Using Devolution to Set the Agenda? Venue Shift and the Smoking Ban in Scotland
| Date | 01 February 2007 |
| Published date | 01 February 2007 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-856x.2007.00259.x |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Using Devolution to Set the Agenda?
Venue Shift and the Smoking Ban
in Scotland
Paul Cairney
This article examines the changing agendas on smoking-related issues in Scotland. It charts the
methods that groups, governments and MSPs use to frame and pursue or suppress discussion of the
prohibition of smoking in public places. The article presents two narratives—one which stresses
‘new politics’ and the ability of groups to influence policy through Scottish Parliamentary proce-
dures, and another which stresses Scottish Executive ‘business as usual’ and presents smoking
legislation as a logical progression from early ministerial commitments. A combination of narra-
tives suggests that tobacco legislation in Scotland was by no means part of an inevitable interna-
tional trend towards prohibition and this article traces the precise conditions or ‘policy windows’
in which decisions take place. The discussion highlights the often unsettled nature of the devolution
settlement and the ability of Scottish issues to influence UK agendas.
By 2006 all four countries in the UK had legislated to ban smoking in public places.
This, combined with measures on tobacco advertising, smoking cessation and
health education, makes the UK one of the most progressive member states in the
EU on tobacco policy (see Joosens and Raw 2006). It also substantiates a long-term
global trend towards tobacco prohibition in the developed world (Studlar 2004).
However, the picture has not been one of clear-cut and effortlesspolicy change. The
evidence from post-devolution Scotland in particular suggests that there was by no
means an inevitable progression towards comprehensive tobacco prohibition.
When the decision to legislate was made official in Scotland at the end of 2004, a
complete ban went against the government position in England (a case made
forcefully by then Secretary of State for Health John Reid).1The legislation was
initially set to mark one of the most significant policy divergences between Scotland
and England since devolution. It was one of the Scottish Executive’s ‘flagship’
policies and First Minister Jack McConnell called it the most important achieve-
ment in his term of office. Yet, as recently as January 2004, he had voiced public
opposition to comprehensive legislation. In light of opposition from the UK health
minister and ministerial equivocation within Scotland, tobacco policy change in
Scotland is significant. We have witnessed policy change, not only in terms of a
break from the voluntary tobacco agreements of the past, but also a break from the
policy of the UK government and a change of stated policy position by the Scottish
Executive. So, how do we explain this policy change?
Political science has long been dominated by theories that explain why policy
does not change. For example, incrementalism points to the limits of rational
comprehensive decision-making and a policy process that undermines radical
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-856x.2007.00259.x BJPIR: 2007 VOL 9, 73–89
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
policy shifts. Similarly, policy networks analysis focuses on close group–
government relations that foster long-term consensus and attempt to minimise
external interest in policy issues. Of course, problems arise when policy appears
to change significantly and a lack of dynamic elements may be held responsible
for the decreasing popularity of policy networks analysis. One notable exception
is an attempt to combine theories of change and agenda setting with theories of
stability and policy monopoly. The term ‘punctuated equilibrium’ describes
lengthy periods of relative stability punctuated by the reframing of issues and
brief but intense periods of policy change (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). This
approach is relevant to tobacco policy which appeared reasonably stable in the
UK and therefore constrained in Scotland. The case study of smoking in public
places demonstrates the importance of issue framing as well as venue shift in a
continually evolving devolution ‘settlement’. As Frank Baumgartner and Bryan
Jones (1993, 32) suggest:
Policy venues are the institutional locations where authoritative decisions
are made concerning a given issue. Policymaking authority is not auto-
matically assigned to particular venues ... Just as images may change over
time, so may [issues] fall within several venues.
In the case of smoking policy and devolution in Scotland, successful attempts to
reframe or shape the policy image of an issue caused a shift in the policy venue. This
can be seen in two main ways:
(1) A shift of the policy venue considering a smoking ban from the UK to the
Scottish arena; caused by
(2) A shift of group attention from the Scottish Executive to the Scottish
Parliament.
Successful reframing causes venue shift and the scope for legislating in a devolved
Scottish Parliament appears to grow. In this case, the process of changing the policy
image is inextricably linked with venue shift, since it is now framed as a devolved
rather than a reserved issue. However, the extent of this shift is open to debate and
two distinct ‘narratives’ can be inferred from official reports and interviews con-
ducted with groups, ministers and MSPs from 2003–6.2The first argues that
smoking policy was established and accepted by the Scottish Executive as a reserved
issue following devolution (in part to limit the potential for debate). However, a
successful shift of group attention to the Scottish Parliament as a venue for change,
coupled with the agenda-setting effects of Scottish Parliament legislative initiation,
‘forced the hands’ of Scottish Executive ministers in 2004. This shifted consider-
ation of the issue from the UK to Scotland as the issue was reframed as a public
health and therefore devolved issue. The venue shift allowed comprehensive policy
change in Scotland which contrasted (at the time) with the UK reliance on volun-
tary agreements.
We can compare this with a second account that undermines the significance of this
shift. The agenda on smoking has changed over a longer period and governmental
positions in the UK and Scotland are fluid rather than fixed. While the Scottish
Executive was committed from 2000 to a voluntary agreement in the UK mould,
this is explained by similar policy conditions rather than reserved constraints and
74 PAUL CAIRNEY
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
BJPIR, 2007, 9(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial