PLIT10080

Comparing Scottish Devolution

Course Guide

Politics/IR Honours Option2011-2012

Dr. Wilfried Swenden (convenor)

Dr. Nicola McEwen

1

Comparing Scottish Devolution

Welcome to Comparing Scottish Devolution

CSD is a Politics/IR Honors Option, convened by Dr. Wilfried Swenden and co-taught by Dr. Nicola McEwen. It builds on the course Scotland: Society and Politics (offered as an option to all second year Politics and IR students). It is recommended (but not required) that students who take the course attended Scotland: Society and Politics previously. Students who did not take Scotland: Society and Politics previously may be expected to do some preliminary readings on Scottish politics.

Course related enquiries should be addressed in the first instance to the course convenor, Dr Wilfried Swenden: Room 3.05 Chrystal Macmillan Building, tel: 0131 650 4255, Email: w.swenden@ed.ac.uk. Office hours: Mondays, 11.30-13.30. Where possible, students are encouraged to make use of these office hours. Meetings outside of office hours may be arranged by email.

Dr. Nicola McEwen can be reached at: Institute of Governance, 1.02, 21 George Square; Tel: 0131 651 1831; Email: n.mcewen@ed.ac.uk. Office Hours (semester 1): Mondays, 10.00-12.00

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

2

UK, and with other forms of territorial government in other multi-level and multi-national states

Effectively apply the comparative method develop research, analytical and presentation skills, through

guided research in preparation for assessment and tutorial presentations

Course Structure, Venue and Time

This course adopts a lecture-tutorial format. Lectures are on Monday, 10:00-10:50, in the Chrystal Macmillan Building, Seminar Room 1. Tutorials will held on Thursdays, 10:00-10:50 (Rm 2.05) and 11:10-12:00 (Rm 2.04) in the Appleton Tower). If course numbers merit an additional tutorial group, this will be held on Thursday 16.10-17.00 (Rm M1 Appleton Tower) Students will be asked to sign up for a tutorial group via the course Web-CT page in week 1. Tutorials will begin in week 2.

3

Tutorial Format

All students are expected to participate in tutorial discussions, and take part in group presentations. In the first tutorial (week 2), students will be divided in groups of 3-4 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 percent of your final mark.

Course Material: Course Guide + Web-CT

The 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 Web-CT. Book chapters or books can be found in the Library (the most important books are put on reserve). Lecture handouts will be made available on Web-CT on the day of the lecture.

Course Assessment

This course has three components of assessment:One 2,500 word essay (50% of the mark)One research briefing paper of not more than 1,500 words (35% of the mark). Tutorial participation (15% of the mark)

DEADLINES:Research briefing paper deadline:, Friday 3 November, 12:00Essay deadline: Friday 2 December, 12:00

All coursework will be marked and returned to students within 3 working weeks of the submission date. Once marked, research briefing papers will be distributed in class or can be collected from the course convenor during office hours. Feedback will be provided for all assessed work. All marks are provisional until confirmed by the Exam Board in May 2011. Topics and guidance for the research briefing paper and the essay are listed in Annex 2 and 3 of this document.

Submitting your Essay or Research Briefing Paper

Instructions for students:

4

Research Briefing Papers and Essays must be submitted as hard copies AND electronically.

Submitting the hard copiesStudents must deposit two hard copies of their essay or research briefing paper in the Politics and IR Honours Essay Box, located in the wall outside room 1.11, Chrystal Macmillan Building. When doing so, students must complete a Politics IR Honours coversheet (available outside room 1.11), indicating their examination number and tutor’s name, and signing a plagiarism form (see below).

Guidelines to Note Submit two copies of the essay Put only your Exam number on each copy of the essay. Complete ONE Essay Front Coversheet and be sure you

complete the Plagiarism Statement at the bottom of it. Staple the first copy of the essay to the front cover sheet and

paperclip thesecond to both of them.

Post the completed essays into the Politics essay box situated outside room 1.11, Chrystal Macmillan Building by 12pm on the day of deadline.

NOTE: All students should pay particular attention when completing the Plagiarism segment of the Essay Front Coversheet . If it is not completed correctly, coursework will not. be marked until the student returns to the office to complete/correct the section.

Electronic Submission

SUBMISSION OF COURSEWORK TO WEBCT

1) In addition to the two hard copies, you must, by the same deadline, submit an electronic version via WebCT. The instructions for doing so are as follows.

2) Before submitting your coursework, please ensure that you SAVE YOUR ESSAY WITH A FILE NAME THAT INCLUDES YOUR EXAM NUMBER. To ensure anonymity, do not include your name anywhere on the essay.

3) Do not submit your bibliography separately from the essay. Our internal checks make sure the bibliography will not count as ‘plagiarised’ material.

4) Failure to follow these instructions will cause delays in getting your work marked and returned to you.

FILE FORMAT

5

1) Files must be in Word (.doc), rich text (.rtf), text (.txt) or PDF format. Microsoft Publisher, Open Office and Microsoft Works files will not be accepted.

UPLOADING AND SUBMITTING YOUR ESSAY

1) At the Course Home Page click on the Assignments tab situated on the Course Tools bar at the left hand side of the page.

2) Click on the relevant essay title in the middle of the screen (It will be called ‘Course essay’ or such) and then either:

3) Click on Add Attachment and locate your essay on your computer and attach it. Or you can copy and paste your essay into the window provided.

