Welcome to all the new subscribers who’ve joined Arguably over the past day. From our archive, you might enjoy our founding essay on how progressives can reclaim the future, our feature on 10 ideas for a radical Budget and Ben Judah on why a good Rejoin deal is possible.
Today, Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander writes exclusively for us on the Burnham government’s devolution plans for England and Scotland.
George Eaton, Editor-in-Chief, Arguably
A few weeks ago, I stood alongside the Prime Minister in Motherwell for his first major speech in Scotland since entering Downing Street. It was a fitting location, as Motherwell knows better than most what it means when decisions about a community’s future are taken elsewhere, with Ravenscraig’s furnaces going cold more than 30 years ago. This closure set a community back by a generation, and work is still ongoing to fill that site.
The question devolution must answer is who gets to decide what comes next. Andy’s answer was clear. Devolution is the means to an end, not an end in itself.
As someone who campaigned for a Scottish Parliament in my twenties and voted for the Scotland Act as a young MP, I passionately believe he’s right. And it’s also the most valuable lesson Scotland can offer England as it accelerates its own devolution journey.
Next year marks 30 years since Scotland voted decisively for a parliament of its own. John Smith called it Labour’s “unfinished business”, while opening Holyrood in 1999, Donald Dewar called it “not an end: a means to greater ends”. Three decades on, the parliament is a settled part of our national life, as the Senedd is in Wales, and the question is no longer whether power should be devolved, but how far it should travel. This is a question England faces too.
Why does it matter? Because England and Scotland share three stubborn, interlocking problems.
