THE UNIVERSITY of EDINBURGH

Social and Political Science

COMPARING

SCOTTISH

DEVOLUTION

PLIT 11080

2014/15 Honours Option

Course Guide

Semester Two

Course Convenor:

Dr Alan Convery

2

1. Introduction

Comparing Scottish Devolution is a Politics and International Relations Honours

course that aims to place Scottish devolution in a comparative context. We will

analyse in depth the government of Scotland within the United Kingdom. With this

knowledge we will then consider its place among the other sub-state regions of the

world and theories about decentralisation and federalism.

This course guide must be read in conjunction with the Honours Handbook, which

contains essential information about how to submit your essay and the procedure for

requesting a late penalty waver. It is available here:

http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/161973/Politics_Honours_Hand

book_2014-15_V2.pdf

Questions about the course should be addressed in the first instance to the course

convenor, Dr Alan Convery: Room 4.03, School of Social and Political Science,

Chrystal Macmillan Building; Tel: 0131 650 8255; email: alan.convery@ed.ac.uk;

office hours (semester two): Mondays, 1-3pm. If these times are not convenient,

please email to make an appointment.

2. Learning Outcomes

By the end of the course, students should be able to:

understand the meaning of different forms of territorial governance, especially

devolution, federalism, multi-level governance, regionalism and nationalism;

critically appraise competing theoretical perspectives and empirical analyses on

the development of regionalism and multi-level government in Scotland and other

comparative cases;

place Scottish devolution in a comparative perspective, and draw comparisons and

contrasts with devolution across the UK, and with other forms of territorial

government in other multi-level and multi-national states;

effectively apply the comparative method;

and develop research, analytical and presentation skills, through guided research

in preparation for assessment and tutorial presentations.

3. Course Structure

This course adopts a lecture-tutorial format. Lectures are on Mondays, 15:10-17:00,

in 7 Bristo Square, Lecture Theatre 1. The first lecture is on Monday 12 January.

Tutorials are on Fridays:

Tutorial 1: Friday, 10:00-10:50, Dugald Stewart Building – 3.11 David Hume Room

Tutorial 2: Friday, 11:10-12:00, Medical School – Room 203 Biomedical Seminar

Room 2 – Doorway 3

Tutorial 3: Friday, 15:10-16:00, Dugald Stewart Building – 3.11 David Hume Room

Students should sign up for a tutorial group via the course Learn page during week

one. Tutorials begin in week two on Friday 23 January.

3

4. Tutorial Format

All students are expected to participate in tutorial discussions and take part in group

presentations. In the first tutorial (week two), students will be divided in groups of

three or four and will remain in these groups throughout the semester. Each group will

lead two tutorial discussions, including delivering a 15-minute Powerpoint

presentation (see annex 1). Tutorial participation will be assessed and count

towards 15 per cent of your final mark.

5. Course Material: Course Guide and Learn

This course guide is your first source of information. It provides a list of core, tutorial,

and further readings. Most of the core or tutorial readings can be accessed as e-

journals or e-publications. We will make some tutorial readings available on Learn.

Book chapters or books can be found in the Library (the most important books are on

reserve). Lecture slides will be made available on Learn on the day of the lecture.

6. Course Assessment This course has three components of assessment:

One 2,500 word essay (50% of the mark)

One 1,500 word research briefing paper (35% of the mark)

Tutorial participation (15% of the mark)

DEADLINES:

Research briefing paper deadline: Monday 2 March, 12 noon

Essay deadline: Monday 30 March, 12 noon

All coursework will be marked and returned to students within three working weeks

of the submission deadline. Feedback will be provided for all assessed work. All

marks are provisional until confirmed by the Exam Board, which meets in early June

2015. Topics and guidance for the research briefing paper and the essay are

listed in annexes 2 and 3 of this document.

7. Coursework Submission

Please see the Honours Handbook for information on submission of coursework; late

penalty waivers; plagiarism; learning disabilities, special circumstances; common

marking descriptors, re-marking procedures and appeals.

8. General Readings

There is no set textbook for this course. For those students who are unfamiliar with

Scottish politics, an excellent place to start is Cairney and McGarvey’s (2013)

Scottish Politics. This is the most up-to-date textbook about government in Scotland.

For a more in-depth view of the evolution of Scottish government in the twentieth

century, try Mitchell’s (2014) The Scottish Question. The best single-volume history

of Scotland is still Devine (2012), The Scottish Nation: A Modern History. The

definitive statement on Britishness is Colley (2009), Britons: Forging the Nation,

1707-1837. Kidd’s (2008) Union and Unionisms is a superb study of the shifting

meaning and significance of the Union in Scottish political thought.

On federalism, you might begin with Hueglin and Fenna’s (2005) Comparative

Federalism: A Systematic Inquiry or Loughlin et al. (eds.) (2013) The Routledge

Handbook of Federalism and Regionalism. Bednar’s (2011) ‘The Political Science of

4

Federalism’ in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science (pp.269-288) is also a

useful starting point. To examine Scotland’s place among other stateless nations, the

standard work is Keating (2004), Plurinational Democracy: Stateless Nations in a

Post-Sovereignty Era. See also Keating (2009), The Independence of Scotland (which

would also serve as an excellent introduction to the course).

For a detailed overview of how devolution in the UK developed, try Mitchell (2009)

Devolution in the United Kingdom. Bogdanor’s (1999) Devolution in the United

Kingdom is dated but still useful. The best single-volume introduction to the British

constitution is King (2007), The British Constitution.

5

Course Overview

Week Date Lecture (Monday) Tutorial (Thursday)

1 12/01 Introduction: Scottish devolution

in comparative perspective (AC)

No tutorial this week. Please

sign up for a tutorial via

Learn.

2 19/01 Devolution, federalism and

confederation: Scotland’s

constitutional settlement in

comparative perspective (AC)

Introduction and discussion:

how does UK devolution differ

from federalism?

3 26/01 Intergovernmental relations in

multi-level states (AC)

How well have the UK and

Scottish governments handled

intergovernmental relations?

4 02/02 The politics of territorial finance

(AC)

What should Scotland and the

UK learn from fiscal federalism

in other multi-level states?

5 09/02 Devolution in the rest of the UK:

Wales (AC)

Why does Welsh devolution

differ from Scottish

devolution?

16/02

Innovative Learning Week: no classes

6 23/02

Multi-level elections and voting

behaviour (AH)

Are Scottish Parliament

elections second order?

Research Briefing Paper due: Monday 2 March, 12 noon

7 02/03 Scotland and Quebec (AH) Is Scottish national identity

similar to Quebecois national

identity?

8 09/03 Political parties in multi-level

states (AC)

What are the best strategies for

Scotland’s statewide parties in

dealing with multi-level

politics?

9 16/03 Social citizenship and the

territorial politics of welfare

(AC)

Has devolution undermined the

UK welfare state?

10 23/03 Independence, interdependence

and the future of Scotland (AC)

Did the SNP’s plans for

independence imply swapping

one form of interdependence

for another?

Essay due: Monday 30 March, 12 noon

6

Monday 12 January

Lecture 1: Introduction to Scottish devolution in comparative perspective

This lecture will provide an overview of course learning outcomes and administration,

and clarify the key concepts at the centre of an analysis of Scottish devolution in

comparative perspective. Scottish devolution is not unique, but it is interesting. How

did Scotland get here?

Core Reading

Gamble, A. (2006) ‘The Constitutional Revolution in the United Kingdom’, Publius:

the Journal of Federalism, 36(1): 19-35.

Keating, M (2008) ‘Thirty Years of Territorial Politics’, West European Politics 31(1-

2): 60-81.