4) Click on Submit to finish.

LATE SUBMISSION

Penalties for late submission are set by College, and are as follows:

Five marks per working day (i.e. excluding weekends) for up to 5 days;

Coursework handed in more than 5 days late will receive a mark of zero

PLEASE NOTE that failure to submit an electronic version along with the hard copy of your coursework will be treated as failure to submit, and subject to the same lateness penalties set out above.

Students who feel they have a legitimate reason for late submission of assessed work must apply for a lateness penalty waiver. For guidance on policy and procedure regarding work submitted after the deadline, please see the Politics and Internationals Relations Honours Handbooks: http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/honours/subjects_and_ centres/politics. The School looks sympathetically on students with a legitimate reason for late submission.

Please also consult the PIR Honours Handbooks for information on the extended marking scheme, plagiarism and freedom of information rules.

A Note on Plagiarism

6

Although discussion between students is encouraged, all coursework is accepted for assessment on the understanding that it is the student's own work. Copying out passages from books and articles without putting the passages in quotation marks must be avoided. All sources must be properly acknowledged. Copying will not be condoned: serious cases of plagiarism will normally lead to automatic failure of a course, and may also lead to action under the University's Code of Discipline. Please see the Politics and International Relations Honours Handbooks for further general information about assessment. University guidance is available at: http://www.aaps.ed.ac.uk/regulations/ plagiarism/intro.htm.

7

GENERAL READINGS:

There is no set textbook for this course, but students may find the following books or review essays helpful:

Bednar, J. (2011), ‘The Political Science of Federalism’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science [e-journal published on-line ahead of print, August 23, 2011]

Greer, S. (ed) (2006) Territory, Justice and Democracy: regionalism and federalism in western democracies (Palgrave: Macmillan)

Hueglin T.O. and Fenna, A (2006). Comparative Federalism. A Systematic Inquiry (Peterborough, Ontario, 2006). Very comprehensive, accessible and global approach to the subject.

Keating, M. (2001) Plurinational democracy: stateless nations in a post-sovereignty era (Oxford University Press) (e-book)

McGarvey, N and P Cairney (2008) Scottish Politics: an Introduction (Palgrave Macmillan).

Mitchell, J. (2008) Devolution in the United Kingdom (Manchester: Manchester University Press)

Swenden, W (2006) Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe: a comparative and thematic analysis (Palgrave Macmillan)

Wibbels, E. (2006) 'Madison in Baghdad? Decentralization and Federalism in Comparative Politics', Annual Review of Political Science 9: 165-188. [e-journal]

Multiple-copies of all these books are available in the library.

JOURNALS

Journal articles are also a valuable source of good quality academic research. Many social science journals carry articles of relevance to this course, especially Regional & Federal Studies and Publius, the journal of federalism. Other journals which students may find useful to consult include: British Politics; Parliamentary Affairs; European Journal of Political Research; West European Politics; Government and Opposition, Scottish Affairs, Regional Studies and Nations and Nationalism. All of these are available as electronic journals via the Information Services website.

8

COURSE OVERVIEW

9

Week

Date LECTURE (Monday) TUTORIAL (Thursday)

1 19 Sept

Introduction: Scottish devolution in comparative perspective (WS)

NO TUTORIAL – tutorial sign-up via Web CT

2 26 Sept

Devolution, federalism and confederation: Scotland’s constitutional settlement in comparative perspective (WS)

Introduction & discussion: should the UK become a federal state? (NM)

3 3 Oct

Political parties in multi-level states (WS)

What is the best strategy for Scotland’s state-wide parties in dealing with multi-level politics? (WS)

4 10 Oct

Multi-level elections and voting behaviour (NM)

Are Scottish parliamentary elections second order? (NM)

5 17 Oct

Social Citizenship and the Territorial Politics of Welfare (NM)

Has devolution undermined British social citizenship?(NM)

6 24 Oct

The Politics of Territorial Finance (WS)

What should Scotland and the UK learn from fiscal federalism in other multi-level states? (WS)Deadline for Research Briefing Paper, Friday 3 November noon

7 31 Oct

Climate change politics and policy making in a multi-level context (NM)

Why has Scotland been promoted by the Scottish government as a leader in climate change mitigation?(NM)

8 7 Nov

Intergovernemntal Relations in multi-level states (WS)

Should IGR in the UK be more institutionalized? (WS)

9 14 Nov

Towards a Europe of the Regions? (NM)

Can Scotland play an influential role in the EU as a European region? (NM)

10 21 Constitutional futures: Is Scotland heading

10

Nov does accommodating nationalism through devolution appease or further nationalist demands? (WS)

towards independence? Lessons from other nationalist movements (NM)

Essay deadline Friday 2 December 2011, 12 noon

11

Detailed Course programme

Monday 19 September 2011.Lecture 1: Introduction: Scottish devolution in a comparative

perspective (WS)

The 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. The lecture will also revisit the comparative method and provide guidance on how it is to be applied in this course.

Core Reading

Keating, M (2008), ‘Thirty Years of Territorial Politics’, West European Politics, vol. 31, no.1-2, 60-81.

Loughlin, J. (2000), ‘Regional Autonomy and State Paradigm Shifts in Western Europe’, Regional and Federal Studies vol.10, no.2

Jeffery, C. and Wincott, D. ‘Devolution in the United Kingdom. Statehood and Citizenship in Transition’, Publius: the Journal of Federalism, 36 (1), 19-35

Swenden, W. (2010), ‘Beyond UK Exceptionalism? Comparing Strategies for Territorial Management’ in Stolz, K. eds. (2010), Ten Years of Devolutuion in the United Kingdom. Snapshots at a Moving Target (Augsburg: Wißner Verlag), 13-36 [uploaded on web-CT]

Further Reading

Ansell, C (2004), Restructuring Territoriality, esp chapters by Bartolini and Tarrow,

Beck, U and N. Sznaider (2006), ‘Unpacking Cosmopolitanism for the Social Sciences: a Research Agenda’, British Journal of Sociology, 57/1, 1-23.

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

Erk, J. (2008), Explaining Federalism. State, society and congruence in Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany and Swtizerland (London: Routledge)

Erk, J, and Koning, E. (2010), ‘New Structuralism and Institutional Change. Federalism between Centralization and Decentralization’, Comparative Political Studies, 43, (3), 353-78

Flora, P (ed) (1999), State formation, nation-building, and mass politics in Europe : the theory of Stein Rokkan : based on his collected works, esp. Ch. 3, but as much as possible.

Hooghe, L, G Marks (2003), ‘Unravelling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance’, American Political Science Review, 97/2

12

Jeffery, C. (2006), ‘Devolution and Social Citizenship: Which Society, Whose Citizenship?’, in S. Greer (ed) Territory, Democracy and Justice (London: Palgrave Macmillan)

Jeffery, C (2008), ‘The Challenge of Territorial Politics’, Policy and Politics, 36 (4), 545-57

Marshall, T.H. (1963), Citizenship and Social Class (library offprint)Marks, G., Hooghe, L. and Schakel, A. (2008) ‘Patterns of Regional

Authority’, Regional & Federal Studies, 18, (2-3), 167-182 McGarvey N. and Cairney, P., ‘Devolution: Historical and Political

Context’ in McGarvey N and Cairney, P., Scottish Politics. An Introduction (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan)

Swenden W. (2006), Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe. A Comparative and Thematic Analysis (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan), chapter 1

13

Monday 26 September 2011.Lecture 2: Devolution, federalism and confederation: Scotland’s constitutional settlement in comparative

perspective (WS)

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 so, would it make a difference?

Core Reading

Jeffery, C. (2008), ‘The Dynamics of Devolution’, Oxford Handbook of British Politics, [uploaded on Web-CT]

Gamble, A. (2006), ‘The Constitutional Revolution in the United Kingdom’, Publius: the Journal of Federalism, 36, (1), 19-35

Thorlakson L., ‘Comparing Federal Institutions: Power and Representation in Six Federations,’ West European Politics, vol.26, (April 2003), No.2, pp. 1-22.

Marks, G. Hooghe, L. and Schakel, A. (2007), ‘Patterns of Regional Authority’, Regional and Federal Studies, vol. 18, no.2-3, especially 111-122

Further ReadingAnderson, George (2008), Federalism: An Introduction (Oxford:

Oxford University Press) Bogdanor, V. (2009), ‘Devolution’ in Bogdanor, V., The New British

Constitution (Oxford: Hart Publishers), 89-120. Burgess, M. (2006), ‘The comparative study of federal political

institutions’ in Burgess, Michael, Comparative Federalism. Theory and Practice, (London: Routledge), 135-161

Hazell, R. and B. O’Leary (1999), ‘A Rolling Programme of Devolution: Slippery Slope or Safeguard of the Union’, in R. Hazell (ed.), Constitutional Futures. A History of the Next Ten Years

Jeffery, C. (2008), ‘Where Stands the Union Now?: Scottish-English Relations after Devolution’, forthcoming in an anthology on the Anglo-Scottish union, [uploaded on Web-CT]

Keating, M. (2009), ‘Constitutional Futures: State and Nation in the Twenty-First Century’’ in Keating, M (2009), The Independence of Scotland. Self-government & the Shifting Politics of Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 125-143

Mitchell, J. (2007), ‘The United Kingdom as a State of Unions: Unity of Government, Equality of Political Rights and Diversity of

14

Institutions’, in A Trench (ed), Devolution and Power, Manchester University Press.

Steel Commission (2006), ‘Steel Commission Report – Moving to Federalism’, Scottish Liberal Democrats [document available on-line: http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/files/steelcommission.pdf

Swenden, W. (2006), Federalism and Regionalisn in Western Europe. A comparative and thematic analysis, (Basingstoke: Palgrave, Macmillan), chapter 3

Swenden, W., ‘Is the European Union in Need of a Competence Catalogue? Insights from Comparative Federalism, Journal of Common Market Studies, 42 (2), 371-392

Watts, R. L. (2007), ‘The United Kingdom as a Federalised or Regionalised Union’, in A Trench (ed), Devolution and Power Manchester University Press.

15

Monday 3 October 2011Lecture 3: Political parties in multi-level states (WS)

What role have parties played in putting devolution on the agenda and to what extent have they changed their position on devolution since? How have parties adapted their organization, campaign and policies after devolution? What has been the role of autonomist parties in devolution? To what extent can we compare the multi-level organization and strategies of parties in Scotland with parties in other multi-level polities?

Core Reading Detterbeck, K. and E. Hepburn (2010), ‘Party politics in multi-level

systems: party responses to new challenges in European democracies’ in Jan Erk and Wilfried Swenden, eds., New Directions in Federalism Studies (London: Routledge), 106-125 [uploaded on Web-CT)

Libbrecht, L., Maddens, B and Swenden, W., ‘Party competition in regional elections: the strategies of statewide parties in Spain and the UK’, Party Politics, [published on-line ahead of print, 29 June 2011; also uploaded on Web-CT]

Swenden, Wilfried and Bart Maddens, ‘Introduction’ in Wilfried Swenden and Bart Maddens, eds., Territorial Party Politics in Western Europe (Palgrave; Macmillan 2009) [Web-CT]

Van Houten, P, 2009, ‘Multi-Level Relations in Political Parties: A Delegation Approach’ Party Politics 15: 137-156.

Further Reading Bolleyer, Nicole, 'New Party Organization in Western Europe: Of

Hierarchies, Stratarchies and Federations', Party Politics, March 18, 2011, OnlineFirst.

Chhibber, P.D. and Kollman, K, 2004,. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India and the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

De Winter, L and H Türsan, 1998, Regionalist Parties in Western Europe (London: Routledge, 1998), in particular, chapters 1, 2 and 13.

Deschouwer, K., 2005, ‘Political Parties as Multi-Level Organizations’ in Katz, Richard S. and Crotty W. eds Handbook of Party Politics, London: Sage.

Deschouwer, K, 2003, ‘Political Parties in Multi-Layered Systems’, European Urban and Regional Studies, vol.10: 213-226

Elias, Anwen - Tronconi, Filippo, 2011,‘From protest to power: Autonomist parties in government’ Party Politics, 17 (4), 505-524

Hepburn, E, 2009, ‘Introduction: Re-conceptualizing sub-state mobilization’ Regional and Federal Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 4–5, 477–499. See also other articles in special issue [e-journal]

Hopkin, J., 2009, ‘Party Matters: Devolution and Party Politics in Britain and Spain’ Party Politics 15: 179-198

Hough, D and C Jeffery, eds., 2006, Devolution and Electoral Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press)

16

Montero, A.P., 2005, ‘The politics of decentralization in a centralized party system: the case of democratic Spain’, Comparative Politics, 38, 1, 63-82

Ordeshook, P.C., M Filippov, O Shvetsova, 2004, Designing Federalism: A Theory of Self-Sustainable Federal Institutions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 177-225

Scharpf F.W., “Federal Arrangements and Multi-Party Systems” Australian Journal of Political Science, vol.30, (1995), Special Issue, pp.27-39

Thorlakson, T, 2009, ‘Patterns of Party Integration, Influence and Autonomy in Seven Federations’, Party Politics, vol. 15, no.2 pp. 157-177 – see also other articles in this special issue

Monday 10 October 2011Lecture 4: Multi-level elections and voting behaviour (NM)

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?

Core ReadingHenderson, A and N McEwen, 2010, A comparative analysis of

voter turnout in regional elections, Electoral Studies, vol.29, no.3, 405-416

Deschouwer, K, 2009, ‘Towards a Regionalization of Statewide Electoral Trends in Decentralized States?’ in Swenden, W and B Maddens, eds., Territorial Party Politics in Western Europe (Palgrave; Macmillan 2008)

Jeffery C and D Hough, 2009, ‘Understanding Post-Devolution Elections in Scotland and Wales in Comparative Perspective’ Party Politics, vol 15 no.2: 219-240

Reif, K and H Schmitt, ‘Nine Second Order National Elections: A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results’, European Journal of Political Research, 8 (1980), 3–44

Further Reading Abedi, A and A. Siaroff, 1999, The mirror has broken: increasing

divergence between national and Land elections in Austria, German Politics 8, 207–227.

Clark, N and R. Rohrschneider, 2009, Second-order elections versus first-order thinking: how voters perceive the representation process in a multi-layered system of governance, Journal of European Integration vol.31 no. 5, 645–664.

De Miguel Moyer, CG. ‘Electoral Patterns in federal countries: moderating in the case of Spain’ in Erk, J and W Swenden (eds). New Directions in Federalism Studies, London: Routledge NY, 83-105.

Fabre, E, ‘Multi-level Election Timing: a Comparative Overview’ Regional and Federal Studies, vol.20, no.2, 157-74

17

Hearl, D, I. Budge and B. Peterson, 1996, ‘Distinctiveness of regional voting: a comparative analysis across the European community countries (1979–1993)’ Electoral Studies vol.15, 167–182.

Heath, A., McLean, I., Taylor, B., 1997. How much is at stake? Electoral Behaviour in Second-order Elections. CREST Working Paper 59.

Hough, Dan and Jeffery, Charlie, (eds), 2006, Devolution and Electoral Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press), esp introductory chapter, and chapters on Spain and Italy.

Johns, R, D Denver and J Mitchell, 2010, Voting for a Scottish Government: The Scottish Parliament Election of 2007 Manchester University Press

Johns R.A., Mitchell J., Bennie L. (2010), Gendered nationalism: the gender gap in support for the Scottish National Party Party Politics

Johns R., Mitchell J., Denver D., Pattie C., (2009) Valence politics in Scotland: towards an explanation of the 2007 election, Political Studies Vol 57, No. 1, pp. 207-233

Lineira, R, 2011, Less at Stake or a Different Game? Regional Elections in Catalonia and Scotland, Regional and Federal Studies, vol 21, no 3

Percival, G.L., M. Currin-Percival, S. Bowler and H. van der Kolk, 2007, ‘Taxing, spending, and voting: voter turnout rates in statewide elections in comparative perspective’ State and Local Government Review vol.39, no.3, 131–143.

Studlar, D.T., 2001, Canadian exceptionalism: explaining differences over time in provincial and federal voter turnout, Canadian Journal of Political Science 34 (2) (2001), pp. 299–319.

Wyn Jones, R and R. Scully, 2006, ‘Devolution and electoral politics in Scotland and Wales’, Publius, vol.36.

18

Monday 17 October 2011Lecture 5: Social Citizenship and the Territorial Politics of

Welfare (NM)

Did devolution give rise to policy divergence? Is there evidence for a ‘race to the bottom’ in welfare, health or education? 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 a cost of equal civic, political or social citizenship rights and if so, should this be seen as a problem?

Core Reading

Béland, D and A Lecours (2005), The politics of territorial solidarity. Comparative Political Studies, vol.38, no.6, 676-703

Keating, M. 2009. Social citizenship, solidarity and welfare in regionalized and plurinational states. Citizenship Studies, vol.13, no.5, 501-14.

Jeffery, C. 2009. Devolution, public attitudes and social citizenship, in Greer, S (ed). Devolution and social citizenship in the UK, Policy Press. (web CT)

McEwen, N, 2006. Does the recognition of national minorities undermine the welfare state?, in Banting, K and W Kymlicka (eds) Multiculturalism and the welfare state, Oxford University Press. (web CT)

Further Reading

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

Banting, K G, 1987, The Welfare State and Canadian Federalism, 2nd edition (Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press).

Birrell, D, 2009, The impact of devolution on social policy Policy Press.Curtice, A., 2010, Intergovernmental relations and social citizenship:

opportunities Labour missed, in Lodge, G and K Schmuecker (eds) Devolution in Practice, IPPR.

Dwyer, P. 2004, Understanding social citizenship Policy Press. Hicks A, and D Swank, 1992, ‘Political institutions and welfare spending

in industrialized countries, 1960-1982’ American Political Science Review, vol. 86/3: 658-74.

Jeffery, C. 2005. Devolution and social citizenship: which society, whose citizenship?, in Greer, S (ed) Territory, democracy and justice Palgrave, Macmillan.

Keating, M. and N. McEwen, 2005, ‘Devolution and Public Policy in Comparative Perspective’, Regional and Federal Studies, 15/4.

19

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

McEwen, N, 2006, Nationalism and the State PIE Peter Lang.Marshall, T H, 1950, Citizenship and social class, and other essays

Cambridge University Press.Mooney, et al., 2008, The ‘Celtic lion’ and social policy. Critical Social

PolicyObinger, H., Leibfried, S. and Castles, F. (eds.) (2005), Federalism and

the Welfare State. New World and European experiences, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Schram, S and J Soss, 1998, ‘Making something out of nothing: welfare reform and a new race to the bottom’, Publius, the Journal of Federalism, vol.28

Wallner, J, 2010, ‘Beyond National Standards: Reconciling Tension between Federalism and the Welfare State’ Publius 40(4): 646-671

20

Monday 24 October 2010Lecture 6: The politics of territorial finance (WS)

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, Charles R., (2009), ‘When Is Fiscal Decentralization Good for Governance?’, Publius, Vol. 39, No. 4 632-650

Rodden, J.(2002) ‘The Dilemma of Fiscal Federalism: Grants and Fiscal Performance around the World’, American Journal of Political Science 46.3 (July 2002): 670-687

Swenden, W (2006), Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe. A Comparative and Thematic Analysis, Ch. 4.

Enderlein, H. (2009), ‘Economic Policy-Making and Multi-level Governance’ in Henrik Enderlien, Sonja Wälti and Michael Zürn, eds., Handbook of Multi-level Governance, 2009 [uploaded on Web-CT]

Further Reading

Ahmad E. and Craig J., (1997), ‘Intergovernmental Transfers’, in Ter-Minassian T., Fiscal Federalism in Theory and Practice (Washington: IMF), pp. 73-108

Boadway R. and Shah, A, eds. (2007)., Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers. Principles and Practice (Washington DC: World Bank)

Braun, D., ‘Making fiscal federalism self-enforcing: Germany, Australia and Switzerland Compared’ in Erk J. and Swenden, W. eds., New Directions in Federalism Studies, (London: Routledge), 172-187

Braun, D. (2002), Fiscal Policies and Federal States (Aldershot: Ashgate)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 (2003) 4, 67-90

Jeffery, C (2003), Cycles of Conflict: Fiscal Equalisation in Germany, Regional and Federal Studies, 13/4, 22-40

Quebec Commission on Fiscal Imbalance, 2001, Intergovernmental Fiscal Arrangements. Germany, Australia, Belgium, Spain, United States and Switzerland (Quebec City: Quebec): on line information: http://www.desequilibrefiscal.gouv.qc.ca/en/pdf/internationnal_ang.pdf

21

Rodden, J. 2006, ‘Promise and Peril’ in Jonathan A. Rodden, Hamilton’s Paradox. The Promise and Peril of Fiscal Federalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 15-47

Tiebout, C. (1956), ‘A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures’, Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416-24

Wellisch Dietmar, 2000, Theory of Public Finance in a Federal State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 1-22.

