Regional Studies

ISSN: 0034-3404 (Print) 1360-0591 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cres20

Attitudes Towards Planning in a Devolved Scotland

Philip Allmendinger & Adam Barker

To cite this article: Philip Allmendinger & Adam Barker (2001) Attitudes Towards Planning in a
Devolved Scotland, Regional Studies, 35:8, 759-764, DOI: 10.1080/00343400120084740

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400120084740

Published online: 18 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 106

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cres20
 Policy Review Section
Attitudes Towards Planning in a
Devolved Scotland
P HI L I P A L L M E ND I N G E R and
A DA M BA R K ER
European Urban and Regional Research Centre, Department
of Land Economy, University of Aberdeen,
Aberdeen AB24 3UF, U K.
Emails: p.allmendinger@abdn.ac.uk; a.j.barker@abdn.ac.uk
Devolution has built upon and encouraged feelings of distinc-
tiveness in Scottish Planning. However, beyond broad support
there is little empirical evidence or assessment of future
trajectories for planning. Based upon a comprehensive survey
of planners across Scotland concerning attitudes towards
planning post devolution this article highlights a number of
important points. The main issue relates to the hiatus
between high expectations and the perceived impact of the
Parliament upon planning thus far. However, such expecta-
tions do not necessarily imply a divergence of planning
between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Planners in
Scotland, like their counterparts in England and Wales, desire
a more community based and eVective planning system. The
Scottish Parliament is therefore yet to justify itself to planners.
Scottish Parliament Devolution Planning
Introduction
Devolution has been described as a democratic revolu-
tion (B A R N ET T , 1997). The establishment of a Parlia-
ment in Scotland, Assemblies in Wales and Northern
Ireland as well as regional institutions in England
provide new and potentially radical challenges to the
unitary nature of the UK. As a function of all the
devolved bodies, to greater and lesser degrees, such
changes also potentially challenge the centralized
tradition of land use planning in the UK.
Expectations for such a general divergence in policy
are strong and, despite some hiccups, early evidence
would seem to indicate that such hopes are not mis-
placed; the abolition of student tuition fees, a 23% pay
rise for teachers and the introduction of free care for
pensioners north of the border have been described as
drawing ‘an indelible line across the UK’ (The Guardian,
27 January 2001, p. 11).
Studies of devolution and possible policy diver-
gence and convergence are beginning to emerge (e.g.
H A S S A N and W A R H UR S T , 2000; H A Z E L L , 2000)
though little has been written on planning and devolu-
tion and, speciŽ cally, the Scottish Parliament (though
see A L L M EN D I NG E R , 2001a, 2001b). As land use
planning is a devolved functon of the Parliament, there
is naturally the possibility of a divergence of policy and
practice. Scotland has historically seen its land use
regulation system as an element of its distinctiveness
from England and a re ection of Scotland’s separate
legal and administrative framework. There has been a
759
certain amount of pride in this situation and claims
that the diVerences between the two regimes ‘go far
beyond the addition of the word ‘‘Scotland’’ to the
principal planning act’ (R OWAN - R O B I NS O N , 1997,
p. 32). Distinctions between the planning systems in
England and Scotland have re ected wider debates on
the level of policy autonomy and diVerence generally
(M C C R O NE , 1992). At one level there were signiŽ cant
diVerences between English and Scottish planning that
saw, for example, the introduction of national planning
guidance 14 years before it was introduced in the
UK. According to the ex-Chief Planner in Scotland,
informal working relationships between the diVerent
levels of government and others outside the govern-
mental process were also signiŽ cant in helping create a
distinctive Scottish planning: ‘There is no doubt that
the diYcult process of drafting the guidelines was made
easier, perhaps only made possible, by the ease of
formal and informal contact with those likely to be
aVected’ (L Y D DO N , 1980, p. 67).