Mitchell, J. (2006) ‘Evolution, and Devolution: Citizenship, Institutions, and Public

Policy’, Publius 36(1): 153-168.

Keating, M. (2012) ‘Rethinking Sovereignty: Independence Lite, Devolution Max and

National Accommodation’, Revista d’Estudis Autonomics i Federals 16(1): 9-29.

Available at

http://aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstream/2164/2991/1/_reaf16_Keating_copy.pdf

Further Reading

Bogdanor, V. (1999) Devolution in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Cairney, P. and McGarvey, N. (2013) Scottish Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave

MacMillan (chapter two).

Erk, J, and Koning, E. (2010) ‘New Structuralism and Institutional Change:

Federalism between Centralization and Decentralization’, Comparative Political

Studies 43(3): 353-78

Erk, J. (2008) Explaining Federalism: State, Society and Congruence in Austria,

Belgium, Canada, Germany and Swtizerland. London: Routledge.

Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2003) ‘Unravelling the Central State, but How? Types of

Multi-Level Governance’, American Political Science Review 97(2).

Jeffery, C. (2008) ‘The Challenge of Territorial Politics’, Policy and Politics, 36(4):

545-57.

Kidd, C. (2008) Union and Unionisms: Political Thought in Scotland, 1500-2000.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marks, G., Hooghe, L. and Schakel, A. (2008) ‘Patterns of Regional Authority’,

Regional and Federal Studies 18 (2-3): 167-182.

Mitchell, J. (2009) Devolution in the United Kingdom. Manchester: Manchester

University Press.

Rodden, J. (2004) ‘Comparative Federalism and Decentralization: On Meaning and

Measurement’, Comparative Politics 36: 481-500.

Swenden W. (2006) Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe. A Comparative

and Thematic Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (chapter 1).

Swenden, W. (2010) ‘Beyond UK Exceptionalism? Comparing Strategies for

Territorial Management’ in Stolz, K. (ed.) (2010) Ten Years of Devolutuion in the

United Kingdom: Snapshots at a Moving Target. Augsburg: Wißner Verlag.

7

Monday 19 January

Lecture 2: Devolution, federalism and confederation: Scotland’s constitutional

settlement in comparative perspective

What is Scotland’s constitutional power when placed in a comparative perspective? Is

Scotland more or less powerful than other sub-state units of other multi-level states?

The lecture discusses various dimensions (self-rule, shared rule) to assess the

competencies of Scotland and the other devolved territories in the UK. Why is the UK

not federal and, if it were, would it make a difference?

Core Reading

Thorlakson, L. (2003) ‘Comparing Federal Institutions: Power and Representation in

Six Federations’, West European Politics 26(2): 1-22.

Marks, G. Hooghe, L. and Schakel, A. (2007), ‘Patterns of Regional Authority’,

Regional and Federal Studies 18(2-3): 111-122.

Tierney, S. (2009) ‘Federalism in a Unitary State: A Paradox Too Far?’, Regional and

Federal Studies 19(2): 237-253.

Jeffery, C. and Wincott, D. (2006) ‘Devolution in the United Kingdom. Statehood and

Citizenship in Transition’, Publius 36(1): 19-35.

Further Reading

Anderson, G. (2008) Federalism: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bogdanor, V. (2009) The New British Constitution. Oxford: Hart Publishers.

Bradbury, J. (2006) ‘Territory and Power Revisited: Theorising Territorial Politics in

the United Kingdom after Devolution’, Political Studies 54(2): 559-582.

Bulpitt, J. (1983) Territory and Power in the United Kingdom. Manchester:

Manchester University Press.

Burgess, M. (2006), ‘The Comparative Study of Federal Political Institutions’ in

Burgess, Michael, Comparative Federalism. Theory and Practice. London:

Routledge.

Keating, M. (2009) ‘Constitutional Futures: State and Nation in the Twenty-First

Century’ in Keating, M., The Independence of Scotland. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

King A. (2007) The British Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press (chapter 8).

Melding, D. (2013) The Reformed Union: The UK as a Federation. Cardiff: Institute

of Welsh Affairs. Available at http://www.clickonwales.org/2012/02/the-reformed-

union-a-british-federation/

Mitchell, J. (2007) ‘The United Kingdom as a State of Unions: Unity of Government,

Equality of Political Rights and Diversity of Institutions’, in Trench, A. (ed.),

Devolution and Power. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Mitchell, J. (2014) The Scottish Question. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swenden, W. (2006) Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe: A Comparative

and Thematic Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave, Macmillan (chapter 3).

Watts, R. L. (2007) ‘The United Kingdom as a Federalised or Regionalised Union’,

in Trench, A. (ed.), Devolution and Power. Manchester: Manchester University

Press.

8

Monday 26 January

Lecture 3: Intergovernmental relations in multi-level states

What are intergovernmental relations and what are they for? What makes UK

intergovernmental relations peculiar when they are placed in a comparative

perspective? What has been the effect of party incongruence between the central and

devolved governments on the character and formalization of intergovernmental

relations?

Core Reading

Bolleyer, N. (2006) ‘Intergovernmental Arrangements in Spanish and Swiss

Federalism: the impact of Power-Concentrating and Power-Sharing Executives on

Intergovernmental Institutionalization’, Regional & Federal Studies, 16, 4, 385-40

Cairney, Paul (2007) 'Using Devolution to Set the Agenda? Venue Shift and the

Smoking Ban in Scotland', British Journal of Politics and International Relations,

9(1): 73-89.

McEwen, N., Swenden, W. and Bolleyer, N. (2012) ‘Intergovernmental Relations in

the UK: Continuity in a time of Change?’ in McEwen, N., Swenden, W. and

Bolleyer, N. (eds.) ‘Governments in Opposition? Intergovernmental Relations in

the UK in a Context of Party Political Incongruence’, British Journal of Politics

and International Relations 14(2): 323-342.

Further Reading Agranoff, R. (2004) ‘Autonomy, Devolution and Intergovernmental Relations’,

Regional and Federal Studies 14(1): 26-65.

Bolleyer, N. (2009) Intergovernmental Cooperation: Rational Choices in Federal

Systems and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bolleyer, N. (2006) ‘Federal Dynamics in Canada, the United States and Switzerland:

How Sub-states’ Internal Organization Affects Intergovernmental Relations',

Publius 36(4): 1-32.

Cairney, P. (2011) The Scottish Political System Since Devolution: From New Politics

to New Scottish Government. Exeter: Imprint Academic (chapter 5).

Horgan, G. (2004) ‘Inter-institutional Relations in the Devolved Great Britain: Quiet

Diplomacy’, Regional and Federal Studies 14(1): 113-135.

Hanf, K. and Toonen, T.A.J. (1985) Policy Implementation in Federal and Unitary

Systems. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

Swenden, W (2010) ‘Subnational Participation in National Decisions: The Role Of

Second Chambers’ in Enderlein H., Wälti, S. and M. Zürn, eds. Handbook on

Multi-Level Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Trench, A. (2006) ‘Intergovernmental Relations: In Search of a Theory’ in Greer, S.L.

(ed.) Territory, Democracy and Justice. Regionalism and Federalism in Western

Democracies. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Trench, A. (2007) ‘Washing Dirty Linen in Private: The Processes of

Intergovernmental Relations and the Resolution of Disputes, in Trench, A. (ed.)

Devolution and Power. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Trench, A. (2014) Intergovernmental Relations and Better Devolution. UK’s

Changing Union Project, Cardiff University. Available at

http://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/wgc/files/2014/12/INTERGOVERNMENTAL-

RELATIONS-AND-BETTER-DEVOLUTION-FINAL-Dec-2014.pdf

9

Wright Deil S (1982) Understanding Intergovernmental Relations. Monterrey, CA:

Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Weissert, C S., Stenberg, C.W. and Cole, R.L. (2009) ‘Continuity and Change: A

Ranking of Key Issues Affecting U.S. Intergovernmental Relations (1995–2005)’,

Publius 39(4): 677-695.

10

Monday 2 February

Lecture 4: The politics of territorial finance

Where does the Scottish Government get its financial resources from? To what extent

is the mechanism for funding Scotland unusual when it is compared with other federal

or multi-level polities? How is political autonomy affected by the level of fiscal

autonomy? What are the costs and benefits of extending fiscal autonomy, and the

possible consequences for sub-state policy-making and inter-regional territorial

integration?

Core Reading

Hankla, C.R. (2009) ‘When Is Fiscal Decentralization Good for Governance?’,

Publius 39(4): 632-650.

Midwinter, A. (2012) ‘Fiscal Autonomy in Scotland: An Assessment and Critique’,

Public Money and Management 32(1): 49-52.

Swenden, W. (2006) Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe. A Comparative

and Thematic Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave (chapter 4).

Trench, A. (2013) Funding Devo More: Fiscal Options for Strengthening the Union.

IPPR. Available at

http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2013/01/funding-devo-

more_Jan2013_10210.pdf

Further Reading

Ahmad E. and Craig J. (1997) ‘Intergovernmental Transfers’, in Ter-Minassian T.

(ed.) Fiscal Federalism in Theory and Practice. Washington, DC: IMF.

Boadway R. and Shah, A. (eds.) (2007) Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers:

Principles and Practice. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Braun, D. (2002) Fiscal Policies and Federal States. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Braun, D. (2009) ‘Making Fiscal Federalism Self-enforcing: Germany, Australia and

Switzerland Compared’ in Erk J. and Swenden, W. (eds.) New Directions in

Federalism Studies. London: Routledge.

Deschouwer, K. and Verdonck, M (2003) ‘Patterns and Principles of Fiscal

Equalisation in Belgium’, Regional and Federal Studies 13(4): 91-110.

Heald, D. and McLeod, A. (2003) ‘Revenue-raising by UK Devolved Administrations

in the Context of an Expenditure-based Financing System,’ Regional and Federal

Studies 13(4): 67-90.

HM Treasury (2014) Scotland Analysis: Fiscal Policy and Sustainability. Available at

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314

359/Scotland_analysis__Fiscal_policy_and_sustainability.pdf

Holtham Commission (2009) Funding Devolved Government in Wales: Barnett and

Beyond. Available at

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/icffw/report/090708barnettfullen.pdf

House of Lords (2009) Report of the Select Committee on the Barnett Formula. HL

Paper 139. Available at

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/139.pdf

Jeffery, C. (2003) ‘Cycles of Conflict: Fiscal Equalisation in Germany’, Regional and

Federal Studies 13(4): 22-40.

LE Wales (2009) The Use of Needs-Based Formulae in the Allocation of Public

Resources: Literature Review. Available at

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/icffw/report/090708barnettformulaen.pdf

11

McLean, I. and McMillan, A. (2003) ‘The Distribution of Public Expenditure Across

the UK Regions’, Fiscal Studies 24(1): 45-71.

Midwinter, A. F. (2004) ‘The Changing Distribution of Territorial Public Expenditure

in the UK’, Regional and Federal Studies 14(4): 499-512.

Mitchell, J. (2003) ‘Spectators and Audiences: The Politics of UK Territorial Finance’,

Regional and Federal Studies 13(4): 7-21.

Quebec Commission on Fiscal Imbalance (2001) Intergovernmental Fiscal

Arrangements. Germany, Australia, Belgium, Spain, United States and Switzerland.

Available at:

http://www.desequilibrefiscal.gouv.qc.ca/en/pdf/internationnal_ang.pdf

Rodden, J. (2002) ‘The Dilemma of Fiscal Federalism: Grants and Fiscal Performance

around the World’, American Journal of Political Science 46(3): 670-687.

Rodden, J. (2006) ‘Promise and Peril’ in Rodden, J. Hamilton’s Paradox. The

Promise and Peril of Fiscal Federalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tiebout, C. (1956), ‘A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures’, Journal of Political

Economy 64: 416-24.

12

Monday 9 February

Lecture 5: Devolution in the rest of the UK: Wales

Devolution in the UK is radically asymmetrical: whilst there has been devolution to

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there has been no equivalent process for the

regions of England outside London. How does Scottish devolution compare to

devolution in Wales? How do the arrangements for the other devolved parts of the

UK affect Scotland? Why is the English Question becoming increasingly important?

Core Reading

Laffin, M. and Thomas, A. (2003) ‘Designing the National Assembly for Wales’,

Parliamentary Affairs, 53: 557-76.

Scully, R. and Wyn Jones, R. (2013) ‘The Public Legitimacy of the National

Assembly for Wales’, Paper Presented to PSA Annual Conference. Available at

http://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/1_1_0.pdf

Bowers, P. (2011) ‘Referendum in Wales’, House of Commons Library Standard

Note SN/PC/05897. Available at http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-

papers/SN05897/referendum-in-wales

McAllister, L. and Stirbu, D. (2008) ‘Influence, Impact and Legacy: Assessing the

Richard Commission's Contribution to Wales's Evolving Constitution’,

Representation 44(3): 209-224.

Further Reading

Aughey, A. (2011) ‘The Con-Lib Coalition Agenda for Scotland, Wales and Northern

Ireland’ in Lee, S. and Beech, M. (eds.) The Cameron-Clegg Government:

Coalition Politics in an Age of Austerity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Commission on Devolution in Wales (2012) Empowerment and Responsibility:

Financial Powers to Strengthen Wales. Available at:

http://commissionondevolutioninwales.independent.gov.uk/files/2013/01/Englis

h-WEB-main-report1.pdf

Commission on Devolution in Wales (2014) Empowerment and Responsibility:

Legislative Powers to Strengthen Wales. Available at

http://commissionondevolutioninwales.independent.gov.uk/files/2014/03/Empo

werment-Responsibility-Legislative-Powers-to-strengthen-Wales.pdf

Convery, A. (2014) ‘Welsh Conservatism: The Unexpected Evolution’, British

Politics Review 9(4): 10-11.

Hazell, R. (2006) ‘Introduction: What Is The English Question?’ in Hazell, R. (ed.)

The English Question. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

McAllister, L (2012) ‘The 2011 Welsh General Election: An Analysis of the Latest

Staging Post in the Maturing of Welsh Politics’, Parliamentary Affairs 65(3).

McAllister, L. (1998) ‘The Welsh Devolution Referendum: Definitely Maybe?’,

Parliamentary Affairs 51(2): 149-165.

Melding, D. (2009) Will Britain Survive Beyond 2020? Cardiff: Institute of Welsh

Affairs.

Melding, D. (2013) The Reformed Union: The UK as a Federation. Cardiff: Institute

of Welsh Affairs. Available at http://www.clickonwales.org/2012/02/the-

reformed-union-a-british-federation/

Randall, N. and Seawright, D. (2012) ‘Territorial Politics’ in Heppell, T. and

Seawright, D. (eds.) Cameron and the Conservatives: The Transition to

Coalition Government. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

13

Richard Commission (2004) Report of the Commission on the Powers and Electoral

Arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales. Available at

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-

files/Politics/documents/2004/03/31/richard_commission.pdf

Scully, R. and Wyn Jones, R. (2011) ‘Territorial Politics in Post-Devolution Britain’,

in Heffernan, R., Hay, C. and Cowley, P. (eds) Developments in British Politics

9. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shipton, M. (2011) Poor Man’s Parliament: Ten Years of the Welsh Assembly.

