Scottish Devolution in 1979

In 1979 Scotland held a referendum on wether or not to pass the Scotland Act 1978 which would of formed a Scottish devolved deliberative assembly, 1,230,937 (51.6%) said "yes" 1,153,500 (48.4%) said "no" how ever it didn't pass because 40% of the electorate over all needed to say "yes" for it to pass (only 63.8% of the electorate even voted) what if that wasn't needed and it had been an up or down vote? what would the UK look like with a Scottish assembly in 1979?
 
If the 1978 Scotland Act had passed and the assembly created it would have certainly become a focus of resistance to Thatcherism in the manner of the Metropolitan County Councils and the GLC. This means that in the mid 1980s 1 of 2 things would probably have happened:

1. It would have been abolished along with the GLC, creating EVEN MORE anti-Tory sentiment in Scotland, even sooner, leading to a total Scottish Conservative melt down by 1987 or 1992 rather than 1997. This would also feed Scottish Nationalism, the SNP would say that Scotland cannot trust Westminster, and that Unionism means being under control of the unaccountable London government that feels free to ignore the wishes of the Scottish people and go back on it's word. Maybe Scotland quits the union before 2011.

2. Thatcher doesn't quite dare to abolish something with strong public support in Scotland on top of the other changes she is inflicting - she backs off. It remains in place as the only large, independent local government structure, and is able to preserve public services in Scotland. People in the North of England are jealous of this, and when Labour comes back in 1997 similar Assemblies are created in Wales, the former Metropolitan counties and Greater London. This is followed by a system of devolution taking in "Shire" England, and the UK evolves into a federal nation similar to Australia or Germany. A smaller house of Commons and a UK Senate are the new federal parliament with distinct Union level powers and responsibility, and the internal contradictions of Asymmetrical Devolution - the West Lothian question - don't arise.
 
1. It would have been abolished along with the GLC, creating EVEN MORE anti-Tory sentiment in Scotland, even sooner, leading to a total Scottish Conservative melt down by 1987 or 1992 rather than 1997. This would also feed Scottish Nationalism, the SNP would say that Scotland cannot trust Westminster, and that Unionism means being under control of the unaccountable London government that feels free to ignore the wishes of the Scottish people and go back on it's word. Maybe Scotland quits the union before 2011.
the Scottish Assembly idea in OTL wasn't overly popular, it passed by 1% and had low voter turn out any ways, while I can see some bitter over it I doubt be enough to get Scotland to jump ship, likely we'd see Labour ride into power in 199_ with there being NO Scottish Tories and make a Scottish Parliament as powerful (or more so) than we got in OTL, Scottish Labour might be stronger longer because "they brought it back" or "Saved Scotland" I can see this really roughing up the Tories, maybe we see them pull out 100% and leave right wing voters with the Scottish Unionist Party


2. Thatcher doesn't quite dare to abolish something with strong public support in Scotland on top of the other changes she is inflicting - she backs off. It remains in place as the only large, independent local government structure, and is able to preserve public services in Scotland. People in the North of England are jealous of this, and when Labour comes back in 1997 similar Assemblies are created in Wales, the former Metropolitan counties and Greater London. This is followed by a system of devolution taking in "Shire" England, and the UK evolves into a federal nation similar to Australia or Germany. A smaller house of Commons and a UK Senate are the new federal parliament with distinct Union level powers and responsibility, and the internal contradictions of Asymmetrical Devolution - the West Lothian question - don't arise.
maybe, or maybe the Scottish Assembly becomes a strong hold of hard-left Labour always trying to bite off more than it can take, the powers of that body under the Scotland Act 1978 were much less than the latter 1998 body so I'm unsure how much public services they can preserve, I can see Thatcher giving them just enough rope to hang themselves and using the always broke and blow hard Scots as a "Look what Labour looks like" for England so when New Labour comes in they ditch the Scottish Assembly as useless and embarrassing
 
option two was really just an excuse to sketch a time-line in which asymmetric devolution doesn't undermine the union, rather than being politically realistic ;)

I can see Thatcher giving them just enough rope to hang themselves and using the always broke and blow hard Scots as a "Look what Labour looks like" for England so when New Labour comes in they ditch the Scottish Assembly as useless and embarrassing

This is possible, but if she did that with Scotland, why not do it with the GLC and Metropolitan counties? I don't think she thought in that strategic way about politics, she'd probably just want to crush them in the same way she crushed the rest of he left-wing enemies.

Plus Scotland was never really much affected by the so called Loony left,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loony_left
there might have been some trouble with the Militant Tendency, but they would probably be have been seen off by "respectable" members of the Labour right, like Gordon Brown - organiser of the Labour Yes campaign.
 