W A NN OP, 1980, identiŽ ed four distinctive charac-
teristics that distinguished Scottish from English plan-
ning including a regional system of local government,
the comprehensive scale of direct participation in
regeneration through bodies such as the (then) Scottish
Development Agency (SD A) and the style of the
Scottish Development Department in creating National
Planning Guidelines and Regional reports (p. 64). In
the 20 years that followed, Wannop’s distinctive Scottish
system began to better resemble the English through
the adoption of some of the Scottish approaches south
of the border (e.g. the establishment of SDA style
agencies in England and Wales as well as the introduc-
tion of national planning guidance), the abolition of the
regional tier of government and regional reports in
Scotland and the adaptation of certain policies for Scot-
land that were introduced in England such as Enterprise
Zones and SimpliŽ ed Planning Zones.
Such speciŽ c convergences are part of a broad
convergence of planning policy and practice as both
Scottish and English planning has become subject to
the centralizing tendency for planning of the Major
governments during the early 1990s (A L LM E ND I N G ER
and T EWDW R - J O N ES , 1997), the impact of Europe
(L OWE and W A R D , 1998) as well as (and arguably
driven by) the impacts of unifying economic and cul-
tural homogenization born of globalization (S C HO LT E ,
2000). Thus, one can read NPPG 1 (S CO T T I S H
E X EC UT I VE , 2000) and PPG 1 (D EPA RT M EN T O F
T H E E N VI R O NM E NT (DoE), 1997) and see more
similarities than diVerences. Planning policy between
the two nations now re ects the similarity that has
always existed with regard to legislation.
The growing convergence of planning does not
detract from the perception of a need to distinguish
Scottish planning from its English counterpart; one can
detect an inversely proportional relationship between
the convergence of planning policy and practice and
DOI: 10.1080/00343400120084740
760 Policy Review Section
the growing desire for divergence in some quarters.
This growing desire for divergence has been fuelled by
devolution. Prior to the establishment of the Parliament
there was much debate and expectation concerning
how planning could be adapted to better re ect the
needs and desires of the Scottish people (T EW DWR -
J O NE S and L LOYD , 1997; H AY TO N , 1997; G OO D -
S TA D T and U’ R E N , 1999). The overall view of the
potential devolution for planning is positive and there
is broad agreement that the new Scottish Parliament
will enable planning in Scotland to ‘re ect the wishes
of the Scottish, as opposed to British electorate’ (H AY -
T O N , 1997, p. 208). The publication of the consulta-
tion paper Land Use Planning under a Scottish Parliament
(S C OT T I S H O F FI C E , 1999) raised expectations even
further with the hint that devolution could involve
a ‘root and branch reform of the Scottish planning
system’ (G O OD S TA D T and U’ R EN , 1999, p. 11).
Such expectations would seem to have not been
diminished in the period since the Parliament has been
in operation. Although there has been little empirical
work, most analyses of the experiences of the Scottish
Parliament and planning still lean heavily on the ‘great
opportunity’ school of thought. For example, L LOYD ,
1999, and L L OYD and I L L S L EY, 2000, see the potential
for the Scottish Parliament to provide a ‘much needed’
strategic framework of national and regional planning
while M C C A RT H Y, 1999, p. 560, sees the introduction
of a Parliament as presenting: ‘An opportunity for the
reformulation of urban regeneration policy so as to
enable it to address the causes of urban decline in a
more rational and coherent manner’.
For a small group of commentators, expectations of
change are obviously high. Nevertheless, we know
little, if anything, about the attitudes of practising
planners towards the Parliament: what are their
expectations and experiences; what should the Parlia-
ment be focusing on; and what are the most important
issues it should deal with? To date there has been
little assessment of the progress of the Parliament
vis-à-vis planning (though see A L L ME ND I N G ER and
T EW DWR - J O N ES , 2000, for a survey-based assessment
of current and proposed regional planning and devolu-
tion in England, Scotland and Wales). Such an assess-
ment is a crucial component in any longer term study
of policy change as it helps provide a benchmark
against which to assess divergence/convergence and the
trajectory of planning generally.
To address these issues the European Urban and
Regional Research Centre at the University of Aber-
deen undertook a survey of Scottish planners to gauge
expectations, attitudes and assessments of change. The
remainder of this article addresses the results of that
survey before analysing their signiŽ cance and drawing
some broad conclusions.