Bridgend: Seren.

Wyn Jones, R. and Scully, R. (2012) Wales Says Yes: Devolution and the 2011 Welsh

Referendum. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

14

Monday 23 February

Lecture 6: Multi-level elections and voting behaviour (AH)

Why is turnout usually higher in state-wide than in regional or devolved elections?

Are devolved and regional elections second order? How do national and sub-national

elections relate to each other in other multi-level polities in Europe and beyond? What

impact does voting for stateless nationalist and regionalist parties have on electoral

competition and outcomes? This lecture will be given by Professor Ailsa Henderson.

Core Reading

Christopher Carman, Robert Johns and James Mitchell (2013) More Scottish than

British: the 2011 Scottish Parliament Election. Palgrave. Chapter 5: How

Scottish Was this Election? (uploaded on Learn).

Ailsa Henderson and Nicola McEwen (2010) ‘A Comparative Analysis of Voter

Turnout in Regional Elections’, Electoral Studies 29(3): 405-16

Karlheinz Reif and H Schmitt (1980) ‘Nine second order national elections: a

conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results’, European

Journal of Political Research 8: 3-44.

Richard Wyn Jones and Roger Scully (2006) ‘Devolution and electoral politics in

Scotland and Wales’, Publius 36(1): 115-34.

Further Reading

Robert Johns, James Mitchell, David Denver and Charles Pattie (2009) “Valence

Politics in Scotland: Towards an Explanation of the 2007 Election”, Political

Studies 57(1): 207-33

Robert Johns, James Mitchell, David Denver and Charles Pattie (2010) Voting for a

Scottish Government: The Scottish Parliament Election of 2007. Manchester

University Press

RJ Johnston and CJ Pattie (2002) ‘Campaigning and split-ticket voting in new

electoral systems: the first MMP elections in New Zealand, Scotland and Wales’

Electoral Studies.

Alberto Alesina and Howard Rosenthal (1996) ‘A Theory of Divided Government’,

Econometrica 64: 1311–41.

Cliff Carrubba and Richard J Timpone (2005) ‘Explaining Vote Switching Across

First- and Second-Order Elections: Evidence From Europe’, Comparative

Political Studies 38(3): 260-81

Arjan Schakel (2013) ‘Congruence between regional and national elections’,

Comparative Political Studies.

Charlie Jeffery and Dan Hough ‘Regional Elections in Multi-Level Systems’,

European Urban and Regional Studies 10(3): 199-212.

Francesc Pallarés and Michael Keating (2003) ‘Multi-Level Electoral Competition:

Regional Elections and Party Systems in Spain’, European Urban and Regional

Studies 10(3): 239-55.

Jeffery, C. and Hough, D. (2009) ‘Understanding Post-Devolution Elections in

Scotland and Wales in Comparative Perspective’, Party Politics 15(2): 219-240.

15

Monday 2 March

Lecture 7: Scotland and Quebec

In what ways have scholars tried to compare Scotland and Quebec? How does

national identity in Quebec compare with Scotland? Are Scotland and Quebec

‘stateless nations’? This lecture will be given by Professor Ailsa Henderson.

Core Reading

Ailsa Henderson (2007) Hierarchies of Belonging: National Identity and Political

Culture in Scotland and Quebec. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

chapter 3: The Political Use of National Identity

chapter 4: Measuring National Identity

Plus any two of:

Eve Hepburn (2010) ‘Small worlds in Canada and Europe: A comparison of regional

party systems in Quebec, Bavaria and Scotland’, Regional and Federal Studies

20(4/5)

Michael Keating (2001) Nations Against the State: The New Politics of Nationalism

in Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland (2nd

ed.), Chapter 3: The New Territorial

Politics, pp.48-76.

Nicola McEwen (2005) ‘The territorial politics of social policy development in multi-

level states’, Regional and Federal Studies 15(4): 537-54.

Stephen Tierney (2005) ‘Reframing Sovereignty: Sub-State National Societies and

Contemporary Challenges to the Nation-State’, International and Comparative

Law Quarterly 54 (Jan) 161-83.

Further Reading

Matthew Mendelsohn (2007) ‘Measuring national identity and patterns of attachment:

Quebec and nationalist mobilization’, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 8(3): 72-

94.

Montserrat Guibernau (2006) ‘National identity, devolution and secession in Canada,

Britain and Spain’, Nations and Nationalism 12(1): 51-76.

Ailsa Henderson and Nicola McEwen (2005) ‘Do shared values underpin national

identity? Examining the role of values in national identity in Canada and the

United Kingdom’ National Identities.

Enric Martinez-Herrera (2002) ‘From nation-building to building identification with

political communities: Consequences of political decentralisation in Spain, the

Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia, 1978-2001’, European Journal of

Political Research 41(4): 421-53.

Michael Keating (1997) ‘Stateless nation-building: Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland in

the changing state system’, Nations and Nationalism.

Nicola McEwen (2006) Nationalism and the State: welfare and identity in Scotland

and Quebec. Edward Elgar Press.

David Criekemans (2010) ‘Regional sub-state diplomacy from a comparative

perspective: Quebec, Scotland, Bavaria, Catalonia, Wallonia and Flanders’,

Special Issue of the Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol 5.

Stephen Tierney (2004) Constitutional Law and National Pluralism. Oxford

University Press.

16

Monday 9 March

Lecture 8: Political parties in multi-level states

How have parties adapted their organisation, campaigns and policies after devolution?

What has been the role of autonomist parties in devolution? To what extent can we

compare the multi-level organisation and strategies of parties in Scotland with parties

in other multi-level polities?

Core Reading

Convery, A. (2014) ‘The 2011 Scottish Conservative Party Leadership Election:

Dilemmas for Statewide Parties in Regional Contexts’, Parliamentary Affairs

67(2): 306-327.

Elias, A. and Tronconi, F. (2011) ‘From Protest to Power: Autonomist Parties in

Government’, Party Politics 17(4): 505-524.

Hopkin, J. (2009) ‘Party Matters: Devolution and Party Politics in Britain and Spain’,

Party Politics 15: 179-198.

Roller, E and Van Houten, P. (2003) ‘A National Party in a Regional Party System:

The PSC-PSOE in Catalonia’, Regional and Federal Studies 13(1): 1-22.

Further Reading

De Winter, L. and Türsan, H. (1998) Regionalist Parties in Western Europe. London:

Routledge (in particular: chapters 1, 2 and 13).

Deschouwer, K. (2003) ‘Political Parties in Multi-Layered Systems’, European

Urban and Regional Studies 10: 213-226.

Deschouwer, K. (2005) ‘Political Parties as Multi-Level Organizations’ in Katz, R.S.

and Crotty, W. (eds.) Handbook of Party Politics. London: Sage.

Detterbeck, K. (2012), Multi-level Party Politics in Western Europe. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Detterbeck, K. and Hepburn, E. (2010) ‘Party Politics in Multi-level Systems: Party

Responses to New Challenges in European Democracies’ in Erk, J. and Swenden,

W. (eds.) New Directions in Federalism Studies. London: Routledge (uploaded on

Learn).

Fabre, E. (2008) ‘Party Organisation in a Multi-level System: Party Organisational

Change in Spain and the UK’, Regional and Federal Studies, 18(4): 309-329.

Fabre, E. and Swenden, W. (2013) ‘Territorial Politics and the Statewide Party’,

Regional Studies 47(3): 342-355.

Hepburn, E. (2009) ‘Introduction: Re-conceptualizing Sub-state Mobilization’

Regional and Federal Studies 19(4–5): 477–499 (see also other articles in this

special issue).

Hough, D. and Jeffery, C. (eds.) (2006) Devolution and Electoral Politics.

Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Laffin, M., Shaw, E. and Taylor G. (2007) ‘The New Sub-National Politics of the

British Labour Party’, Party Politics 13: 88-108.

Mitchell, J. and Convery, A. (2012) ‘Conservative Unionism: Prisoned in Marble’ in

Torrance, D. (ed.) Whatever Happened to Tory Scotland? Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

Montero, A.P. (2005) ‘The Politics of Decentralization in a Centralized Party System:

The Case of Democratic Spain’, Comparative Politics 38(1): 63-82.

Swenden, W. and Maddens, B. (eds.) (2009) Territorial Party Politics in Western

Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

17

Thorlakson, L. (2009) ‘Patterns of Party Integration, Influence and Autonomy in

Seven Federations’, Party Politics 15(2): 157-177.

Toubeau, S. and Wagner, M. (2013) ‘Explaining Party Positions on Decentralization’,

British Journal of Political Science, FirstView, 28 August, pp. 1-23,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123413000239.

Van Houten, P. (2009) ‘Multi-Level Relations in Political Parties: A Delegation

Approach’, Party Politics 15: 137-156.

18

Monday 16 March

Lecture 9: Social citizenship and the territorial politics of welfare

Has devolution resulted in policy divergence? Have the devolved authorities and the

UK (as the government for England) shared best practices in devolved policy areas

and used it as a basis for policy innovation? To what extent is there evidence of policy

divergence, innovation and emulation in other multi-level polities? Does policy

divergence come at the cost of equal civic, political or social citizenship rights and if

so, should this be seen as a problem?

Core Reading

Béland, D. and Lecours, A. (2005) ‘The Politics of Territorial Solidarity’,

Comparative Political Studies 38(6): 676-703.

Keating, M. (2009) ‘Social Citizenship, Solidarity and Welfare in Regionalized and

Plurinational States’, Citizenship Studies 13(5): 501-514.

Keating, M., Hepburn, E. and Cairney, P. (2012) ‘Policy Convergence, Transfer and

Learning in the UK under Devolution’, Regional and Federal Studies, 22(3): 289-

307.

Keating, M. (2012) ‘Intergovernmental Relations and Innovation: From Co-operative

to Competitive Welfare Federalism in the UK’, British Journal of Politics and

International Relations 14(2): 214-230.

Further Reading

Banting, K.G. (1987) The Welfare State and Canadian Federalism. Kingston and

Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Béland, D and Lecours, A. (2008) Nationalism and Social Policy. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Birrell, D. (2009) The Impact of Devolution on Social Policy. Bristol: Policy Press.

Curtice, A. (2010), ‘Intergovernmental Relations and Social Citizenship:

Opportunities Labour Missed’ in Lodge, G and Schmuecker, K. (eds.) Devolution

in Practice. London: IPPR.

Dwyer, P. (2004) Understanding Social Citizenship. Bristol: Policy Press.

Greer, S. (2004) Territorial Politics and Health Policy: UK Health Policy in

Comparative Perspective. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Jeffery, C. (2005) ‘Devolution and Social Citizenship: Which Society, Whose

Citizenship?’ in Greer, S. (ed.) Territory, Democracy and Justice. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Jeffery, C. (2009) ‘Devolution, Public Attitudes and Social Citizenship’, in Greer, S.

(ed.). Devolution and Social Citizenship in the UK. Bristol: Policy Press.

Keating, M. and McEwen, N. (2005) ‘Devolution and Public Policy in Comparative

Perspective’, Regional and Federal Studies, 15(4).

McEwen, N. (2006) Does the Recognition of National Minorities Undermine the

Welfare State?’ in Banting, K. and Kymlicka, W. (eds.) Multiculturalism and the

Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McEwen, N. (2006) Nationalism and the State. PIE Peter Lang.

McEwen, N. and Moreno, L. (eds.) (2005) The Territorial Politics of Welfare.

London: Routledge.

McGarvey, N. and McConnell, A. (2012) ‘Process, Policy and Politics: Examining

Some Convenient Scottish Political Myths’. Paper presented to the Political

19

Studies Association Annual Conference, Belfast:

www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2012/785_407.pdf.

Obinger, H., Leibfried, S. and Castles, F. (eds.) (2005) Federalism and the Welfare

State: New World and European Experiences. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Wallner, J. (2010) ‘Beyond National Standards: Reconciling Tension between

Federalism and the Welfare State’, Publius 40(4): 646-671.

20

Monday 23 March

Lecture 10: Independence, interdependence and the future of Scotland

What does ‘independence’ mean in the 21st century? What is the difference between

‘devo max’, ‘devo plus’ and independence? Do we live in a ‘post-sovereign’ era? Is

Scotland heading towards independence?

Core reading

Hassan, G. (2011) ‘Anatomy of a Scottish Revolution: The Potential of

Postnationalist Scotland and the Future of the United Kingdom’, The Political

Quarterly 82(3): 365-78.

Keating, M. (2010) ‘The Strange Death of Unionist Scotland’, Government and

Opposition 45(3): 365-85.

Scottish Government (2014) Scotland’s Future. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/resource/0043/00439021.pdf

Smith Commission (2014) Report of the Smith Commission on Further Devolution of

Powers to the Scottish Parliament. Available at https://www.smith-

commission.scot/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The_Smith_Commission_Report-

1.pdf

Further reading

Bulmer, W.E. (2011) A Model Constitution for Scotland: Making Democracy Work in

an Independent State. Edinburgh: Luath.

Convery, A. (2014) ‘Devolution and the Limits of Tory Statecraft: The Conservatives

in Coalition Government and Scotland and Wales’, Parliamentary Affairs 67(1):

25-44.

Devo Plus (2012) A New Union: Third Report of the Devo Plus Group. Available at

http://www.devoplus.com/storage/documents/A%20New%20Union.pdf

Goudie, A. (ed.) (2013) Scotland’s Future: The Economics of Constitutional Change.

Dundee: Dundee University Press.

Hassan, G. and Ilett, R. (eds.) (2011) Radical Scotland: Arguments for Self-

Determination. Edinburgh: Luath Press.

Hepburn, E. (2009) 'Degrees of Independence: SNP Thinking in an International

Context' in Hassan, G. (ed.) The Modern SNP: From Protest to Power. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press.

Keating, M. (2009) The Independence of Scotland: Self-Government and the Shifting

Politics of Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kenny, M. (2014) ‘Englishness Politicised? Unpicking the Normative Implications of

the McKay Commission’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations

Advance Access doi: 10.1111/1467-856X.12041.

McCrone, D. (2012) ‘Scotland Out of the Union? The Rise and Rise of the Nationalist

Agenda’, The Political Quarterly 83(1): 69-76.

McCrone, G. (2013) Scottish Independence: Weighing Up the Economics. Edinburgh:

Birlinn.

McKay Commission (2013) Report of the Commission on the Consequences of

Devolution for the House of Commons. Available online at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130403030652/http://tmc.independent

.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/The-McKay-Commission_Main-Report_25-

March-20131.pdf

21

McLean, I. (2001) ‘Scotland: Towards Quebec – or Slovakia?’, Regional Studies

35(7): 637-44.

McLean, I., Gallagher, J. and Lodge, G. (2014) Scotland’s Choices: The Referendum

and What Happens Afterwards. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Melding, D. (2009) Will Britain Survive Beyond 2020? Cardiff: Institute of Welsh

Affairs.

Royal Society of Edinburgh (2012) Scotland and the United Kingdom. Available at

http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/files/advice-

papers/2012/scotland_in_the_uk.pdf

Scottish Conservative Party (2014) Report of the Commission on the Future

Governance of Scotland. Available at

http://www.scottishconservatives.com/wordpress/wp-

content/uploads/2014/06/Strathclyde_Commission_14.pdf

Scottish Labour Party (2014) Powers for a Purpose: Strengthening Accountability

and Empowering People. Available at

http://b.3cdn.net/scotlab/c07a7cdb97a522f4c5_h1m6vwh8l.pdf

Scottish Liberal Democrats (2012) Federalism: The Best Future for Scotland.

Available at http://issuu.com/scotlibdems/docs/federalism_-

_the_best_future_for_sc_494e8456310ada/1?e=0

22

ANNEX 1:

GUIDELINES ON TUTORIAL PRESENTATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

At the first tutorial meeting, students will be divided into four groups of 3-4 students

in each (Groups A, B, C and D).

Members of group A will present and lead a tutorial discussion in weeks 3 and 7

Members of group B will present and lead tutorial discussion in weeks 4 and 8

Members of group C will present and lead tutorial discussion in weeks 5 and 9

Members of group D will present and lead tutorial discussion in weeks 6 and 10

There will be three elements to the tutorial presentations:

Members of the group leading the tutorial should prepare a 15-minute

Powerpoint presentation that directly addresses the tutorial question.

At the end of the presentation, groups will be asked to answer questions from

the rest of the class, based on their presentation.

The leading group should then present a set of questions and discussion points

to help foster discussion and debate among the tutorial class.

Assessment

After each presentation, the course convener will give ONE collective mark that

reflects the collective effort of the group to fulfil each of the requirements above, i.e.:

(i) to address their assigned research question in a clear, concise and engaging

presentation; (ii) to respond well to the questions posed by the rest of the class; and

(iii) to lead a vibrant and relevant discussion on this theme. To this effect, the

moderator will prepare a feedback sheet for the group (with a mark), which will be

circulated to each member of the group. A sample of this feedback sheet can be found

on the next page.

Since each group will lead two discussions, the final tutorial mark will be the average

mark for two group presentations. The final tutorial mark will represent 15 per cent of

the overall mark.

Timing

Please ensure that you time your presentation carefully beforehand. The 15-minute

time limit will be strictly enforced so that we have enough time for class discussion.

23

SAMPLE TUTORIAL FEEDBACK MARK SHEET

COMPARING SCOTTISH DEVOLUTION

GROUP PRESENTATIONS FEEDBACK SHEET

Prepared by Monitor: Alan Convery

GROUP A

Question Addressed:

Some factors informing assessment: Firs

t

2:1 2:2 3 Fail

Presentation addresses the question set, and with

sufficient focus?

Presentation engages critically with the literature and

shows grasp of relevant concepts and knowledge?

Presentation follows a logical and effective pattern of

argument?

Presentation supports arguments with examples that

are drawn from the literature on comparative

territorial politics

Quality of the power point presentation (clarity, use

of visual images)

Capacity to respond appropriately to questions from

the class

Discussion questions that follow from the

presentation are clearly linked to the set question

Group members make sufficient effort to engage their

audience during the discussion

Comments:

Grade:

24

ANNEX 2: THE RESEARCH BRIEFING PAPER

Why a Research Briefing?

The aim of the Research Briefing Paper is to test students’ capacity to apply their

research skills, knowledge and understanding to the task of producing an informative,

relevant and user-friendly document. Students of politics go on to a wide variety of

careers after their degree and many find themselves working for members of

parliament, voluntary organisations, political parties, trade unions, business groups,

the civil service etc. In these kinds of roles, the ability to compile a concise, reliable

and readable summary of key issues is a valuable skill. The main aims and features of

the exercise are outlined below to guide you towards writing a successful research

briefing paper.

Who is it aimed at? The research briefing paper aims to present a concise summary of research findings to

an informed, but not necessarily expert, audience. In government, parliament and the

public sector, officials, ministers and parliamentarians must have access to

information on a wide range of topics and issues which change rapidly. Concise,

clear, reliable research briefings help keep decision makers informed about the issues

for which they are responsible.

Students are required to choose the intended recipient of their research briefing paper.

He or she may be, for example, an individual Member of the Scottish Parliament, a

local councillor, a Scottish Government Minister, a private sector chief executive, or

you may write the briefing paper for an institutional actor, such as a parliamentary

committee, a voluntary organisation, a quango or an interest group. It is up to you to

decide for whom you are writing the research briefing, and you must make this clear

on the first page of your paper. (Please note: you do not need to name the individual

concerned – their position is what is important). You should anticipate the degree of

familiarity that your intended recipient may have with the topic, and provide relevant

background information, as appropriate. You should recognise that he or she cannot

spend time doing their own research and thus needs a capsule version of the key

points and considerations about the issues raised.

Scotland is not unique. Its devolved system of government, and the multi-level

context in which it is placed, shares some features with other stateless nations and

regions in other multi-level states. Yet, in Scottish political life, often little is known

about experiences from other countries and contexts.

Thus a primary objective of this exercise is to produce a Research Briefing Paper

that situates the policy or political problem in a comparative context, and draws

upon whatever lessons your intended recipient might usefully learn from

comparative analysis.

The research briefing paper should be accurate, well-informed, impartial and written

with the needs of the user in mind. For example, a research briefing paper on fiscal

autonomy may be differently orientated were it written for an SNP MSP, a Labour

MSP, UK government minister, a trade union or the Confederation of British Industry.

The distinctive orientation of your research briefing paper should highlight the issues

25

of most concern to the intended recipient without compromising the impartiality and

accuracy of its content.

Research Briefing Topics

Research briefing papers should address ONE of the questions listed below:

1. What are the benefits and risks of giving the Scottish Parliament full control of

income tax?

2. Is federalism a viable option for the future of the UK?

3. What are the benefits and disadvantages of retaining the Barnett Formula?

4. What problems might be posed by the creation of an English Parliament?

5. Why is devolution in the UK so asymmetrical in comparison with other countries?

In addressing these questions, you can choose a particular focus of relevance to your

intended recipient, and be sure to orientate the briefing towards his/her/its interests

and concerns.

Before you start writing, be sure you are clear about:

the precise focus of the research briefing paper;

why you are writing the research briefing (your purpose);

who you are writing the research briefing for (your reader);

what that person most needs to know;

the points you will cover;

and how you will structure your information.

What structure should it follow?

The research briefing should be written and presented in a readily digestible form and

should not exceed 1,500 words in length (+/- 10%). While the structure may vary,

each paper should include three main parts: (i) the purpose (usually stated as the

issue, topic or purpose); (ii) a summary of the facts/key debates/lines of argument

(what this section contains and the headings used will be determined by the purpose

of the briefing note); and (iii) the conclusion (this may be a conclusion, a

recommendation or other advice, or both). The following section headings may help

you to structure your research briefing paper, but remember that your paper should

only have the sections that are relevant to your purpose and audience.

Issue (also topic, purpose): A concise statement of the issue, proposal or problem.

This section should explain in one or two lines why the paper matters to the reader.

It sets out in the form of a question or a statement what the rest of the paper is

about.

Background: The details the reader needs in order to understand what follows

(how a situation arose, previous decisions/problems, actions leading up to the

current situation/when and why a particular proposal under examination was

introduced). Typically this section gives a brief summary of the history of the

topic and other background information. What led up to this problem, issue or

proposal? How has it evolved?

26

Current Status: Describes only the current or recent situation, who is involved,

what is happening now, the current state of the matter, issue, situation, etc.

Key Considerations: A summary of important facts, considerations,

developments —everything that needs to be considered now. While you will have

to decide what to include and what to leave out, this section should be as unbiased

as possible. Your aim is to present all the details required for the reader to be

informed or to make an informed decision. Keep the reader's needs uppermost in

your mind when selecting and presenting the facts. Remember to substantiate any

statements with evidence (including references) and to double-check your facts.