This is possible, but if she did that with Scotland, why not do it with the GLC and Metropolitan counties? I don't think she thought in that strategic way about politics, she'd probably just want to crush them in the same way she crushed the rest of he left-wing enemies.

well No one voted for there to be a GLC or the Metropolitan counties, Parliament give it and Parliament take it away so to speak, plus Ken Livingstone was being a right royal twat right across the street (river) from Thatcher's door, maybe Thatcher feels that Scotland is enough outside the belt-way that their little stands against her aren't important, plus I'm unsure if a body brought into being by a referendum can be washed away by Prime Minster's hand waving (maybe it can, but is that a fight Thatcher cares about?)


but they would probably be have been seen off by "respectable" members of the Labour right, like Gordon Brown - organiser of the Labour Yes campaign.

I can see Brown become the Scottish First Minster (or whatever) in the 1990s, and that not being helpful to Labour in any way given how people tend to feel about Mr. Brown...
 
It makes much more sense IMO for a devolved Assembly in Edinburgh to result in similar assemblies being established for Wales, England, and Northern Ireland. Britain is not thereafter a federal state, but one where the component parts are pretty symmetrically devolved.
 
Last edited:
You're all forgetting two things:

- Firstly a Scottish Assembly would have been voted for by the Scottish people. It would have a democratic mandate that the GLC and Metropolitan counties never had. Thatcher wouldn't dare abolish and she probably wouldn't even consider it - she wasn't stupid or overly ideological.

- Secondly the proposed Assembly actually had few powers compared to the current Scottish Parliament, so how it would be able to effectively resist or halt Thatcher's reforms north of the border is rather unclear.
 
Agreed - abolishing or suspending a local authority is quite different from a national assembly. Now another way of doing it would be if the Assembly was Tory controlled (unlikely!) and it assisted Thatcher in neutering or abolishing itself.

This is how the Tories in NZ got rid of our Upper House - two successive groups, labelled the "Suicide Squad" were appointed with that specific goal, with the first failing or reneging (iirc - this was in the early 1950s)
 

Thande

Donor
If the 1978 Scotland Act had passed and the assembly created it would have certainly become a focus of resistance to Thatcherism in the manner of the Metropolitan County Councils and the GLC.

I agree with this view. I think the second of your scenarios is more plausible.

Bear in mind that the proposed Scottish Assembly was based on FPTP rather than the current Scottish Parliament's AV+ system, so basically its composition would be much like the Scottish seats in the House of Commons, which in 1979 still had a lot of Tories (see below). Also a consequence of the Scottish Assembly being implemented, IIRC, would be the number of Scottish Westminster seats being cut--the ramifications of which can be debated.

1979_UK_Election_Map.png
 
You're all forgetting two things:

- Firstly a Scottish Assembly would have been voted for by the Scottish people. It would have a democratic mandate that the GLC and Metropolitan counties never had. Thatcher wouldn't dare abolish and she probably wouldn't even consider it - she wasn't stupid or overly ideological.

- Secondly the proposed Assembly actually had few powers compared to the current Scottish Parliament, so how it would be able to effectively resist or halt Thatcher's reforms north of the border is rather unclear.

Yes.

Another thing to point out is that the Assembly is unlikely to be associated with the problems Labour had in local government in the 1980s - militant, etc never really made any headway in the SLP which was, and indeed still is, a pretty conservative outfit. That doesn't mean you wouldn't have vanilla Scottish Labour mavericks of the Willie Hamilton variety, but Labour in Scotland going along the route of Liverpool or Coventry is unlikely.

I think, though, that while not being able to offer a counter-revolution north of the border, the Assembly would inevitably be a platform for Labour to oppose what was going on, and offer an alternative vision. With that and the weakness of the Assembly in mind, it won't be long before Labour begin calling for more powers.
 
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the poll tax yet - I don't know if the proposed assembly had formal responsibility for local government finance, but presumably with it in place Mrs T is much less likely to roll it out in Scotland first. Ironically, it would almost certainly help the Conservatives in the medium to long term if the assembly is able to block it being trialled in Scotland.
 
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the poll tax yet - I don't know if the proposed assembly had formal responsibility for local government finance, but presumably with it in place Mrs T is much less likely to roll it out in Scotland first. Ironically, it would almost certainly help the Conservatives in the medium to long term if the assembly is able to block it being trialled in Scotland.

The great irony of that episode is that it was the Scottish Tories who pleaded with Thatcher to introduce it in Scotland first.
 
In any case the facts don't stack up for the view that it was 'tested' in Scotland first. The poll tax was rolled out in England and Wales a year after its introduction in Scotland. That's not enough time to make any changes - by the time the overseers of the pilot scheme would be ready to recommend any alterations to the tax it would be up and running. And of course the preparations for implementing the poll tax south of the border would be well-advanced by the time it was actually introduced in Scotland.

The existence of a Scottish Assembly would almost certainly increase pressure upon the government to do something about local government finance as there would be a focus for those middle class Scots who were screaming about rate re-evaluation in the mid-80s (who were of course the reason why the poll tax was introduced in Scotland first).
 
Top