position and then speak with authority--see also the GLC.

I would see myself as being a natural Liberal Tory but the issue of local government is another area where I believe Thatcher got it badly wrong. Andrew Marr covers this very well in a History of Modern Britain, local government has increasingly been seen as an opportunity for a consequence free protest vote against Whitehall. In the 1980's for many parts of Britain there was genuine anger at government policies but many people didn't want a strongly left wing Labour Party in government nationally. So they voted Labour for their councils, the nature of Labour at this time meant that Red Ken and Degsy Hatton were among the benificaries of this. Their far left platforms were everything Thatcher was aiming to combat and her reaction was to impose rate capping on councils and to reduce their responsibilities. This further enraged people in the cities and so they voted Labour more strongly setting off a vicious cycle that led directly to the Poll Tax.

The supreme irony of this as Marr explains was that for years the Tories had championed strong local government, but under Thatcher they inadvertently concentrated more power at the centre than anyone else. The consequences of that are still hurting the Tories in Northern England and Scotland to this day.
 
The problem is I would like Scotland, in this alternative timeline, to be independent by now and wonder what sort of scenario would make that happen. Great to be a part of such a fantastic forum. :)


I can maybe see Independence at some point but if there's no bad blood in the shape of a war (which would be ASB) I can see Scotland rejoining the UK after the financial meltdown in the late 00's (If they try to pull a Ireland/Iceland in the economic boom) I mean didn’t (I’m not a 100% sure) OTL SNP say they wanted to join the "arc of prosperity of Ireland and Iceland"? and you can’t blame Westminster if you haven't a Westminster?


So Scotland might have to Join the UK or Osborne might be really harsh when it comes to a bailout (don’t get me wrong Scotland leaving the UK is bad for the UK too even if it’s just in terms of soldiers and politicians )
 
I can maybe see Independence at some point but if there's no bad blood in the shape of a war (which would be ASB) I can see Scotland rejoining the UK after the financial meltdown in the late 00's (If they try to pull a Ireland/Iceland in the economic boom) I mean didn’t (I’m not a 100% sure) OTL SNP say they wanted to join the "arc of prosperity of Ireland and Iceland"? and you can’t blame Westminster if you haven't a Westminster?


So Scotland might have to Join the UK or Osborne might be really harsh when it comes to a bailout (don’t get me wrong Scotland leaving the UK is bad for the UK too even if it’s just in terms of soldiers and politicians )
Again, you are looking at matters via the vp of what happened.

Had Scotland left the Union in the seventies, she would have been extremely rich throughout the eighties. UK Government reports of the time indicate this.

You mention the financial crisis, well this affected Scotland in otl more than most as RBS and BoS had grown into super-banks. You must question whether under what I suspect would be the tighter regulation of an independent Scotland problems of the same scale would occur, and even then there would be huge reserves from the oil money to draw on.

Indeed, if anything it would be the other way around. How would Thatcher have coped during her early years with productivity down and far less oil money flowing into the exchequer? I mean to say, whos to say Thatcher even survives the end of the UK? An independent Scotland could have killed Thatcherism stone-dead.

As such, Scotland would probably end up like Norway rather than Iceland due to the oil. How do you think the rest of the UK would have turned out, possibly without the radical-right policies of the eighties? It would be different to say the least.

The more I post, the more I get swayed by the Nats. At least if they achieved their goal, it would end this type of debate. One final question, how many countries have asked Britain to return to the Empire?
 
Last edited:

There is an interesting counter argument that Ive seen discussed on other forums. Britain was spending way beyond it's means by the 1970's as a result of the welfare state and the poor economic performance relative to other major economies that was a feature of the post war years. This resulted in Callaghan having to go to the IMF in 1976, apparently while negotiating this loan, Britain was able to secure relatively terms because of the future revenues of North Sea Oil.

