In recent years minority government has made a profound impact in Scotland. Devolution occurred in 1997 with the resurrection of a Scottish Parliament which was assigned certain devolved powers and provided Scotland with the much-desired control diverted from Westminster. Minority government occurs when no party in an election wins a majority thus the party closest to winning a majority of seats will need to work with others to pass legislation on an issue-by-issue basis. With this major change comes key developments and problems in regard to the way that the government functions. This essay argues that minority government, primarily the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) minority government between 2007-11, has been effective since devolution for three main reasons. This essay will first consider the government’s success in relation to passing legislation with satisfactory support from other parties. It will then go on to explore how party relations has contributed to the effectiveness. Finally, the third part will explore how leadership was commendable further aiding the success of the government.
Firstly, devolution has provided Scotland with legislative competence in areas of health, education and local government affairs amongst a number of others under the Scotland Act 1998. One change resulting from devolution is the electoral system: with devolution came the Additional Member System (AMS) which often results in coalitions or minority governments (Hepburn, 2009: 197). This is apparent as the establishment of Holyrood immediately resulted in eight years of Liberal Democrat and Labour coalition followed by a term of SNP minority government. The SNP reluctantly formed a one-party minority government in 2007 and it was no exception to the struggles of passing legislation without a majority. Despite the establishment of a ‘co-operation agreement’ with the Green party and support of independent MSP Margo MacDonald; the SNP still failed to pass legislation on a number of occasions. For example, they had to drop major policy plans including their promised referendum on Scottish independence and agendas regarding local income tax as a result of parliamentary defeat. As argued by The Economist (2009): they ‘failed on big manifesto promises, such as replacing local property taxes with local income tax’. This is significant because it hindered the progress of Scotland and reduced confidence in the government’s ability by not following through with their pledged agenda. The government faced an abundance of problems trying to pass both the 2008 and 2009 Budget Bill. The 2009 Budget Bill had already secured Conservative support in return for aiding matters of ‘reductions in business rates’ (Cairney, 2011: 55). However, only after concessions to other parties and through threats of resignation from Salmond, they managed to ‘gain 123 votes to 2 on the bill’ (Hazell et al, 2009: 62) allowing it to pass after failing the initial time. This was not only time-consuming and costly but further portrayed the flaws that a minority government is vulnerable to and how, if not resolved could have caused a major problem to Scotland. On the other hand, despite these numerous struggles, the SNP adapted and delivered commendably on factors which did not require primary legislation which outweighs their failings (Hazell et al., 2009: 60). Through their strategic approach, the SNP had a huge effect on local government and policy implementation. For example, they brought about the ‘abolition of Forth and Tay Bridge tolls, university fees, and some NHS charges’ (Harvie, 2008:40). The examples stated have led to a distinct change because of the divergence involved as they have opened up more possibilities for the Scottish community; allowing the public to participate in areas where had not been possible previously. Overall, this essay argues that the Scottish Government brought forward a sense of nationalism which had not been so profound in Scotland. The party met many barriers which could have brought the government down but through their strategic focus, clear goals and targets which it sought to meet and were published on the Scotland Performs website, the Scottish Government was fully effective.