22

Monday 31 October 2011Lecture 7: Environmental Politics and Policy-making in a

Multi-Level Context (NM)

Core Reading

Byrne, J., Hughes, K., Rickerson, W. & Kurdgelashvili, L. (2007). American policy conflict in the greenhouse: divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green energy and climate change policy. Energy Policy, 35: 4555-73.

Climate Group (2008). Low Carbon Leaders: States and Regions. Available at: http://www.theclimategroup.org/assets/resources/Low_Carbon_Leader.States_and_ Regions.pdf

Happaerts, S., Van den Brande, K., Bruyninckx, H. (2010). Governance for Sustainable Development at the Inter-subnational Level: The Case of the Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD). Regional and Federal Studies, 20 (1), 127-149.

McEwen, N, E Bomberg and W Swenden (2010). Climate Change and Regional Autonomy: The Case of Scotland (manuscript under review – uploaded to web CT)

Rabe, B, (2011), Contested Federalism and American Climate Policy, Publius 41(3): 494-521

Further Reading

Aulisi, A., Larsen, J., Pershing, J. & Posner, P. (2007). Climate Policy in the State Laboratory: How States Influence Federal Regulation and the Implications for Climate Change Policy in the United States. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.

Burke B. and M Ferguson (2010). Going Alone or Moving Together: Canadian and US Middle-Tier Strategies on Climate Change. Publius: the Journal of Federalism 40/3: 436-459.

Engel, K. & Saleska, S. (2005). ‘Subglobal Regulation of the Global Commons: The Case of Climate Change’ Ecology Law Quarterly vol. 32/1: 183-233.

Engel, K. (2009). Whither Subnational Climate Change Initiatives in the Wake of Federal Climate Legislation? Publius, the journal of federalism 39: 432-54.

Jänicke, M. (2005). Trend-setters in environmental policy: the character and role of pioneering countries’ European Environment 15: 129-42.

Liefferink, D., Arts, B., Kamstra, J. & Ooijevaar, J. (2009). Leaders and laggards in environmental policy: a quantitative analysis of domestic policy outputs’, Journal of European Public Policy, 16/5: 677-700.

Matisoff, D. (2008). The Adoption of State Climate Change Policies and Renewable Portfolio Standards. Regional diffusion or Internal Determinants? Review of Policy Research 25/3: 527-46.

23

Moser, S. (2007). In the Long Shadow of Inaction: The Quiet Building of a Climate Protection Movement in the US. Global Environmental Politics, 7: 124-44.

Rabe, B (2004) Statehouse and Greenhouse. The Merging Politics of American Climate Change Policy Wash. DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Rabe, B (2007). Beyond Kyoto: Climate change policy in multilevel governance systems. Governance, 20/3: 423-44.

Walti, S. (2004). How multilevel structures affect environmental policy in industrialized countries. European Journal of Political Research 43: 599-634.

Monday 7 November 2011Lecture 8: Intergovernmental relations in multi-level states

(WS)

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, Nicole (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

Nicola McEwen, Wilfried Swenden and Nicole Bolleyer, ‘Intergovernmental Relations in the UK. Continuity in a time of Change? in Nicola McEwen, Wilfried Swenden and Nicole Bolleyer, eds., Governments in Opposition? Intergovernmental Relations in the UK in a context of party political incongruence, British Journal of Politics and International Relations [forthcoming; copy uploaded on Web-CT]

Swenden, Wilfried (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), 103-123 [copy uploaded on web-CT]

Further Reading

24

Agranoff, R, ‘Autonomy, Devolution and Intergovernmental Relations’, Regional and Federal Studies, 14/1

Bolleyer, Nicole (2009), Intergovernmental cooperation: rational choices in federal systems and beyond. Oxford University Press (e-book)

Bolleyer, Nicole (2006), ‘Federal Dynamics in Canada, the United States and Switzerland - How Sub-states’ Internal Organization Affects Intergovernmental Relations', Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 36, 4, 1-32.

Hanf K., Toonen T.A.J. (1985), Policy Implementation in Federal and Unitary Systems Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff

Jeffery, C (2002), ‘Uniformity and Diversity in Policy Provision: Insights from the US, Germany and Canada’, in J. Adams and P. Robinson (eds), Devolution in Practice. Public Policy Differences within the UK, IPPR.

Keating, M. and N. McEwen (2005), ‘Devolution and Public Policy in Comparative Perspective’, Regional and Federal Studies, 15/4.

Scharpf F.W., (1997) “The Problem Solving Capacity of Multi-Level Governance,” Journal of European Public Policy, No.4, pp.520-538

Trench, Alan, “Intergovernmental Relations: In Search of a Theory” in Greer, Scott L., ed. Territory, Democracy and Justice. Regionalism and Federalism in Western Democracies (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2006), pp. 224-257

Trench, A. (2007), ‘Washing Dirty Linen in Private: The Processes of Intergovernmental Relations and the Resolution of Disputes, in A Trench (ed), Devolution and Power, Manchester University Press.