So suppose Scotland breaks away at the same time, assuming Britain still has to go to the IMF then it will place much more onerous terms on it's assistance. How could a Labour Government have implemented such an agenda? I can see Labour splitting apart into a "pragmatic" Callaghan/Healey/Jenkins wing, a sort of proto-SDP and a "purist" Benn/Foot wing. In the short term the government would have fallen and the Tories would have gained power.

Personally I think that NSO saved Britain from having to face some extremely difficult choices in the 1970's, the sort of choices that are being debated right now. Had Scotland been independent then the moment of reckoning would have occurred 35 years ago.
 
It all depends when it would have happened.

I doubt this would have happened, in fact I seriously doubt it but say the SNP did win a majority in a hypothetical first Scottish Assembly election. This would be after Thatcher is PM, assuming she still wins in 1979, albiet she wins later as the SNP would not have brought down the Labour government.

If you give it a year or two, the union would end in 81-82 at the earliest. This was hardly a good time for anyone which is why I have raised questions more on Thatcher than Callaghan. That being said, if it happened under Labour I suspect you may be right.

IF Thatcher survived, she would have had an impossible choice to make. Carry on and risk the country falling apart, risk going for another IMF loan(or as suggested by the paper on Scotland*, go to countries such as Scotland for a loan..they would need to loan money out to help keep the balance of payments down) or cave in.

Btw, don't know if you've read this but here is the Scottish Office report by Gavin McCrone on the prospects of an independent Scotland from 1975. It was only released in 2005 under the official secrets act 30 year rule. link

*See below extract.. In such a scenario, Scotland could potentially save Thatcherism...
it would be essential to try to keep the surpluses on the balance of payments down and thereby reduce the upward pressure on the exchange rate. This could involve extensive lending abroad, whether to England, the EEC or under-developed countries. Such lending could well be in Scotland’s interest rather than face the prospect of an intolerably high exchange rate; it might also do much to help cement relations with other EEC countries and, coupled with the supplies of oil for export, would make Scotland a highly desirable member of EEC with a strong bargaining position​
 
Last edited:
Again, you are looking at matters via the vp of what happened.

Had Scotland left the Union in the seventies, she would have been extremely rich throughout the eighties. UK Government reports of the time indicate this.?


Fair enough I can’t say I know different

You mention the financial crisis, well this affected Scotland in otl more than most as RBS and BoS had grown into super-banks. You must question whether under what I suspect would be the tighter regulation of an independent Scotland problems of the same scale would occur, and even then there would be huge reserves from the oil money to draw on.?

like Ireland ? sorry but the SNP did say they wanted to join the "arc of prosperity of Ireland and Iceland" and with Ireland doing so well I just think they will plus how is Scotland any different from the rest of the world ? Most of the world made the same mistake


Indeed, if anything it would be the other way around. How would Thatcher have coped during her early years with productivity down and far less oil money flowing into the exchequer? I mean to say, whos to say Thatcher even servives the end of the UK? An independent Scotland could have killed Thatcherism stone-dead.?

ok so one good thing comes out of it
but really is the "where both screwed" a pro Independence argument

As such, Scotland would probably end up like Norway rather than Iceland due to the oil..?


Libya's Oil rich so is the USA but they have got BIG problems

How do you think the rest of the UK would have turned out, possibly without the radical-right policies of the eighties? It would be different to say the least.?

Again all good but wont the Right be stronger minus lib/lab/SNP Scotland
if Wales goes the same (and if it does Wales does go I really can only see coming back to the UK post financial crisis their more pro Brit and smaller then Scotland )

NI is a interesting Question I can see after all the others going the London Gov Giving it to the Irish (with the Irish then trying to send it back)

The more I post, the more I get swayed by the Nats. At least if they achieved their goal, it would end this type of debate. One final question, how many countries have asked Britain to return to the Empire?

god I hate this argument.

Scotland is not in any way like the former Territories British Empire,

Firstly when most former Empire Territories left the Empire when a war with Britian was in livening memory or close to livening memory. most Territories had little to no common cutler, language, history, and in some case's Religion (unlike Scotland) with Britain

Second most (unlike Scotland) had no Democracy and where ruled by a Governor from another country.

