“Instead of trumpeting references to a mythical Scandinavian model, Scottish policy makers would be better to start by looking over the border.” James Mitchell makes the case for a bolder approach to governing Scotland.

In a dissenting opinion in a 1932 case, US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously argued that a ‘single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country’.  The notion that devolved government, as states within a federation, might operate as laboratories of democracy pursuing innovative policies was a central argument in the case for a Scottish Parliament.

The old Scottish Office had been able to pursue distinct policies though constrained by being politically headed by a Cabinet Minister chosen by the Prime Minister.  There had been some scope to adapt measures to Scottish conditions and occasionally to lead the way, even in some areas to pursue quite different policies from the rest of the UK. 

Lord Kilbrandon is mainly remembered for chairing the Royal Commission on the Constitution but he had chaired an inquiry much earlier that laid the foundations for a more liberal approach to juvenile justice championed by the Scottish Office, especially Minister Judith Hart, that shifted proceedings from courts to Children’s Hearings and the passage of the landmark Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 with new local authority funded responsibilities.  A case can be made that that legislation, seen in historical context, was much bolder, more progressive than any legislation or initiative seen under devolution.

Make policy fit for purpose

Kilbrandon drew on experiences in Norway, Sweden and Denmark.  Lessons from these jurisdictions were not simply lifted and pasted into Scotland.  Nor were these lessons presented ostentatiously to present policy-makers as progressive.  Policy transfer challenges were carefully considered and change was vigorously tested inside government.  On that occasion, the Scottish Office was clear that it wanted to diverge from English policy, not from a nationalist perspective but because it made policy sense.

Ironically, superficial Scandinavian lesson-drawing has become little more than a shibboleth spouted by some Scottish politicians – leave aside that the mythical ‘Scandinavian model’ is no longer quite the paragon of social democracy imagined. 

So, what makes for success in policy learning and policy transfer?  Broadly, there are two major repositories of lessons though each includes dangers as well as opportunities.  The first is the past.  Policy change involves building on, amending or dismantling existing policy.  In this sense policy making is continuous.  New contexts, challenges and opportunities as well as lessons on policy failures and mishaps guide us.

Acknowledge failure to stop failing

Scottish policy making would benefit from a space in which frank discussion took place.  Holyrood certainly is not such a space.

Policy making is iterative.  Mistakes will be made as unanticipated problems emerge and contexts change.  Admitting that a policy has been unsuccessful, or at least less successful than anticipated is difficult for politicians especially when the policy was introduced to great fanfare.  Until and unless failure in closing the attainment gap in education is accepted then the prospects of real progress will falter or fail.  Scottish policy making would benefit from a space in which frank discussion took place.  Holyrood certainly is not such a space.

But where we should look for lessons?  There is no simple answer to this – indeed, as ever when it comes to policy making we should always be wary of simple answers.  H.L Mencken was assuredly correct in noting that ‘there is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible and wrong’.

Just as many plants do not survive well when transplanted into different terrain, so too may transplanted policies fail to take root without adaptation.  Indeed, this applies within as well as between jurisdictions.  We often hear the mantra that one-size-doesn’t-fit all within Scotland but this is all too rarely acted upon.

A wide range of considerations need to be taken into account when considering policy transfers.  Institutional arrangements, past practice, norms and values, social and economic contexts are all relevant.  This leads to the obvious but all too often ignored conclusion that lessons are most likely to be drawn from near neighbours sharing as much of these as the recipient polity.

Much to gain

‘Not everything needs to have a Saltire added to it’ is a refreshing and healthy message.  

Instead of trumpeting references to a mythical Scandinavian model, Scottish policy makers would be better to start by looking over the border.  This does not mean adopting every or any successful English policy tout court but it means overcoming the allergy to English success.  

The SNP’s desperation to highlight, accentuate, or exaggerate differences with England in pursuit of its constitutional goal undermines outcomes.  A more confident nationalist administration would recognise that there is much to be gained and little to fear from learning lessons from England.  Selective lesson drawing is needed, not wholescale adoption of each and every English initiative or practice.  There is little prospect of assimilation through policy learning but much to be gained in making Scotland more successful.

The day Scottish policy makers abandon some failed distinctly Scottish approach in favour of a successful English policy would not only serve the public well but signal a maturing of Scottish politics.

We have recently seen evidence of more enlightened thinking and from people with unquestionable pedigrees in commitment to Scottish national distinctiveness.  

Lindsay Paterson, Scotland’s foremost academic authority on education policy and by far the most sophisticated methodologist in this area, has argued that we need to look at England to learn lessons to improve educational outcomes.  Attempts to discredit English performance evident in recent PISA results were methodologically embarrassing and exemplified the survival in some quarters of the old Scottish cringe.  

Another example of glasnost making its way into policy thinking is evident in a recent paper co-authored by Alex Neil, former SNP Health Minister.  ‘Not everything needs to have a Saltire added to it’ is a refreshing and healthy message.  So long as the ‘political optics of adopting an English solution’ is the Scottish government reaction to tollowing an English success (the NHS app) then we will be stuck with poor outcomes.

The potential to learn from broadly similar polities exists in decentralised systems of government.  Devolution offers such potential, as would truly empowered local government.  The potential exists but it needs to be grasped.

Feature image: Colin Park, the sign where the East Coast line crosses the English-Scottish Boarder CC By-SA.2

Further reading

Alex Neil, Richard Simpson and Alastair Noble: Looking beyond Party Politics: what should health and care look like in Scotland in 2035