Options (also Next Steps, Comments): observations about the key considerations

and what they mean; a concise description either of the options and sometimes

their pros and cons or of what will happen next.

Conclusion and/or Recommendations: Conclusions summarise what you want

your reader to infer from the paper. Do not introduce anything new in the

Conclusion. If you are including a recommendations section, it should offer the

best and most sound advice you can offer. Make sure the recommendation is clear,

direct and substantiated by the facts you have put forward.

Submission and Assessment

Papers should be submitted by 12 noon on Monday 2 March. Please read the

Honours Handbook for instructions on how to submit your paper. To succeed, a

research briefing paper should be short, concise, clear, reliable and readable. It should

be accurate, informed, logical, impartial and written with the needs of the user in

mind. The research briefing paper will represent 35% of the mark for the course.

Sources

Although this is a Research Briefing Paper for a non-academic audience, you should

still follow proper scholarly conventions about attributing sources and ideas. Your

paper must contain references to evidence and to scholarly arguments. The point is to

express insights from academic work in a crisp and readable manner.

How will the research briefing paper be marked?

The following are the criteria through which the briefing will be marked. However, it

is important to note that the overall mark is a result of a holistic assessment of the

assignment as a whole.

Does the paper address the question set, and with sufficient focus?

Does the paper show a grasp of the relevant concepts and knowledge?

Does the paper demonstrate a logical and effective pattern of argument?

Does the paper, if appropriate, support arguments with relevant, accurate and

effective forms of evidence?

Does the paper demonstrate reflexivity and critical thinking in relation to

arguments and evidence?

Is the paper adequately presented in terms of: correct referencing and quoting;

spelling, grammar and style; layout and visual presentation?

27

ANNEX 3: THE ESSAY

Essay Questions

Choose ONE of the following:

1. Which of Scotland’s statewide parties has adapted best to the challenges of multi-

level politics?

2. To what extent would the proposals of the Smith Commission make Scotland more

fiscally accountable?

3. Are intergovernmental relations in the UK characterised mainly by co-operation or

conflict?

4. To what extent did the SNP Government’s white paper Scotland’s Future outline a

‘post-sovereign’ view of Scottish independence?

5. To what extent has Scottish public policy diverged from the rest of the UK since

devolution?

The essay should be 2,500 words in length (+/-10%) and is worth 50% of the overall

mark for this course. The deadline is 12 noon on Monday 30 March (see the

Honours Handbook for instructions on how to submit).

Note on Writing Essays

Do the simple things well:

Answer the question. Read the question carefully. Work out what you want to

say, and make your points explicitly.

A good introduction shows that you understand the context and significance of

the question to be addressed, and helps the reader by explaining how you will

answer it. Each paragraph should be coherent in itself and in relation to others:

pay particular attention to the first sentence of a paragraph.

Ensure you provide a good explanation of the key concepts addressed by the

question and your argument/analysis.

Avoid description. You should be offering analyses and explanations of

political developments, and informed coherent arguments. You should not be

telling the story of what happened, when, etc.

Your conclusion should be consistent with the material and argument you

present. Don't introduce new ideas into your conclusion - use it to draw

together the main strands of your argument.

Referencing

It is strongly recommended that you use the ‘Harvard’ or ‘author-date’ system of

referencing. This referencing system is easy to understand and is used in the vast

majority of the political science literature.

28

How will the essay be marked?

The following are the criteria through which the essay will be marked. However, it is

important to note that the overall mark is a result of a holistic assessment of the

assignment as a whole.

Does the essay address the question set, and with sufficient focus?

Does the essay show a grasp of the relevant concepts and knowledge?

Does the essay demonstrate a logical and effective pattern of argument?

Does the essay, if appropriate, support arguments with relevant, accurate and

effective forms of evidence?

Does the essay demonstrate reflexivity and critical thinking in relation to

arguments and evidence?

Is the essay adequately presented in terms of: correct referencing and quoting;

spelling, grammar and style; layout and visual presentation?

29

UTO Appendices

Appendix 1 – Student Information

Learning Resources for Undergraduates

The Study Development Team at the Institute for Academic Development (IAD)

provides resources and workshops aimed at helping all students to enhance their

learning skills and develop effective study techniques. Resources and workshops

cover a range of topics, such as managing your own learning, reading, note making,

essay and report writing, exam preparation and exam techniques.

The study development resources are housed on 'LearnBetter' (undergraduate), part of

Learn, the University's virtual learning environment. Follow the link from the IAD

Study Development web page to enrol: www.ed.ac.uk/iad/undergraduates

Workshops are interactive: they will give you the chance to take part in activities,

have discussions, exchange strategies, share ideas and ask questions. They are 90

minutes long and held on Wednesday afternoons at 1.30pm or 3.30pm. The schedule

is available from the IAD Undergraduate web page (see above).

Workshops are open to all undergraduates but you need to book in advance, using the

MyEd booking system. Each workshop opens for booking 2 weeks before the date of

the workshop itself. If you book and then cannot attend, please cancel in advance

through MyEd so that another student can have your place. (To be fair to all students,

anyone who persistently books on workshops and fails to attend may be barred from

signing up for future events).

Study Development Advisors are also available for an individual consultation if you

have specific questions about your own approach to studying, working more

effectively, strategies for improving your learning and your academic work. Please

note, however, that Study Development Advisors are not subject specialists so they

cannot comment on the content of your work. They also do not check or proof read

students' work. To make an appointment with a Study Development Advisor, email

iad.study@ed.ac.uk

(For support with English Language, you should contact the English Language

Teaching Centre).

Discussing Sensitive Topics

The disciplines Social and Political Sciences address a number of topics that some

might find sensitive or, in some cases, distressing. You should read this handbook

carefully and if there are any topics that you may feel distressed by you should seek

advice from the course convenor and/or your Personal Tutor.

For more general issues you may consider seeking the advice of the Student

Counselling Service, http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/student-counselling

30

Plagiarism Guidance for Students:

Avoiding Plagiarism

Material you submit for assessment, such as your essays, must be your own work.

You can, and should, draw upon published work, ideas from lectures and class

discussions, and (if appropriate) even upon discussions with other students, but you

must always make clear that you are doing so. Passing off anyone else’s work

(including another student’s work or material from the Web or a published author) as

your own is plagiarism and will be punished severely. When you upload your work to

ELMA you will be asked to check a box to confirm the work is your own. ELMA

automatically runs all submissions through ‘Turnitin’, our plagiarism detection

software, and compares every essay against a constantly-updated database, which

highlights all plagiarised work. Assessed work that contains plagiarised material will

be awarded a mark of zero, and serious cases of plagiarism will also be reported to the

College Academic Misconduct officer. In either case, the actions taken will be noted

permanently on the student's record. For further details on plagiarism see the

Academic

Services’ website: http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-

services/students/undergraduate/discipline/plagiarism

Data Protection Guidance for Students

In most circumstances, students are responsible for ensuring that their work with

information about living, identifiable individuals complies with the requirements of

the Data Protection Act. The document, Personal Data Processed by Students,

provides an explanation of why this is the case. It can be found, with advice on data

protection compliance and ethical best practice in the handling of information about

living, identifiable individuals, on the Records Management section of the University

website at: http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/records-management-

section/data-protection/guidance-policies/dpforstudents

Appendix 2 – Submission and Feedback information

Guide to Using LEARN for Online Tutorial Sign-Up

(Note: this could be added as an appendix to handbooks)

The following is a guide to using LEARN to sign up for your tutorial. If you have any

problems using the LEARN sign up, please contact the course secretary by email

(edwin.cruden@ed.ac.uk).