Secondly, critical attention to contact and communication with external parties is integral to the success of a minority administration. Another difference occurring as a result of devolution is the change in Scottish policy style; which is now similar to the design of Arend Lijphart’s model of consensus (1999) which is also argued by Keating et al (2003: 18): ‘it has fostered a consultative and consensual policy style’. This is important because it led to a smoother operation of work and prevents major loss of time on the grounds of disputes. The SNP arguably dealt with adverse relations well which allowed it to impact Scotland further. The SNP had established a streamlined cabinet who were capable of working as a collective body. This was crucial because it conveyed efficiency and resulted in superior levels of co-operation. For example, due to having ‘few signs of internal division and instability’ (Cairney, 2011: 61) the government had more ability to enforce more changes. For example, the SNP had a vision to increase Scotland’s level of multiculturalism; a desire which was felt common amongst most political parties. The SNP continued the concept of ‘One Scotland’ established by the previous coalition, for both economic and cultural reasons (Hepburn and Eve, 2014: 242). By encouraging immigration, it would aid both Scotland’s labour shortage thus boost the economy. This is one change which has occurred and positively impacted Scotland through government consensus. However, it is undeniable that highly adverse relations between parties did cause some difficulties in maintaining government effectiveness in Scotland. This is evident when considering the subject of funding for the desired Edinburgh tram system. The SNP was against scheme however most other parties heavily supported it. The SNP lost the vote but ‘rather than letting it become a confidence issue, agreed to fund it’ (MacKay, 2009: 87). This is significant because it portrays that the minority government was vulnerable to the desires of other parties and was accountable to serious problems. However, through their strategic focus, the government adapted in order to satisfy the necessary parties to secure support such as by introducing The Climate Change Act (2009) which satisfied the two Green MSPs who often brought them decisive votes in addition to improving Scotland’s stance in this area. Overall, the public seemed content with the progress of SNP and Scotland itself as emphasised by the fact that they were voted as an outright majority in the 2011 elections; an unprecedented feat.
Thirdly, the SNP administration was constant and sturdy for the most part of their session. To start, many people adopted a positive view of the Party Leader and First Minister of Scotland: ‘Salmond still outshines not only the rest of his SNP team but the leaders of the other parties and alternative First Ministers.’ (Kernohan, 2009: 27). In relation to Kernohan’s analysis, this essay argues that through his leadership, Salmond was fully liable for the successes felt in Scotland throughout 2007-11 due to two main factors: his constellation of alliances and his relentless campaigning. However, it must be made apparent that this view was not constant, as explored in Lundberg’s article (2014, 618). This is highlighted through Labour Leader Iain Gray’s opinion of the time: ‘SNP demonstrated that it can survive, but I don’t think they have demonstrated that they can deliver’. However, this essay believes that Gray was intimidated by the SNP’s rise and thus challenges the view presented by Gray. Labour and SNP are both left-wing parties fighting for the same cleavage: centre-perip
hery. Thus, with the SNP’s rise in popularity and gaining one seat ahead with 47/ 129 in 2007 elections, Labour was threatened in its position. As stated by Cairney (2012: 234): ‘Tony Blair did not congratulate Salmon on election as first minister’. This is significant as AMS arguably diminished Labours dominance of Scottish Local Government. The first advantageous point is that Salmon’s constellations of alliances, primarily his ‘informal coalition’ with the Conservatives (Cairney, 2011: 266) and effort building new relationships with partners has been a key part of the SNP’s approach to governing. Salmond’s work in this matter has played an imperative role in aiding SNP’s survival throughout the full four years in office. Another factor proving Salmond’s superb leadership is his relentless campaigning. This was significant as ensured the public and other parties were fully aware of the factors that the SNP were aiming combat. As stated by (Mackay, 2009: 87): ‘Alex Salmond hit the ground running, showing a remarkable turn of pace’ which is further emphasised by the fact that by the end of the parliamentary session, they had passed 53 bills which is not a major difference considering being a minority administration, to the previous session where 62 were passed (Lundberg, 2013: 620). Overall, it is clear that Salmond dealt well with being the first minority government in Scotland and brought about changes.
In conclusion, this essay has proven the SNP minority government to be effective in Scotland for three key reasons. Firstly, despite their work in regard to passing bills and legislation not playing out as constantly promising, the party passed other major policies which largely impacted the public and proved to be popular movements; encouraging positive attitudes towards the government. Salmon managed to adopt the consensus approach as a consequence of devolution and succeed. Secondly, although there were major conflicts with other parties such as Labour, for the majority of the time this was dealt with well in a reasonable manner in order to allow the government to be successful. Lastly, Salmond’s leadership was instrumental in the success: he was responsible for the running of SNP and keeping to their goals despite facing major barriers to reaching them. As such, as hinted by the SNP’s landslide majority win in the 2011 election after their term from 2007-11, it is clear that minority government since devolution was dramatically successful and has allowed Scotland to make progress as a nation.