Devolution Flashcards
Devolution key facts:
Key Concept: Devolution
Devolution refers to the transfer of certain governmental powers from the central government (Parliament) to regional bodies, allowing them to make laws on specific issues. While some matters, such as trade, defence, and foreign policy, are reserved powers and remain the responsibility of Westminster, other powers are devolved to regions like Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Historical Context
• Devolution was not entirely new in 1998. For example:
• Northern Ireland had an elected parliament from 1921 to 1972, which was suspended due to The Troubles and later abolished.
• Scotland has always had its own education and legal system.
Devolved Bodies: Roles, Powers, and Electoral Systems
• The regional assemblies in the UK are distinct with different powers and electoral systems:
• Scotland: Uses the Additional Member System (AMS), with more extensive powers, including the ability to raise taxes and pass legislation in certain areas (primary legislative powers).
• Wales: Initially had fewer powers but expanded over time through the Government of Wales Act 2006, and further Wales Acts (2014, 2017). The 1997 referendum for devolution in Wales was narrowly passed with only 50.3% support.
• Northern Ireland: The progress of devolution here has been more complex and less straightforward.
Devolution as a Process
• Devolution is an ongoing process, not a one-time event or finished product. The powers and functions of the devolved bodies have continued to evolve over time.
Key points
✚ Since 1999, the way the UK is run has been transformed by devolution. ✚ Devolution is the delegation of power from the UK Parliament in Westminster to assemblies in Cardiff (Wales) and Belfast (Northern Ireland) and the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.
✚ The Westminster Parliament is technically still able to pass laws for any part of the UK, but in practice only deals with devolved matters with the agreement of the devolved governments.
Key devolution legislation for Scotland
- Scotland Act 1998
• Established the Scottish Parliament after the 1997 referendum, where 74% voted in favour of devolution.
• Gave the Parliament primary legislative powers in domestic areas, including:
• Law and order (e.g. courts, policing, justice)
• Health (e.g. NHS Scotland, hospitals, public health policies)
• Education (e.g. schools, curriculum, universities)
• Transport (e.g. roads, public transport funding)
• The environment (e.g. waste management, pollution control)
• Introduced the Scottish Variable Rate (SVR), allowing Scotland to increase or decrease income tax by up to 3p in the pound. However, this power was never used before being replaced.
• Westminster retained control over key issues such as defence, foreign policy, and the constitution (known as reserved powers).
⸻
- Scotland Act 2012
• Expanded the Scottish Parliament’s fiscal powers, shifting it towards greater financial autonomy.
• Key new powers:
• Scottish Rate of Income Tax (SRIT) – Scotland could increase or decrease income tax by up to 10p in the pound, giving it greater control over taxation.
• Devolution of stamp duty and landfill taxes, meaning Scotland could set its own rates.
• Allowed Scotland to borrow up to £5 billion for capital projects.
• Established Revenue Scotland, an independent Scottish tax authority.
⸻
- Scotland Act 2016
• Introduced after the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, in which 55% voted to remain in the UK. The UK government had promised further powers if Scotland rejected independence.
• Significant new powers:
• Full control over income tax bands and rates (not just adjustments like in 2012).
• Ability to control Air Passenger Duty (APD), meaning Scotland could set its own tax on flights.
• Authority over certain areas of welfare, including disability benefits and carer’s allowance.
• Powers over equal opportunities, abortion law, speed limits, and gaming machines.
• Power to determine voting laws for Scottish Parliament elections, subject to a two-thirds majority in Holyrood.
⸻
Overall Impact of Devolution in Scotland
• The Scottish Parliament has passed over 300 laws, influencing areas like tuition fees, healthcare, and policing.
• Devolution has led to policy divergence between Scotland and the rest of the UK, such as:
• No university tuition fees for Scottish students (unlike in England).
• Free prescriptions for all Scots (abolished in England in 2011).
• Different lockdown policies during COVID-19.
• Despite increased powers, debates continue over:
• Whether further devolution is needed.
• Whether Scotland should push for full independence in a future referendum.
- Scottish Parliament and government The legislative body and executive established in Scotland following the 1997 referendum, now elected on a 5-yearly basis with elections due in 2021 and 2026. It meets in the Holyrood area of Edinburgh so is often known as ‘Holyrood’.
- STUDY TIP
It is worth knowing that although the right to set the voting age for Scottish elections was permanently provided for by the 2016 Act and was duly set at 16, 16- and 17-year-olds had already been allowed to vote in the 2014 independence referendum. This was due to the Edinburgh Agreement 2012 between the UK and Scottish governments, which enabled the Scottish Parliament to stipulate the voting age for the referendum. - SYNOPTIC LINK
Devolution is an issue that has routinely been put to voters via referendums. There had been an earlier referendum on Scottish devolution in 1979, which although it resulted in a narrow victory for the ‘Yes’ vote, was unsuccessful because the legislation required that a minimum of 40% of all registered electors must support devolution for the result to stand. In the event, only 32.9% of voters did so. You can read more about UK referendums in Chapter 7.
Key devolution legislation for Wales
Key Devolution Legislation for Wales
Wales has undergone a process of devolution marked by five key Acts of Parliament and a referendum in 2011. Each of these milestones has progressively expanded the legislative powers of the Welsh government. Here’s an overview of the key legislation:
⸻
- Government of Wales Act 1998
• Key Provisions:
• Established the Welsh Assembly.
• The Assembly lacked primary legislative powers but could make secondary legislation in areas such as agriculture, fisheries, education, housing, and highways.
• These powers mirrored those previously held by the Secretary of State for Wales.
• The Act laid the foundation for devolution in Wales, marking a shift towards self-government.
⸻
- Government of Wales Act 2006
• Key Provisions:
• Allowed the Welsh Assembly to request additional powers from Westminster.
• Enabled the Assembly to gain primary legislative powers, provided these were approved by a referendum.
• Established a formal executive body, known as the Welsh Assembly Government, later renamed Welsh Government in May 2011.
• This Act set the stage for further devolution and greater autonomy.
⸻
- 2011 Referendum
• Key Outcome:
• The referendum granted the Welsh Assembly the ability to enact primary legislation in 20 devolved policy areas such as health, transport, and agriculture.
• The referendum delivered a 64% ‘Yes’ vote, indicating growing support for a Welsh government.
• This marked a significant milestone in Welsh devolution, granting more direct control over domestic policy.
⸻
- Wales Act 2014
• Key Provisions:
• First major transfer of tax-raising powers to the Welsh Government.
• Powers included control over stamp duty, business rates, and landfill tax.
• Allowed the Welsh government to introduce taxes specific to Wales.
• The Act expanded Wales’ fiscal autonomy, marking a step towards financial independence.
⸻
- Wales Act 2017
• Key Provisions:
• Gave Wales greater primary legislative powers in additional policy areas, including:
• Electoral system (subject to a two-thirds majority in the government).
• Road signs, onshore oil and gas, harbours, rail franchising, and energy efficiency.
• Enabled the Welsh Government to vary income tax rates by up to 10p in the pound.
• Established the Welsh Revenue Authority to oversee tax collection.
• The Act put Welsh devolution on equal footing with Scotland, with key exceptions such as policing and justice remaining reserved to Westminster.
⸻
- Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020
• Key Provisions:
• Officially changed the name of the Welsh Assembly to Senedd Cymru (Welsh Parliament).
• Lowered the voting age to 16 and 17-year-olds for Welsh parliamentary and local elections, aligning with the voting age in Scotland.
• Expanded authority over the Welsh language, allowing the Senedd to pass laws concerning its use.
• Key Achievement: In 2015, Wales passed an opt-out organ donation system, which was later adopted in England in 2020.