The survey
Eighty-two questionnaires were either posted or
emailed to local authority planners in Scotland during
February 2001 (representing a 9·3% sample) and 49
were returned (a 59·8% response). The questionnaire
was divided into Ž ve main parts and the results are
discussed below.
1. JustiŽ cation of the Parliament. Although there was a
groundswell of support for the Parliament prior to the
referendum in 1998, justiŽ cation for the Parliament
tended to be couched in vague terms concerning
accountability and responsiveness (H A S S A N and W A R -
H U R S T , 2000). Planners in our survey concurred with
the broad feeling that the Scottish Parliament could be
justiŽ ed on the grounds of greater accountability to
the Scottish people as well as its ability to be more
responsive to Scottish issues. Combined, these two
justiŽ cations accounted for 73% of responses; the next
most popular category was that there was no justiŽ ca-
tion for the Parliament (10%). There was somewhat
less certainty about the justiŽ cation of the Parliament
in planning terms. In response to this question, 36% of
respondents felt that there was no planning case for the
Parliament while 60% felt that there was. Of those
who answered ‘yes’, accountability and responsiveness
to Scottish issues were again the main justiŽ cations
(69% in total) while 23% mentioned the need for a
national planning framework. At one level, however,
this is puzzling. A national planning framework would
seem to have little to do with issues such as account-
ability and responsiveness.
Although there is still a majority in support of the
Parliament in planning terms, the diVerence between
support in principle and the planning justiŽ cation
perhaps highlights the vagueness of what the Parliament
is to achieve. In another survey (A L L M EN D I NG E R and
T EWDW R - J O NE S , 2000) 81% of Scottish respondents
felt that the pre-devolution mechanisms for regional
planning were inadequate though, signiŽ cantly, the
reasons for this related to working relationships between
diVerent local authorities. The solution suggested by a
majority of respondents was, again, greater central co-
ordination through a national plan (see below).
The evidence of dissatisfaction with current planning
arrangements, the vagueness of support for the Parlia-
ment in planning terms and the desire for a national
planning framework that has no direct link to the
Parliament would seem to suggest that planners are
looking for improvements in eYciency and eVective-
ness in the existing planning system and processes rather
than more radical changes.
2. Expectations. Support for a Scottish Parliament in
the population as a whole has hung around the 50%
mark for 25 years and when those in favour of indepen-
dence are added to the Ž gures then, consistently, three-
quarters of the population have the expectation that a
change will beneŽ t Scotland in some way (B R OWN et
al., 1998). Figures from the planners demonstrate a
 Policy Review Section
similar (though slightly smaller) expectation – 68%
thought that the Parliament generally would be either
highly beneŽ cial or beneŽ cial. In terms of expectations
for planning, three areas stood out. The most important
was felt to be a distinctive Scottish approach to planning
issues (50%) while 20% felt that the Parliament could
better co-ordinate public and semi-public agencies and
15% thought it could promote greater community
involvement.
Generally positive expectations from the planners
survey echoed other assessments – 75% of Scottish
respondents felt that the advent of a Scottish Parliament
would most likely lead to an improvement in regional
policy (A L L ME ND I N G ER and T EWDW R - J ON ES ,
2000). This optimism was higher than in both England
and Wales (63% and 47%, respectively). Again, care
needs to be taken in drawing on comparisons with this
speciŽ c question aimed at regional planning, though
the reasons for the feeling of improvement in both
surveys were similar: avoiding parochial politics; a
greater focus on strategic matters; and an integration
of land use and economic planning.
These results would seem to add to an impression
that there is a diVerence between the headline of vague
areas of potential improvement (e.g. distinctiveness) and
the speciŽ cs which, again, are more muted and focus
on making current arrangements work better.