Third most former colonies have populations in the tens of millions (unlike Scotland) , large land mass and are thousands of miles away from the Home Islands (unlike Scotland which is in the home Islands)

and lastly Scotland is not a former colony it was at the heart of the Empire it really annoys me when you here Salomed saying things like "the Scottish office is the last remnants of the British Raj" one the Raj was only in India and two the Scots have just as much blood on their hands as the English. Burma was even nicknamed "the Scottish colony" it’s was named the British Empire and not the English Empire for a reason.

So the fact that "countries have asked Britain to return to the Empire" has nothing to do with this
 
like Ireland ? sorry but the SNP did say they wanted to join the "arc of prosperity of Ireland and Iceland" and with Ireland doing so well I just think they will plus how is Scotland any different from the rest of the world ? Most of the world made the same mistake
Please read this secret government report for the Scottish Office on the effects of Scottish independence from 1975 before reading the rest of my post. It was released in 2005 under the Official Secrets Act. link

You are using debating points from 21st century SNP rhetoric to make a pre-concieved argument about a Scotland which becomes independent in the late 1970s early 1980s. That was not a line used at the time, but what with your expert knowledge of the SNP and the general Scottish economy, you will know this already. As you will also be aware, Norway would also be on the list.

Scotland would have a hell of a lot in common with Norway. North Sea Oil would have flooded the economy, creating a situation where Scotland would have to loan money out just to stop the chronic balance of payments surplus from harming the Scottish economy. This has never been the case in Ireland. Again, with your knowledge you will know this.

Scotland was also at this point still an industrial nation. Unless a radical Thatcherite government took charge in Scotland, and there would be no need due to the benefits of North Sea Oil, there would be no Scottish wave of privatisations and the big boom which all occured in London in otl. Again you will be aware of this.

As such, you would have a nation which today in all likelyhood still has coal-mines, mills etc. It would be a markedly different place. None of the above stands comparison to Ireland, that is unles Ireland had an oil boom which I never heard of? Well? Aside from both being part of the British Isles, how does the comparison stand up?

Yes, when the crash happens thirty years later Scotland would be affected. It would be stupid to claim otherwise, but it would go into the crash from a markedly different position that it did in the world we are living in.

Without the same de-regulation, the banks whilst being affected would be less so than in the way RBS and HBOS did here. Indeed HBoS would probably still be Halifax and the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland taking over Nat West would have been far less likely.
ok so one good thing comes out of it
but really is the "where both screwed" a pro Independence argument
As the Scottish Office Report I linked above indicated, a Scotland which went independent at that point would be far from screwed. Due to the de-industrialisation and the issues with HBOS/LBG and RBS it is less desirable now, that is not to say it couldn't work after Thatcherism and the crash but it would be more difficult.
Libya's Oil rich so is the USA but they have got BIG problems
So Scotland would end up like Libya. Get a grip. Thats just stupid bullshit. If you want to prove me wrong, name another Northern European country with oil that has turned out that way, not a third-world state with oil. :rolleyes:
Again all good but wont the Right be stronger minus lib/lab/SNP Scotland
if Wales goes the same (and if it does Wales does go I really can only see coming back to the UK post financial crisis their more pro Brit and smaller then Scotland )

NI is a interesting Question I can see after all the others going the London Gov Giving it to the Irish (with the Irish then trying to send it back)
In the past fifty years, the only three elections Scottish votes have swayed were 1964 and the two in 1974. The myth of Tory dominance of England is just that, a myth.

If Thatcher was in office whilst Scotland left the Union, this may topple her as Prime Minister. If it did not, the lack of North Sea Oil to fund her revolution would. That is unless she went to the IMF or even the Scots who would be desperate to loan money out(as explained in Scottish Office doc). It would be entirely possible to see a Labour government emerge in London if Scotland left the Union.
god I hate this argument.