⸻
Significance of Welsh Devolution
Wales has progressively gained significant legislative powers through these Acts, shifting from a secondary legislative body in 1998 to a primary legislative body with tax-raising powers by 2017. The gradual expansion of powers reflects the increasing autonomy of the Welsh Government, allowing it to have a greater say in key policy areas affecting Wales, such as health, transport, and the Welsh language. The 2011 referendum marked a significant shift, with voters signaling a strong desire for full legislative powers. Each piece of legislation has played a role in shaping a more independent Welsh Parliament, with the Wales Acts 2014 and 2017 providing further financial and legislative authority.
- KEY CONCEPT
Welsh Assembly and government The legislative body and executive established in Wales following the 1997 referendum, now elected on a 5-yearly basis with elections due in 2021 and 2026. Since 2020, the correct title for the body is Senedd or Welsh Parliament.
Devolution for Northern Ireland
Got it! Here’s the structured version with proper flow while keeping the key points clear and understandable.
⸻
Devolution in Northern Ireland: Complexity and Challenges
The story of devolution in Northern Ireland has been more turbulent than in Scotland and Wales due to its history of sectarian conflict, known as The Troubles (1969–1998). Unlike in the other devolved nations, self-government in Northern Ireland is not just about political autonomy but is a central part of the peace process. This has made devolution more fragile, with frequent collapses and deadlocks.
⸻
- Stormont and Direct Rule (1921–1972)
Northern Ireland had its own devolved government from 1921 to 1972, known as the Stormont Parliament. However, it was dominated by unionists and was widely seen as discriminatory against the nationalist minority, particularly in areas such as voting rights, housing, and policing.
Tensions escalated in 1969 when The Troubles erupted—a violent conflict between loyalist/unionist and republican/nationalist paramilitary groups. In response to increasing violence, the UK government suspended Stormont in 1972 and imposed direct rule from Westminster. The parliament was officially abolished in 1973, and for the next 25 years, Northern Ireland was governed directly from London, with the British Army maintaining a highly controversial peacekeeping presence.
⸻
- The Good Friday Agreement (1998) and the Return of Devolution
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, there were multiple attempts to restore devolution, but all failed due to deep divisions between unionist and nationalist parties. A breakthrough came with the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, a peace deal negotiated between the UK and Irish governments, Northern Irish parties, and US Senator George Mitchell.
The agreement set out key measures to stabilise Northern Ireland, including:
• The establishment of a power-sharing government.
• Ceasefires and decommissioning of weapons by paramilitary groups.
• The release of paramilitary prisoners.
• Reduction of British Army troops.
• Civil rights guarantees for both communities.
Before taking effect, the agreement had to be approved by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum. In May 1998, 71% voted in favour, allowing the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive.
⸻
- The Northern Ireland Assembly: Power-Sharing and Instability
The Northern Ireland Assembly was established in 1999 as a mandatory power-sharing institution. Unlike Scotland and Wales, where devolved governments operate along party lines, Northern Ireland’s system requires unionists and nationalists to govern together.
Key Features of the Assembly:
• The First Minister and Deputy First Minister must come from different communities (unionist and nationalist).
• Executive positions are shared proportionally between parties, ensuring power is not concentrated in one group.
However, this system has made Northern Ireland’s government highly unstable. The Assembly has faced multiple suspensions:
• 2002–2007: Suspended for five years due to disputes over IRA disarmament.
• 2017–2020: Collapsed over the DUP’s handling of the Renewable Heat Incentive scandal (a failed green energy scheme) and disagreements over an Irish Language Act.
During these periods, Northern Ireland was left without a functioning government, and its civil servants had to handle day-to-day administration.
⸻
- Westminster’s Intervention (2019): A Challenge to Devolution
During the 2017–2020 collapse, Westminster took an unprecedented step by legislating on devolved matters. In July 2019, MPs in the UK Parliament passed amendments legalising same-sex marriage and abortion in Northern Ireland.
Normally, these issues would fall under the Assembly’s authority, but since devolution was suspended, Westminster intervened, arguing it was necessary to uphold fundamental human rights. This decision was highly controversial, particularly among unionist parties like the DUP, which opposed these changes.
Westminster’s actions demonstrated that while Northern Ireland has devolved powers, ultimate legislative authority still rests with the UK Parliament—a key example of the limits of devolution.