3. Assessment of impact. Surveys of the public gener-
ally have demonstrated growing dissatisfaction with the
impact of the Parliament. In February 2000, 41% of
the public believed that the Parliament had made no
diVerence. This rose to 78% in June 2000 (the anniver-
sary of the Parliament) (L EI C ES T ER , 2000).1 Neverthe-
less, the same survey demonstrated that two-thirds of
respondents felt that the Parliament had achieved ‘a
little’. The planners were more positive. Although
opinions varied overall, 48% of respondents felt that the
Parliament generally had made a positive impact while
only 22% were of the opinion that it had made no
impact. SigniŽ cantly, 30% felt that it was too early to
say either way whether the Parliament had made an
impact. It is this ‘withheld’ category that makes the
signiŽ cant diVerence to attitudes on impact – the Sys-
tem 3/Glasgow Herald poll cited by L E I C ES T ER , 2000,
does not allow the respondent to answer ‘too early’.
The planners’ more positive attitude towards the
impact of the Parliament generally is mirrored in their
assessment of its impact upon planning; 35% of
respondents felt that the Parliament had been ‘bene-
Ž cial’ (none felt it ‘highly beneŽ cial’) for planning
while 58% felt it had been ‘neither beneŽ cial nor
unbeneŽ cial’. The wider public’s perception of the
impact was 13% and 78% respectively (T HE C O NS T I -
T UT I O N U NI T , 2000, p. 7). The survey then asked in
which areas had the Parliament been most advantageous
for planning. Just over one-third of planners felt that
the Parliament had achieved a more Scottish approach
761
to planning issues. What such a ‘Scottish approach’
entailed was not entirely clear though 22% felt that this
included greater community involvement while 12%
thought it amounted to greater co-ordination between
public and semi-public agencies; 24% of respondents
considered that there were no areas where the Parlia-
ment had been advantageous for planning – a slightly
higher Ž gure than for the assessment of the impact
generally.
4. Assessment of speciŽ c changes. Respondents were
asked to assess Ž ve diVerent changes to planning
introduced since the establishment of the Parliament.
SigniŽ cantly, only one of the changes – National
Parks – could be identiŽ ed as being wholly unrelated
to the agenda for planning across the UK as a whole
(although it could be argued that this change is an
overdue change ‘caught up’ with the system introduced
in England and Wales). As well as being the most
distinct change, it also had the most unequivocal sup-
port – 67% welcomed it; 22% withheld any opinion
on it due to lack of knowledge or because they wanted
to assess its actual impact and it was too early to judge
this. No respondents thought National Parks should
not be introduced.
Best Value is being introduced across the UK to
replace the Citizen’s Charter and  ows from the Labour
Party’s policy statement Renewing Local Democracy,
Rebuilding Communities (L A BO U R P A RT Y, 1995). In
England it has been implemented marginally diVerently
than in Scotland though the overall approach remains
the same; 61% of respondents welcomed its introduc-
tion while another third felt indiVerent towards it. The
lack of antipathy towards Best Value is signiŽ cant given
the antagonism felt towards its predecessors and the
commodiŽ cation and commercialization of planning
and the public services generally (see T E WDWR -
J O NE S and H A R R I S , 1998; A L L ME ND I N G ER and
T H OM A S , 1998).
The Ethical Standards in Public Life Etc (Scotland)
Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 21 June
2000. The Act establishes a code of conduct for coun-
cillors and a Standards Commission for Scotland. The
code will set out principles and rules for councillors
conduct; it will also set out rules on the treatment of
councillors’ interests. Again, a broadly similar approach
has been followed in England and Wales; 62% of
respondents welcomed the introduction of legislation
on this issue while nearly 30% felt it neither welcome
not unwelcome.
Road pricing (or road user charging as the Scottish
Executive prefer to call it) was  oated in Scotland
and England following the 1997 Labour victory. The
Scottish legislation broadly re ects that south of the
border. The Transport (Scotland) Bill similarly allows
for local authorities to operate road charging schemes
and workplace car park charging (though the workplace
car-parking component has since been dropped). The
762 Policy Review Section
attitude towards road pricing was far from unequivocal.
Less than one-third of respondents welcomed it and
thought it would be beneŽ cial while an equal number
criticized it.
