Looming Issues for Scotland and the Union

The minor electoral gains for the Scottish National Party (SNP) in 2007, which made it the largest party but a minority Scottish Executive administration, have provoked a fundamental review of Scottish devolution. Political imperatives rather than reasoned argument seem to dominate the actions of those pushing for independence and/or greater powers for the Scottish Parliament. The renaming of the Scottish Executive by the SNP as the Scottish Government is creating confusion. The Scottish Executive's plans to move to independence are inadequate for the significance of the intended outcome. The unionist opposition parties could not agree to form a majority coalition but have launched a major review of devolution which includes the possibility of increased tax powers for the Scottish Parliament even when existing tax powers are not used. Federalism has been proposed by the Liberal Democrats and others but evidence from other states suggests that this is by no means a stable or certain solution.     

American Progressivism and the Obama Presidency

US progressivism is half espoused, half rejected, by an ambivalent if talented President. The Republican image of the President as ‘socialist’ is one which the social democratic Democrats wish were true. The President's readiness to compromise has not tempered the extreme hostility of the Republicans. It has been exploited by the political agents of business and finance. It has used by the permanent war party: the campaign against ‘terror’ enables it to retain mastery of foreign and military policy. The New Deal's heirs, seeking more social democracy and less militarism, are bereft of new forms of political action. US democracy is threatened by an eruption of cultural and religious fundamentalism, racism, and xenophobia, as well as a compulsive refusal of social solidarity. Withal, the situation is open as well as complex, and the President in the long run may be much more successful than his angry detractors and disappointed supporters allow.     

RAYNERISM IN PRACTICE: ANATOMY OF A RAYNER SCRUTINY

Rayner scrutinies have become a regular feature of life in government departments. It takes only a few months to conduct a scrutiny but implementation is a far longer process which can absorb much ministerial and official time. This paper describes one of the first Rayner scrutinies — on arrangements for paying social security benefits — from inception to implementation. It relates the scrutiny team's reports to the social security system it was in part reviewing and then traces the way that ministers and officials handled the controversy that the scrutiny team's proposals caused when leaked in an inaccurate form. It concludes by speculating about some wider lessons that might be drawn about the validity of the scrutiny technique; the value of the Rayner label on reviews; the need for independent reviews in bureaucratic organizations; civil service responsiveness to reviews: the political dimension to management issues: public debate and open government considerations, and the indirect consequences of scrutinies.