Devolution and the Prevent Strategy in Scotland: Constitutional Politics and the Path of Scottish P/CVE

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Parliamentary Affairs Pub Date : 2023-03-21 DOI:10.1093/pa/gsad007
Charlotte Heath-Kelly
{"title":"Devolution and the Prevent Strategy in Scotland: Constitutional Politics and the Path of Scottish P/CVE","authors":"Charlotte Heath-Kelly","doi":"10.1093/pa/gsad007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper explores the implementation of the ‘Prevent Duty’ in Scotland. Using archival research into Parliamentary debates, as well as research interviews with Scottish government representatives and healthcare professionals, the paper sheds light on the constitutional politics surrounding the Counterterrorism and Security Act 2015 which resulted in the markedly different applications of Prevent between England and Scotland. The divergence of the policy between the nations, and the constitutional anomalies which facilitated a specifically Scottish Prevent program, have remained unaddressed in the academic literature—partly because of a mistaken assumption by researchers that the Prevent Strategy equally applies to all nations (given that Westminster legislates for the UK on matters of defence and security). To fill this gap in knowledge, this paper explores how the Scottish government was able to leverage the devolution settlement and associated constitutional conventions to implement a modest P/CVE program—dropping some components of the English and Welsh Prevent programs entirely. The paper contributes to studies on British constitutional conventions and the nature of inter-governmental politics in the UK by highlighting the surprising freedom to manoeuvre Scotland can enjoy, with regards to reserved policy areas.","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parliamentary Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsad007","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper explores the implementation of the ‘Prevent Duty’ in Scotland. Using archival research into Parliamentary debates, as well as research interviews with Scottish government representatives and healthcare professionals, the paper sheds light on the constitutional politics surrounding the Counterterrorism and Security Act 2015 which resulted in the markedly different applications of Prevent between England and Scotland. The divergence of the policy between the nations, and the constitutional anomalies which facilitated a specifically Scottish Prevent program, have remained unaddressed in the academic literature—partly because of a mistaken assumption by researchers that the Prevent Strategy equally applies to all nations (given that Westminster legislates for the UK on matters of defence and security). To fill this gap in knowledge, this paper explores how the Scottish government was able to leverage the devolution settlement and associated constitutional conventions to implement a modest P/CVE program—dropping some components of the English and Welsh Prevent programs entirely. The paper contributes to studies on British constitutional conventions and the nature of inter-governmental politics in the UK by highlighting the surprising freedom to manoeuvre Scotland can enjoy, with regards to reserved policy areas.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
苏格兰的权力下放与防范策略:宪政政治与苏格兰人民党/保守党之路
本文探讨了“预防税”在苏格兰的实施。通过对议会辩论的档案研究,以及对苏格兰政府代表和医疗保健专业人员的研究访谈,本文揭示了围绕2015年反恐和安全法的宪法政治,这导致了英格兰和苏格兰之间预防的应用明显不同。各国之间政策的分歧,以及促进苏格兰预防计划的宪法异常,在学术文献中仍然没有得到解决,部分原因是研究人员错误地认为预防战略同样适用于所有国家(考虑到威斯敏斯特在国防和安全问题上为英国立法)。为了填补这一知识空白,本文探讨了苏格兰政府如何能够利用权力下放解决方案和相关的宪法公约来实施适度的P/CVE计划-完全放弃英格兰和威尔士预防计划的一些组成部分。这篇论文通过强调苏格兰在保留政策领域可以享有的令人惊讶的操纵自由,对英国宪法惯例和英国政府间政治性质的研究做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Parliamentary Affairs
Parliamentary Affairs POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Parliamentary Affairs is an established, peer-reviewed academic quarterly covering all the aspects of government and politics directly or indirectly connected with Parliament and parliamentary systems in Britain and throughout the world. The journal is published in partnership with the Hansard Society. The Society was created to promote parliamentary democracy throughout the world, a theme which is reflected in the pages of Parliamentary Affairs.
期刊最新文献
Cleaning Up UK Politics: What Would Better Lobbying Regulation Look Like? Big Little Election Lies: Cynical and Credulous Evaluations of Electoral Fraud Paralysed Governments: How Political Constraints Elicit Cabinet Termination What Do We Call an ‘MP’? On Categories of Thought in the Anthropology of Parliaments Beyond Institutional Adaptation: Legislative Europeanisation and Parliamentary Attention to the EU in the Hungarian Parliament
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1