Finally, NPPG 1 (The Planning System) issued
in November 2000 (S C OT T I S H E X EC U T I VE , 2000)
provides the final signiŽ cant change since the establish-
ment of the Parliament. Although the current Planning
Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 1 (D EPA R T M EN T O F
T HE E NV I RO N M ENT (DoE), 1997) predates the elec-
tion of the current Labour government, superŽ cially
the two documents have a similar feel and approach.
The similarities are more signiŽ cant than the diVer-
ences, notwithstanding that they were written under
diVerent administrations: both cover issues of sustain-
able development, economic competitiveness, environ-
mental quality, design and integrated transport. The
only major diVerence is the inclusion in the Scottish
guidance of a section on social justice, though this is
covered in the broad objectives of the DE TR (D ETR,
2000) and would, presumably, form part of any review
of the English and Welsh PPG as it is a central plank
of government policy.
NPPG 1 was broadly welcomed by respondents
(46%). However, one-Ž fth of planners felt that it did
not go far enough and 13% wanted more democratic
input into its preparation.
5. The future Finally, the survey asked what planning
issues would respondents like the Parliament to address.
No guidance or suggestions were given here and so
the results are somewhat eclectic. The most signiŽ cant
results were as follows: the introduction of a national
plan (19%); better co-ordination between the Parlia-
ment, Executive and local government (13%); a review
of the function of development plans (10%); and
strengthening the link between planning and imple-
mentation (10%). All of these priorities are distinct
from the actual changes being introduced by the Parlia-
ment and Executive. SigniŽ cantly, the changes being
introduced rank comparatively low: planning guidance
on telephone masts (2%); power of competence for
local government (2%); integrated public transport
(6%); greater community involvement (2%).
The striking thing about these results is their
modesty. Like the analyses of justiŽ cation and expec-
tations above there is a high degree of incrementalism
and an implied acceptance of the current arrangements.
Analysis and conclusions
Prior to analysing the data and discussing what the
results mean generally, it is worth adding a few caveats.
The Ž rst is the survey did not distinguish between
diVerent regions of Scotland or between urban and
rural areas. Other research has consistently demon-
strated variations in attitude across Scotland depending
on location (B R OW N et al., 1998, p. 166). The second
caveat concerns the sample. The survey was of local
authority planners only. The implications of this are
that the results will be skewed towards a public sector
orientated view: the emphasis on linking planning to
implementation and the introduction of a national
planning framework in the survey is probably less likely
to have been a priority for private sector planners.
Nevertheless, the inference of making the system more
eVective and eYcient may well have been echoed by
the private sector.
Notwithstanding these caveats, what can the results
of this research tell us? Planners clearly see the need
for a Parliament – a perception that broadly echoes the
population as a whole. There is also evidence of
dissatisfaction with the existing planning system and a
clear idea of how it should be addressed. However,
although nearly a quarter of respondents felt that the
planning justiŽ cation for the Parliament lay in a national
planning framework, such a framework would not
actually require a parliament and could have been
achieved through the erstwhile set-up. Similarly, the
expectation of greater community involvement and (to
a lesser extent) greater co-ordination between public
and semi-public agencies could have been achieved
through the Scottish OYce. As already mentioned, this
points towards a pragmatic and modest attitude towards
the future of planning – an endorsement of the existing
basis to planning with a desire for improvements in
eYciency and eVectiveness.
The broad support for an agenda of divergence does
not correspond with the endorsements of policy and
legislative change which point to convergence, not
divergence. The Ž ve changes surveyed – National
Parks; Best Value; ethical standards in local government;
road pricing; and national planning guidance – are (to
greater and lesser degrees) UK wide changes. While
the main general justiŽ cation for the Parliament as well
as the planning speciŽ c support was mainly built around
‘Scottish solutions to Scottish problems’, there is little
evidence of a distinctly Scottish dimension to changes
thus far. Further, such changes represent a further
homogenization of planning across the UK and yet
they (broadly) enjoyed support.
