BORDERS are both administratively necessary and symbolically significant. It is impossible to create a system of government with even a modicum of public services or have representative democracy without borders simply because we need “geographical units of government”.
Geographical units of government, of course, depersonalises the matter. Symbolically, these units attain a status dividing “us” and “them”. The key questions are, firstly, where to draw the border or boundary, secondly, its purpose and, thirdly, how porous it should be.
Many of currently all too typically heated contributions focus exclusively on the symbolism and pay little heed to the public policy dimension. Sadly, that has been an all too familiar feature of our politics.
READ MORE: UK Government 'planning to withhold power from Scotland after Brexit transition'
We have been witnessing a significant change in Conservative unionism under Boris Johnson. David Cameron’s “respect agenda” was largely rhetorical but was more pluralistic compared with current Tory leader. Indeed, Mr Johnson’s unionism goes well beyond Margaret Thatcher’s.
Mrs Thatcher never understood the multi-national nature of the UK and, as her memoirs made clear, she was irritated by a Scottish Office that pursued different agendas and policies from her own. But she never denied that Scotland was a distinct nation or that there was no border.
What we are seeing is the rise of a kind of unitary state unionism that has never previously existed and sits very uneasily with devolution. In research I conducted in the early ways of devolution, I argued that we may have created devolved institutions but had still to develop a devolved mindset or culture in the UK.
That was slowly developing but appears to have come to a juddering halt with this Prime Minister. His rhetoric on borders would suggest that devolved government should not exist. This does not mean he will seek to abolish the Scottish Parliament but seeks to frustrate it.
The Anglo-Scottish border is remarkably clear – there are no border disputes as exist in many parts of the world. It is real, defined legally and administratively. It is absurd to pretend otherwise but it is not absurd to question its purpose or how permeable it should be.
In public policy terms – less exciting but more important in terms of services people receive – borders are necessary. Boundaries – whether between components of a federation, a (partially) devolved polity or local government – allow for diversity in policy prescriptions reflecting different needs. From a purely public policy perspective, the most appropriate units and thereby boundaries, will differ depending on the function or service. The most boundaries for the provision of important aspects of economic planning are arguably far greater than for parks and leisure. It may be necessary to combine for certain functions.
As far as trade is concerned, local authorities are far too small, so too is Scotland and indeed so too is the UK. Hence we need permeable borders.
That is all very abstract but these have been questions that have had to be tackled over the 20th century with every major overhaul of local government – about every 20 to 30 years or so – and also considering whether a matter should be administered at a Scotland, Britain or UK level. It has also been key in debates on European integration – the issue of subsidiarity.
Translating this into examples. One interesting debate that I wrote about many years ago concerned the state’s increasing intervention in animal and public health.
When the UK decided there needed to be a ministry responsible for agriculture including animal health, the question arose as to whether the border should be ignored or whether there should be a distinct Ministry for Scotland with responsible for animal health in Scotland.
Some Whitehall officials feared a Scottish ministry might be more lax and that porous nature of the border would mean that diseased animals would easily stray over the border and infect “English” animals – foot and mouth for example. But Scottish officials insisted and have subsequently been proved correct in arguing that Scotland would have at least as stringent animal health regulations, administration.
The permeable or porous nature of borders is important but requires flexibility. What we are seeing across the world – both within and between states – is that borders that are normally very porous have been temporarily firm or less permeable for sensible public health reasons.
This comes at a cost of course. Creating a hard border inevitably has an adverse effect on trade and the economy.
A legitimate case can be made to harden the Anglo-Scottish border temporarily for public health reasons and, equally, an economic case can be made for keeping that border open. This should not be a question based on anything other public policy considerations.
There are two ways of looking at this – weighing up the balance between economic and health risks, which is not easy, or making a decision based on symbolism and sentiment.
It is clear that the First Minister is considering this in public policy terms, as indeed she should.
James Mitchell is Professor of public policy at Edinburgh University.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel