Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/29741
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDocherty, Iainen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMacDonald, Ronalden_UK
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-26T00:05:50Z-
dc.date.available2019-06-26T00:05:50Z-
dc.date.issued2012en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/29741-
dc.description.abstractFirst paragraph: As John Curtice (2006, p. 95) succinctly put it: [unionist] advocates of devolution ‘hoped it would strengthen public support for the maintenance of the United Kingdom, whereas its critics feared it would have the opposite effect’. Fifteen years on from the initial devolution debate, Curtice’s question has crystallized with the prospect of a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014. Critical to the early skirmishes is the question of whether a ‘middle option’, popularly known as ‘Devolution-Max’, should be offered to the Scottish public in the referendum. Although yet to be fully defined, ‘Devo-Max’ essentially combines the transfer of those ‘domestic’ policy competences, such as broadcasting, trading standards, drugs and firearms, currently held at Westminster to the Scottish Parliament, with the wholesale transfer of economic powers to Holyrood so that Scotland attains fiscal autonomy, that is that the Scottish Parliament be responsible for generating all (or substantially all) of its revenues in addition to determining its spending priorities.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis (Routledge)en_UK
dc.relationDocherty I & MacDonald R (2012) Debate: Scotland's fiscal options - a response to Midwinter. Public Money and Management, 32 (3), pp. 161-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2012.676270en_UK
dc.rightsThe publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.en_UK
dc.titleDebate: Scotland's fiscal options - a response to Midwinteren_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.rights.embargodate2999-12-31en_UK
dc.rights.embargoreason[Debate Scotland s fiscal options a response to Midwinter.pdf] The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository therefore there is an embargo on the full text of the work.en_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/09540962.2012.676270en_UK
dc.citation.jtitlePublic Money and Managementen_UK
dc.citation.issn1467-9302en_UK
dc.citation.issn0954-0962en_UK
dc.citation.volume32en_UK
dc.citation.issue3en_UK
dc.citation.spage161en_UK
dc.citation.epage163en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.contributor.funderUniversity of Glasgowen_UK
dc.author.emailiain.docherty@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.citation.date23/05/2012en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Glasgowen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Glasgowen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000303569400002en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84859561729en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid1244308en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-4070-4294en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2019-03-14en_UK
Appears in Collections:Management, Work and Organisation Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Debate Scotland s fiscal options a response to Midwinter.pdfFulltext - Published Version152.41 kBAdobe PDFUnder Permanent Embargo    Request a copy


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.