There is also no discernable diVerence in support
for changes that involved more or less regulation des-
pite the narratives of Scottishness that draw upon
images of radicalism, corporatism and egalitarianism
(M C C R O NE , 1992). Images of ‘red Clydeside’ may be
mythical but they help in deŽ ning national identity –
an identity that, in Scotland’s case, has recently been
built around a rejection of the economic neo-liberalism
and social atomism of Thatcherism (N A I R N , 2000).
Instead, the results from this survey point towards
a desire for a particular form of distinctive Scottish
planning. This does not necessarily imply that there
needs to be a divergence of planning between the
nations as a result of devolution; there was little evi-
dence (beyond more anodyne statements relating to
 Policy Review Section
‘Scottish interests’) that planners in Scotland are push-
ing for anything other than a more eVective and
community based planning system. This interpretation
is partly backed up by the results from A L L M EN D -
I N G ER and T E WDWR - J O N ES , 2000. In their research
57% of Scots thought devolution would lead to a
fragmentation of planning in the UK while 29% disag-
reed and 14% did not know. While more than half the
respondents thought this would occur only a minority
felt that it should occur. The survey also asked whether
such a fragmentation should be a matter of concern;
only 24% of Scots thought so compared to 64% of
English respondents.
We therefore have a situation where planners in Scot-
land (like the Scottish population generally) justify the
Parliament on the basis of a more distinctive and Scott-
ish approach to domestic aVairs though they endorse a
broadly UK-wide approach that amounts to a conver-
gence of planning. How can this paradox be explained?
One argument could be that, although images relating
to greater egalitarianism and radicalism pervade the idea
and ideal of what it is to be ‘Scottish’ the reality in the
form of the need to compete in a globalized economic
economy and maintain a competitive level of regulation
is also recognized. The mediation of these two pressures
results in a discourse built around interventionism and
radicalism with a practical policy agenda based upon
market sensitive planning.
Another perspective that develops this theme is the
‘death of sovereignty’ thesis. Subscribers to this thesis
talk of the ‘twilight of sovereignty’ (W R I S T O N , 1992),
‘the retreat of the state’ (C A B L E , 1995) or ‘the decline
of the nation state’ (S T R A N G E , 1996). The last 40
years have also witnessed a growth in non-territorially
based communities (e.g. class, gender, race, etc) and
aYnities and the reinvigoration of localized solidarities
and governance. Allegiance to the territorially based
nation state has been diminished in favour of a variety
of states that may or may not favour the narratives of
territorial nationhood. The European Commission, for
example, is a major in uence upon planning policy
and practice while in the North East of Scotland there
is a aYnity with the Scandinavian countries and a
suspicion of the economically and politically dominant
central belt. We should therefore not assume a uniform
‘Scottishness’ that automatically unites around the dis-
course of distinctiveness.
Both analyses point towards the mediation of com-
plex and competing pressures and in uences that
undermine simplistic explanations and expectations.
Devolution may be a democratic revolution but this
should not imply that it will necessarily lead to a
revolution in land use planning.
Note
1. See also the Leverhulme/ESRC funded monitoring
programme at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/
leverh/index.htm
763
References
A L L ME N D I N GE R P. (2001a) The future of planning under
a Scottish Parliament, T. Plann. Rev. 72(2), 121–48.
A L L ME ND IN GE R P. (2001b) The head and the heart:
national identity and urban planning in a devolved Scot-
land, Int. Plann. Studies 6(1), 33–54.
A L L ME ND IN GE R P. and T EW DWR - J O N ES M. (1997) Post-
Thatcherite urban planning and politics: a Major change?,
Int. J. Urban & Reg. Res. 21(1), 100–16.
A L L ME ND IN GE R P. and T EW DWR - J O NE S M. (2000)
Spatial dimensions and institutional uncertainties of plan-
ning and the ‘new regionalism’, Environ. Plann. C 18(6),
711–26.
A L L ME ND IN GE R P. and T H O M A S H. (1998) (Eds) Urban
Planning and the British New Right. Routledge, London.
B A RN ETT A. (1997) This Time: Our Constitutional Revolu-
tions. Vintage, London.
B ROW N A., M C C RO N E D. and P AT ERSO N L. (1998)
Politics and Society in Scotland, Macmillan, London.