Wright Deil S., 1982, Understanding Intergovernmental Relations (Brooks/Cole Publishing Monterrey, CA) pp. 1-40.

Weissert, C S., C W. Stenberg, and R L Cole, 2009, Continuity and Change: A Ranking of Key Issues Affecting U.S. Intergovernmental Relations (1995–2005), Publius 39(4): 677-695

25

Monday 14 November 2011Lecture 9: Towards a Europe of the Regions?

Nicola McEwen With many of its policies affected by EU regulation, how does the Scottish government upload its preferences at the level of the EU? To what extent does it rely on the co-operation with the UK government and the other devolved territories? How does Scotland compare with other regions in the European Union with legislative competencies in terms of its involvement in EU policy-making? To what extent does the EU make these multi-level polities more centralized and also more co-ordinated?

Core Reading Bulmer, S. Burch, M. Hogwood, P and Scott, A. ‘UK Devolution and

the European Union: A Tale of Cooperative Asymmetry?’, Publius: the Journal of Federalism 36(1): 75-93

Jeffery, C., (2000), ‘Subnational Mobilization and European Integration. Does it make any difference?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 38, (1), 1-23

Keating, M. (2008), ‘A Quarter Century of the Europe of the Regions’, Regional & Federal Studies, 18, (5), 628-638

Tatham, M (2010), With or Without You? Revisiting territorial state-bypassing in EU interest representation”, Journal of European Public Policy, 17 (1), 76-99

Further Reading Aron, M. ‘Reviews of Engagement with Europe and EU Office’ [non

published, but ‘leaked’ Scottish government report – available on web-CT]

Bache, I., (2008), Europeanization and Multi-Level Governance (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield)

Beyers, J. and Bursens P., ‘The European Rescue of the Federal State. How Europeanization Shapes the Belgian State’, West European Politics, 29 (5), 1057-1078

Bomberg. E. and J. Peterson (1998), ‘European Union Decision Making: the Role of Sub-national Authorities’, Political Studies, 46, (2), 219-35

Börzel, T.A (2002), The State and the Regions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Bursens, P. (2007), ‘State Structures’ in Graziono, P. and Vink, M., eds., Europeanization. New Research Agendas (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan), 115-127

Carroll, William E, 2011,The Committee of the Regions: A Functional Analysis of the CoR's Institutional Capacity, Regional and Federal Studies, 21/3 Elias, A. ed. (2008), Whatever Happened to the Europe of the Regions?

Revisiting the Regional Dimension of European Politics, Special Issue, Regional & Federal Studies, 18 (5), 483-636

Hooghe, L. and Marks G. (2001), Multi-Level Governance and European Integration (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield)

26

Jeffery, C. (1997), The Regional Dimension of the European Union. Towards a third Level in Europe? (London: Frank Cass)

Jeffery, C. (2007), ‘A Regional Rescue of the Nation-State. Changing Regional Perspectives on Europe’, Europa Institute, Mitchell Working Paper series, University of Edinburgh, available on-line: http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/file_download/series/32_aregionalrescueofthenationstatechangingregionalperspectivesoneurope.pdf

Jones, B. and Keating, M, eds. (1995), The European Union and the Regions (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Jolly, S. (2007), ‘The Europhile Fringe? Regionalist Party Support for European Integration’, European Union Politics, (8), 1, 119-30

Monday 21 November 2011Lecture 10: Constitutional futures: Does accommodating

nationalism through devolution appease or further nationalist demands? (WS)

What does Scottish devolution lead to? Is independence inevitable or does granting limited self-government appease nationalist sentiment? What are the comparative lessons we can learn by studying the politics of territorial identity and constitutional change in other multi-level and multi-national polities with devolution or federalism, such as Spain, Belgium or Canada? Is multi-level government inherently unstable - is more power ever good enough?

Core Reading Erk, J and L Anderson, 2009, ‘The paradox of federalism: does self-

rule accommodate or exacerbate ethnic divisions’ Regional & Federal Studies, vol19, no.2, 191-202.

Keating, M, 2001, Nations against the State: The New Politics of Nationalism in Quebec, Catalonia, and Scotland, 2nd edition (Macmillan).

McGarry, John & O'Leary, Brendan (2009): Must Pluri-national Federations Fail?, Ethnopolitics, 8:1, 5-25 [e-journal with limited access but this article can be downloaded for free]

Swenden, W. ‘The Territorial Management of Plurinationalism’ [in preparation for Loughlin, J., Kincaid J. and Swenden, W., eds. Routledge Handbook of Federalism and Regionalism – London: Routledge, 2013; draft chapter circulated and uploaded a few weeks before the lecture]

Further Reading

Colino, C, 2009, Constitutional Change without Constitutional Reform: Spanish Federalism and the Revision of Catalonia's Statute of Autonomy Publius, Vol. 39, No. 2, 262-288

Behnke, N. and A Benz, 2009, ‘The Politics of Constitutional Change between Reform and Evolution, Publius, Vol. 39, No. 2, 213-240

27

Commission on Scottish Devolution (2009). Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century. Final Report, June, available at: http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/uploads/2009-06-12-csd-final-report-2009fbookmarked.pdf

Deschouwer, K 2009, The Politics of Belgium. Governing a Divided Society (Basingstoke Palgrave-Macmillan), especially conclusion.

Deschouwer K and P Van Parijs (2009), ‘Electoral Engineering for a Stalled Federation?’ http://www.rethinkingbelgium.eu/rebel-initiative-ebooks/ebook-4-electoral-engineering-stalled-federation (see also other e-books published in this ‘Re-Bel’ (‘Rethinking Belgium’) series.

Jeffery, C, 2009, Devolution in the United Kingdom: Problems of a Piecemeal Approach to Constitutional Change Publius, Vol. 39, No. 2: 289-313

Keating, M, 2009, The Independence of Scotland (Oxford: Oxford University Press) (e-book)

Moreno, Luis (2001), The federalization of Spain (London: Frank Cass) Simeon, R. 2009, Constitutional Design and Change in Federal Systems:

Issues and Questions, Publius, Vol. 39, No. 2, 241-261Swenden, W and T J Maarten, 2006, ‘Will it stay or will it go? Federalism

and the Sustainability of Belgium’, West European Politics, 29 (5), special issue on the politics of Belgium, see also other articles in this special issue

Scottish Government, 2009, Your Scotland, Your Voice: A National Conversation, available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2009/11/26155932/0

Wilson, A and M Keating, 2009, ‘Renegotiating the State of Autonomies: Statute Reform and Multi-Level Politics in Spain’, West European Politics, 32, 3: 536-558.

28

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 lead a tutorial discussion in weeks 3 and 7Members of group B will lead tutorial discussion in weeks 4 and 8Members of group C will lead tutorial discussions in week 5 and 9 Members of group D will lead tutorial discussions in week 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 which 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 presentations.

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 moderator in charge 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; (iii) and 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 percent of the overall mark.

29

SAMPLE TUTORIAL FEEDBACK MARK SHEET

COMPARING SCOTTISH DEVOLUTION

GROUP PRESENTATIONS FEEDBACK SHEET

Prepared by Monitor: Dr Wilfried Swenden

GROUP A

Question Addressed:

Some factors informing assessment: Firs

t2:1 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:

30

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 toward 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 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. (NB 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.

31

Thus a primary objective of this exercise is to produce a research briefing paper which 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 of most concern to the intended recipient without compromising the impartiality and accuracy of its content.Research Briefing TopicsResearch briefing papers should address ONE of the issues listed below:

1. Should social security remain the sole responsibility of the UK government?

2. Does the Scotland bill currently making its way through the Westminster parliament strengthen Scottish devolution?

3. What is the best model of party organisation for Scotland’s statewide parties? (You should tailor this briefing to either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party)

4. What opportunities and risks does fiscal autonomy pose for Scotland?

5. Analyse the 2011 Scottish Parliament election result (Students may choose to focus on a particular party’s performance)

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.

32

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

the precise focus of the research briefing paper why you're writing the research briefing (your purpose) who you're writing the research briefing for (your reader) what that person most needs to know the points you will cover 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?

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

33

either of the options and sometimes their pros and cons or of what will happen next.

Conclusion and/or Recommendations: Conclusions summarize 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 AssessmentPapers should be submitted via by 12 noon, Friday 3 November 2011 (page 3 for instructions how to submit).. Please refer to the relevant section of the course handbook for information on electronic submission, and penalties for late submission. 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.

34

ANNEX 3: THE ESSAY

Essay Questions

Choose ONE of the following:

1. Does the process of European Integration strengthen ‘regions with legislative powers’?

2. Can the UKgovernment learn from other states on how

to best manage plurinationalism?

3. Can regional governments play a significant role in combating climate change?

4. ‘Regional elections are always second order’. Discuss

5. Is it desirable for UK devolution if intergovernmental relations were to become more institutionalized? Refer in your answer to intergovernmental relations in other multi-level or federal states

6. The SNP government is committed to holding an independence referendum. What can it learn from other multinational states with experience of constitutional referendums?

The essay should be 2,500 words in length (+/- 10%) and is worth 50% of the overall mark for this course.by 12:00 on Friday 2 December 2011 (page 3 for instructions 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.

35

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

Use a consistent system of referencing. (Students may find it useful to study the examples used in textbooks). A popular style is to use the author-date citation in the text, where a work is drawn upon, either directly in quote form or indirectly by using your own words. The following example, although not a direct quote, drew upon Brown, 1996, as its source, and this is referenced accordingly:

In elections to the Scottish Parliament, voters have two votes, one for a constituency candidate and the second for a party list. There is some evidence to suggest that there was a degree of "ticket-splitting", with electors dividing their party loyalties in the first and second vote (Brown, 1999: 206).

It is good practice to always include page numbers when using references in the text. When quoting directly, page numbers must be used. Always cite the source from which your information came. Do not use second-hand sources - consult the original text, where possible.

In addition to author-date citations in the main text, use an alphabetical (by last name) reference section (bibliography) at the end of the essay. Some examples of different types of sources are given below.

Bibliography

Jeffery, C, (2003) ‘The Politics of Territorial Finance’, Regional and Federal Studies, vol. 13, no.4.

McEwen, N, (2006), ‘Does the recognition of national minorities undermine the welfare state?’, in Banting, K and W Kymlicka (eds) Multiculturalism and the welfare state, (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 247-71.

36

Swenden, W, 2006, Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe. A Comparative and Thematic Analysis, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan)

37