The publication of the UK Government’s response to the Our Islands Our Futures (OIOF) campaign received a typically polite but far from enthusiastic response from the three island councils. OIOF has been an imaginative and extremely well run campaign seeking to ensure that Scotland’s three island councils – Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles – would not be forgotten in the independence referendum campaign. The councils identified new powers, policies and processes required for the sustainable development of their communities. 

Control of the sea bed around the islands, currently controlled by the Crown Estate, new grid connections to the Scottish mainland to allow wave, wind and tidal energy for the benefit of the islands and beyond, and new fiscal arrangements as well as recognition of the status of the island in policy-making in Edinburgh and London. Three broad campaign areas were identified:

• Marine resources and energy growth;
• Constitutional status and public sector change
• Economic drivers and island wellbeing.

The demands fall under the familiar categories of more autonomy; more resources; and a stronger voice at the centre. The UK’s response has been to focus on the last and even here it has not moved far in the direction demanded by the local authorities.

The emphasis in the Government’s response is on what the Government refers to as ‘island proofing’. This involves keeping the UK Govt and islands councils fully informed of relevant developments ‘whenever possible in sufficient time’ to enable the other party to comment on proposals; giving ‘appropriate consideration to the views of the other party’; and ‘where possible’ notifying the other party prior to publicizing relevant proposals’. This involves a commitment that is becoming more common in government to take greater account of different interests and views.  A similar commitment was made by the Prime Minister around the same time that all government policies will have to pass a ‘family test’. Two years before he had made a ‘friends and family test’ commitment aimed to improve patient care. In his ‘family test’ speech, the Prime Minister insisted that, ‘Nothing matters more than family’ and insisted that ‘every single domestic policy that government comes up with will be examined for its impact on the family’. The problem is that if everything is a priority and everything matters most then nothing ends up mattering very much.

Many of the commitments in the new concordat with the islands’ councils are vague and may amount to involve little more than rhetoric though they are an opportunity to put island interests at the heart of government.  The commitment gives the islands a voice but it will be one that competes with many other voices, many much louder, and more often than not the voice will be more on the periphery of UK government than at its heart.  But a voice is better than no voice.

The islands had been keen to gain control of the sea bed around the islands, removing control from the Crown Estate. The Commons’ Scottish Affairs Select Committee had been critical of the Crown Estate in a report in 2012. It proposed the decentralization of Crown Estate to local authorities rather than Holyrood. The UK response to the islands in this area is defensive and means that this campaign will need to continue. Indeed, the Government acknowledged this in the final paragraph of the section on the Crown Estate in which it recognized that ‘these measures alone to no meet the Islands council’ aspirations’. Its measures here amount to agreeing to listen to islands’ concerns. The aim to have control of the sea bed is ambitious and opposition to this in London was always likely to be very strong given the resources involved. OIOF has managed to raise awareness to the Crown state and the challenge will be to keep applying the pressure. There will be further opportunities on the other side of the referendum to continue this campaign.

It was never likely that he OIOF campaign would succeed in all of its demands but what will disappoint many of those involved is that the UK Government’s proposals are so limited as compared with what the Scottish Government have proposed. Opponents insist that the SNP Government’s promises on the Crown Estate were either a bribe or easy to make as these were matters currently not under the control of Holyrood. But from the islands perspective, these criticisms are unlikely to matter much. The timing of OIOF was to extract as much out of each government as possible – a bribe might equally be described as blackmail but perhaps best understood as the wages of political entrepreneurship.

But while the document is disappointing from the islands perspective, there are gains. New institutions and arrangements will give a voice to the islands – a new Islands Working Group with Whitehall civil servant support; a new Oil and Gas forum; and a dedicated point of contact in the UK’s representation in the EU, if not the direct representation hoped for – have been conceded. The test of these gains will lie in the extent to which policies are changed as a consequence and how these can be built upon.

Governments respond to localist and regionalist demands in different ways. At one end of the spectrum they can ignore, even dismiss, demands. Peripheral regions are easily ignored and few opportunities arise to assert themselves. The Scottish referendum has been such an opportunity and what is clear is that the islands will emerge stronger whatever the outcome of the referendum. The islands have not been ignored in this referendum. Ministers and officials have been forced to listen and engage in a manner that is unusual. The islands have inserted themselves successfully into this debate and have identified a series of objectives. The outcome of the referendum will determine how much they advance towards these objectives but whatever its result more work will be necessary.