Scotland is not in any way like the former Territories British Empire,

Firstly when most former Empire Territories left the Empire when a war with Britian was in livening memory or close to livening memory. most Territories had little to no common cutler, language, history, and in some case's Religion (unlike Scotland) with Britain

Second most (unlike Scotland) had no Democracy and where ruled by a Governor from another country.

Third most former colonies have populations in the tens of millions (unlike Scotland) , large land mass and are thousands of miles away from the Home Islands (unlike Scotland which is in the home Islands)

and lastly Scotland is not a former colony it was at the heart of the Empire it really annoys me when you here Salomed saying things like "the Scottish office is the last remnants of the British Raj" one the Raj was only in India and two the Scots have just as much blood on their hands as the English. Burma was even nicknamed "the Scottish colony" it’s was named the British Empire and not the English Empire for a reason.

So the fact that "countries have asked Britain to return to the Empire" has nothing to do with this
I do not dispute Scotland would be different from any colony leaving. Scotland leaving would split Britain. There can be no Great Britain without Northern Britain.

That being said, out of all the countries which have split up, be it Slovakia and the Czech Republic, Ireland and the UK, Norway from Sweden, I cant recall many at all coming back. Ending the Union would not be a thing that would be reversed on whim. Once the union is gone, it would be gone.

As I said, today, it is questionable, Scotland may be screwed if it left the Union. In the seventies? It may have been desirable from a Scottish PoV. From a PoV from the rest of the union it would have been worse.
 
Scotland was also at this point still an industrial nation. Unless a radical Thatcherite government took charge in Scotland, and there would be no need due to the benefits of North Sea Oil, there would be no Scottish wave of privatisations and the big boom which all occured in London in otl. Again you will be aware of this..


Thatcher didn’t de-Industrialise for fun


Without the same de-regulation, the banks whilst being affected would be less so than in the way RBS and HBOS did here. Indeed HBoS would probably still be Halifax and the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland taking over Nat West would have been far less likely


I just dont see why this doesnt happen



So Scotland would end up like Libya. Get a grip. Thats just stupid bullshit. If you want to prove me wrong, name another Northern European country with oil that has turned out that way, not a third-world state with oil. :rolleyes:.


I did mention the USA as well. I think bringing Empire into this is “stupid bullshit” but I phased it in a polite way



In the past fifty years, the only three elections Scottish votes have swayed were 1964 and the two in 1974. The myth of Tory dominance of England is just that, a myth..

I didn’t know that but like most people on this form you are more knowledgeable then me so I will take your word for it

If Thatcher was in office whilst Scotland left the Union, this may topple her as Prime Minister. If it did not, the lack of North Sea Oil to fund her revolution would. That is unless she went to the IMF or even the Scots who would be desperate to loan money out(as explained in Scottish Office doc). It would be entirely possible to see a Labour government emerge in London if Scotland left the Union.

yes but this is just going to lead a Tory Goverment later with the same agender

I do not dispute Scotland would be different from any colony leaving. Scotland leaving would split Britain. There can be no Great Britain without Northern Britain.

That being said, out of all the countries which have split up, be it Slovakia and the Czech Republic, Ireland and the UK, Norway from Sweden, I cant recall many at all coming back. Ending the Union would not be a thing that would be reversed on whim. Once the union is gone, it would be gone.


Ireland is a poor comparison due to the number of people that have died and are to a lesser extent still dyeing. I'll admit I know little of the others


As I said, today, it is questionable, Scotland may be screwed if it left the Union. In the seventies? It may have been desirable from a Scottish PoV. From a PoV from the rest of the union it would have been worse.

That’s my point I think Scotland would be Screwed now. If the Scotland Lauded it over the UK when the Tory government post crash (I think there is still a good chance of that) is not going to be nice in its bailout if it gives one. If it does not the EU will have to do it ether way Scotland ends up dependant of someone and I didn’t mean Scotland if Forced to Join the UK out of economic need k just think a Public that is not particularly anti UK might after only 40 years of going it alone want to rejoin the UK
 
Top