Tutorial sign up will open on (Monday 12.01.14 at 16:30), after the first lecture has

taken place, and will close at 12 noon on the Friday of Week 1 (16.01.15).

Step 1 – Accessing LEARN course pages

31

Access to LEARN is through the MyEd Portal. You will be given a log-in and

password during Freshers’ Week. Once you are logged into MyEd, you should see a

tab called ‘Courses’ which will list the active LEARN pages for your courses under

‘myLEARN’.

Step 2 – Welcome to LEARN

Once you have clicked on the relevant course from the list, you will see the Course

Content page. There will be icons for the different resources available, including one

called ‘Tutorial Sign Up’. Please take note of any instructions there.

Step 3 – Signing up for your tutorial

Clicking on Tutorial Sign Up will take you to the sign up page where all the available

tutorial groups are listed along with the running time and location.

Once you have selected the group you would like to attend, click on the ‘Sign up’

button. A confirmation screen will display.

IMPORTANT: If you change your mind after having chosen a tutorial you cannot go

back and change it and you will need to email the course secretary. Reassignments

once tutorials are full or after the sign-up period has closed will only be made in

exceptional circumstances.

Tutorials have restricted numbers and it is important to sign up as soon as possible.

The tutorial sign up will only be available until 12 noon on the Friday of Week 1

(16.01.15) so that everyone is registered to a group ahead of tutorials commencing in

Week 2. If you have not yet signed up for a tutorial by this time you will be

automatically assigned to a group which you will be expected to attend.

ELMA: Submission and Return of Coursework

Coursework is submitted online using our electronic submission system, ELMA. You

will not be required to submit a paper copy of your work.

Marked coursework, grades and feedback will be returned to you via ELMA. You

will not receive a paper copy of your marked course work or feedback.

For information, help and advice on submitting coursework and accessing feedback,

please see the ELMA wiki at https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/SPSITWiki/ELMA.

Further detailed guidance on the essay deadline and a link to the wiki and submission

page will be available on the course Learn page. The wiki is the primary source of

information on how to submit your work correctly and provides advice on approved

file formats, uploading cover sheets and how to name your files correctly.

When you submit your work electronically, you will be asked to tick a box

confirming that your work complies with university regulations on plagiarism. This

confirms that the work you have submitted is your own.

32

Occasionally, there can be technical problems with a submission. We request that you

monitor your university student email account in the 24 hours following the deadline

for submitting your work. If there are any problems with your submission the course

secretary will email you at this stage.

We undertake to return all coursework within 15 working days of submission. This

time is needed for marking, moderation, second marking and input of results. If there

are any unanticipated delays, it is the course organiser’s responsibility to inform you

of the reasons.

All our coursework is assessed anonymously to ensure fairness: to facilitate this

process put your Examination number (on your student card), not your name or

student number, on your coursework or cover sheet.

Word Count Penalties

(This is for all courses, years 1-4, which have written work being submitted via

ELMA (i.e. electronically))

Your short essay should be between (enter word limits here) words (excluding

bibliography)*. Essays above (enter word limit here) words will be penalised using

the Ordinary level criterion of 1 mark for every 20 words over length: anything

between (enter word limit and word limit plus 20) words will lose one mark, between

(enter word limit and word limit plus 40) two marks, and so on.

You will not be penalised for submitting work below the word limit. However, you

should note that shorter essays are unlikely to achieve the required depth and that this

will be reflected in your mark.

The Operation of Lateness Penalties

Unlike in Years 1 and 2, NO EXTENSIONS ARE GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO

THE SUBMISSION DEADLINES FOR ANY ASSESSED WORK At HONOURS

LEVEL.

Managing deadlines is a basic life-skill that you are expected to have acquired by the

time you reach Honours. Timely submission of all assessed items (coursework,

essays, project reports, etc.) is a vitally important responsibility at this stage in your

university career. Unexcused lateness can put at risk your prospects of proceeding to

Senior Honours and can damage your final degree grade.

If you miss the submission deadline for any piece of assessed work 5 marks will be

deducted for each calendar day that work is late, up to a maximum of five calendar

days (25 marks). Thereafter, a mark of zero will be recorded. There is no grace period

for lateness and penalties begin to apply immediately following the deadline. For

example, if the deadline is Tuesday at 12 noon, work submitted on Tuesday at

12.01pm will be marked as one day late, work submitted at 12.01pm on Wednesday

will be marked as two days late, and so on.

33

Failure to submit an item of assessed work will result in a mark of zero, with

potentially very serious consequences for your overall degree class, or no degree at

all. It is therefore always in your interest to submit work, even if very late.

Please be aware that all work submitted is returned to students with a provisional

mark and without applicable penalties in the first instance. The mark you receive on

ELMA is therefore subject to change following the consideration of the Lateness

Penalty Waiver Panel (please see below for further information) and the Board of

Examiners.

How to Submit a Lateness Penalty Waiver Form

If there are extenuating circumstances beyond your control which make it essential

for you to submit work after the deadline you must fill in a ‘Lateness Penalty Waiver’

(LPW) form to state the reason for your lateness. This is a request for any applicable

penalties to be removed and will be considered by the Lateness Penalty Waiver Panel.

Before submitting an LPW, please consider carefully whether your circumstances are

(or were) significant enough to justify the lateness. Such circumstances should be

serious and exceptional (e.g. not a common cold or a heavy workload). Computer

failures are not regarded as justifiable reason for late submission. You are expected to

regularly back-up your work and allow sufficient time for uploading it to ELMA.

You should submit the LPW form and supply an expected date of submission as soon

as you are able to do so, and preferably before the deadline. Depending on the

circumstances, supporting documentation may be required, so please be prepared to

provide this where possible.

LPW forms can be found in a folder outside your SSO’s office, on online at:

http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/on_course_students/assessment_and_regulations/c

oursework_requirements/coursework_requirements_honours

Forms should be returned by email or, if possible, in person to your SSO. They will

sign the form to indicate receipt and will be able to advise you if you would like

further guidance or support.

Please Note: Signing the LPW form by either your SSO or Personal Tutor only

indicates acknowledgment of the request, not the waiving of lateness penalties. Final

decisions on all marks rest with Examination Boards.

There is a dedicated SSO for students in each subject area in SPS. To find out who

your SSO is, and how to contact them, please find your home subject area from the

list:

Politics

Ruth Winkle: ruth.winkle@ed.ac.uk 0131 650 4253

Room 1.11, Chrystal MacMillan Building

34

International Relations

Rebecca Shade rebecca.shade@ed.ac.uk 0131 651 3896

Room 1.10, Chrystal MacMillan Building

Social Anthropology

Vanessa Feldberg vanessa.feldberg@ed.ac.uk 0131 650 3933

Room 1.04, Chrystal MacMillan Building

Social Policy

Louise Angus L.Angus@ed.ac.uk 0131 650 3923

Room 1.08, Chrystal MacMillan Building

Social Work

Jane Marshall jane.marshall@ed.ac.uk 0131 650 3912

Room 1.07, Chrystal MacMillan Building

Sociology

Karen Dargo Karen.Dargo@ed.ac.uk 0131 651 1306

Room 1.03, Chrystal MacMillan Building

Sustainable Development

Sue Renton sue.renton@ed.ac.uk 0131 650 6958

Room 1.09, Chrystal MacMillan Building

If you are a student from another School, you should submit your LPW to the SSO for

the subject area of the course, (tbc)

Return of Feedback

Feedback for your first piece of coursework will be returned online via ELMA on 17.03.15

Feedback for your second piece of coursework will be returned online via ELMA on 20.04.15