C AB L E V. (1995) The diminished nation state: a study in the
loss of economic power, Daedalus 124(2), 23–54.
C O NS T IT U T I ON U NI T , T H E (2000) Nations and Regions:
The Dynamics of Devolution, Quarterly Report, August;
available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/
leverh/index.htm
D EPARTM E NT O F T H E E NV I RO N ME NT (D oE) (1997)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 1: General Policy and Prin-
ciples. The Stationery OYce, London.
D EPARTM E NT O F T H E E N V I RO NM EN T , T RA NS P O RT
AN D TH E R EG IO N S (DETR) (2000) DETR Annual
Report 2000. The Stationery OYce, London.
G O OD STA D T V. and U’ REN G. (1999) Which way now
Scottish planning?, Planning, 22 January, p. 11.
H A SSA N G. and W A RH U RST C. (Eds) (2000) The New
Scottish Politics: The First Year of the Scottish Parliament and
Beyond. The Stationery OYce, Edinburgh.
H AYTO N K. (1997) in Tn. & Country Plann., July/August,
pp. 208–09.
H A ZE L L R. (Ed) (2000) The State and the Nations: The
First Year of Devolution in the United Kingdom. Imprint
Academic, Thorverton.
L AB O U R P A RTY (1995) Renewing Local Democracy Rebuilding
Communities. Labour Party, London.
L EIC EST ER G. (2000) Scotland, in H A ZE L L R. (Ed) The
State and the Nations: The First Year of Devolution in the
United Kingdom. Imprint Academic, Thorverton.
L LOY D G. (1999) The Scottish Parliament and the planning
system: addressing the strategic deŽ cit through spatial
planning, in M C C A RTH Y J. and N EW LAN D S D. (Eds)
Governing Scotland: Problems and Prospects: The Economic
Impact of the Scottish Parliament. Ashgate, Aldershot.
L LOY D G. and I L L SL EY B. (2000) Towards a modern plan-
ning system?. Tn. & Country plann., March, pp. 80–81.
L OW E P. and W AR D S. (1998) British Environmental Policy
and Europe. Routledge, London.
L YD D O N D. (1980) Scottish planning in practice: in uences
and comparisons, The Planner, May, pp. 66–67.
M C C AR T H Y J. (1999) Urban regeneration in Scotland: an
agenda for the Scottish Parliament, Reg. Studies 33(6),
559–66.
M C C RO NE D. (1992) Understanding Scotland – The Sociology
of a Stateless Nation. Routledge, London.
764 Policy Review Section
N A I RN , T. (2000) After Britain. Granta, Cambridge.
R OWA N -R O BI N SO N J. (1997) The organisation and eVec-
tiveness of the Scottish planning system, in M AC D O NA L D
R. and T H OM A S H. (Eds) Nationality and Planning in
Scotland and Wales. University of Wales Press, CardiV.
S CH O LT E J. A. (2000) Globalization: A Critical Introduction.
Macmillan, London.
S COT T IS H E XE CU TI V E (2000) N P PG 1 (The Planning Sys-
tem). The Stationery OYce, Edinburgh.
S TR A N GE S. (1996) The Retreat of the State: the Diffusion of
Power in the World Economy. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
T EW DW R -J O N ES M. and H A RR IS N. (1998) The New
Right’s commodiŽ cation of planning control, in
A L L M EN D I N GER P. and T H O M A S H. (Eds) Urban Plan-
ning and the British New Right. Routledge, London.
T EWDWR - J O N ES M. and L LOY D M. G. (1997) UnŽ nished
business, Tn & Country Plann. November, pp. 302–04.
C O NS T IT U T I ON U N IT , T H E (2000) Nations and Regions:
The Dynamics of Devolution, Quarterly Report, August;
available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/
leverh/index.htm
W A N NO P U. (1980) Scottish planning practice: four distinc-
tive characteristics, The Planner, May, pp. 64–65.
W R IS T O N W. B. The Twilight of Sovereignty: How the Informa-
tion Revolution is Transforming Our World, Charles Scribner
& Sons, New York.