⸻
Conclusion
Devolution in Northern Ireland is fundamentally different from that in Scotland and Wales. While those regions have relatively stable devolved governments, Northern Ireland’s power-sharing system makes it uniquely fragile. Any political disagreement between unionist and nationalist parties can lead to deadlock and government collapse, as seen in multiple suspensions.
Ultimately, devolution in Northern Ireland is not just about governance—it is a crucial part of the peace process. This makes it more vulnerable to instability, with political disputes often having wider consequences for the region’s security and stability.
*As part of the Good Friday Agreement, uniquely in Ulster executive power must be shared between the two largest parties, i.e. in reality a unionist and a nationalist party. This is to avoid power being held solely by the majority community. The clause is designed to avoid sectarian discrimination and ensure power is shared between the two communities.
How does devolution in Northern Ireland differ from that of Wales and Scotland.
Devolution in Northern Ireland: Distinct Features
The devolution process in Northern Ireland stands apart from Scotland and Wales, shaped by its own unique challenges and political landscape. Several key features distinguish Northern Ireland’s devolution, including its complex party structure, embedded power-sharing, the designation of community identity, and its limited devolved powers.
• Distinct Party Structure:
Northern Ireland’s political system is rooted in the unionist-nationalist divide, which contrasts sharply with Scotland and Wales, where party lines follow more traditional ideologies. The main parties are:
• Unionist: The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP).
• Nationalist: The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) and Sinn Féin.
• Non-sectarian: The Alliance Party and Green Party.
This division results in a unique political structure, where the Westminster parties have little influence. For instance, while the Liberal Democrats align with the Alliance Party and the SDLP has historic links to Labour, most Westminster parties are not prominent in Northern Ireland.
Historically, the Conservative Party had a formal partnership with the UUP, but now contests a few seats with limited success.
• Power-Sharing Structure:
The Northern Ireland Assembly operates with a power-sharing arrangement embedded into its structure, unlike the assemblies in Scotland and Wales. This means:
• Both unionist and nationalist communities must share power in the executive.
• Ministerial posts are allocated on a proportional basis according to party strength.
• In 2020, Naomi Long of the Alliance Party served as Justice Minister, though most key posts remained with the DUP and Sinn Féin.
• The First Minister is selected by the largest party, and the Deputy First Minister by the second-largest. This structure ensures cross-community cooperation but requires careful negotiation.
• Designated Community Identity:
Unlike in Scotland or Wales, Assembly members (MLAs) in Northern Ireland must designate themselves as ‘nationalist’, ‘unionist’, or ‘other’ (for non-sectarian parties like the Alliance Party).
This designation underscores the region’s deep-rooted sectarian divide, directly influencing the political dynamics in the Assembly. This system ensures that community identity plays a central role in political engagement, in contrast to the broader ideological party affiliations found in Scotland and Wales.
• Limited Powers of the Assembly:
While the Northern Ireland Assembly was established in 1998, its powers have not grown as substantially as those in Scotland and Wales. Key aspects include:
• Limited tax-raising powers.
• Areas like policing and justice remain under UK government control.
• The Assembly has not gained significant new powers since its creation, especially compared to Scotland and Wales, where devolved powers have expanded.
• Northern Ireland has no control over key policies like defense, social security, or foreign affairs, and the Assembly’s ability to legislate remains more constrained.
⸻
In conclusion, Northern Ireland’s devolution process is marked by its distinct party structure, power-sharing arrangements, community identity designations, and limited devolved powers. This complex framework reflects the unique political and historical challenges faced by Northern Ireland and differentiates it significantly from Scotland and Wales in terms of governance and political structure.
Key features of each devolved legislature
Key Features of the UK’s Devolved Assemblies
The three devolved assemblies in the UK—Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland—each have distinct features in terms of their electoral systems, party structures, and leadership.
• Scottish Parliament:
• Number of elected members: 129
• Electoral system: Additional Member System (AMS)
• Party in power (2021): Minority SNP government
• First Minister: Nicola Sturgeon (SNP)
• Location: Edinburgh (Holyrood)
The Scottish Parliament is known for its Minority SNP government in 2021. Nicola Sturgeon has been the First Minister for several years, leading Scotland’s devolved government from the Holyrood building in Edinburgh.
• Senedd (Welsh Parliament):
• Number of elected members: 60
• Electoral system: Additional Member System (AMS)
• Party in power (2021): Minority Labour government
• First Minister: Mark Drakeford (Labour)
• Location: Cardiff
The Senedd (formerly the Welsh Assembly) has 60 members and operates under the AMS electoral system, with the Labour Party in power. Mark Drakeford, leader of the Labour Party, serves as First Minister and heads the Welsh government, located in Cardiff.
• Northern Ireland Assembly:
• Number of elected members: 90 (108 before 2017)
• Electoral system: Single Transferable Vote (STV)
• Party in power (2021): Multiparty powersharing executive
• First Minister: Arlene Foster (DUP)
• Deputy First Minister: Michelle O’Neill (Sinn Féin)
• Location: Belfast (Stormont building)
The Northern Ireland Assembly operates with 90 elected members using the STV system. In 2021, the DUP and Sinn Féin led the powersharing executive, with Arlene Foster as First Minister and Michelle O’Neill as Deputy First Minister. The Assembly convenes at the Stormont building in Belfast.
⸻
Each of these assemblies serves to decentralize power from Westminster, with their own legislative structures, electoral systems, and governing bodies, reflecting the diversity of political and cultural identities in the UK.
Difference between devolved matters and reserved matters:
The devolved assemblies in the UK possess considerable legislative autonomy, particularly in areas that directly affect the lives of citizens in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. These areas of responsibility are known as devolved matters and include key sectors such as:
• Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries
• Education and training
• Environment
• Health and social services
• Housing
• Land use planning
• Law and order
• Local government
• Sports and the arts
• Taxation (in some forms, such as income tax in Scotland and Wales)
• Transport (many aspects)
However, there are certain areas that remain under the control of Westminster, referred to as reserved matters. These areas include policies that have national and international implications, such as:
• Benefits and social security
• Broadcasting
• Constitution
• Defence
• Employment
• Equal opportunities
• Foreign policy
• Immigration
• Trade and industry
Although the devolved assemblies have substantial control over their internal governance and public services, Westminster retains power over critical national matters, including defence, foreign policy, and trade. Notably, despite their significant powers, the devolved assemblies were not directly involved in the Brexit negotiations, much to the frustration of many of their politicians. This exclusion highlighted the tensions between devolved and central government, particularly over issues that would deeply impact the devolved regions, such as trade and immigration policies post-Brexit.
Example of a clash between devolved and Uk government where central UK govt couldn’t simply override decisions of devolved governments:
Case Study: The M4 Relief Road
Background and Announcement:
In July 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the UK government’s plan to build a relief road for a congested section of the M4 motorway near Newport, South Wales. This road, often plagued by traffic jams, was described by Johnson as a critical measure for boosting business investment in the area. He suggested that it would serve as “a Vicks Inhaler to the nostrils of the Welsh dragon,” implying it would provide a much-needed economic boost.
Welsh Government Response
The proposal sparked immediate backlash from the Labour-led Welsh Government, which had scrapped a similar plan in 2019. The Welsh government had declared a climate emergency the same year and argued that building more roads would increase both traffic congestion and carbon emissions. The Welsh Government emphasized that transport policy was a devolved matter, meaning the UK government had no say in such decisions. Ken Skates, the Welsh economy minister, dismissed the Prime Minister’s comments as “nothing more than nonsense on stilts.”
Political Tensions
This incident highlighted a clear tension between the UK government and the Welsh Government over the management of devolved powers. While Johnson argued the project was necessary for economic growth, the Welsh Government maintained that it was within their jurisdiction to decide on such issues, especially considering their environmental priorities. The issue underscored the clash of priorities between economic development and environmental concerns within the devolved framework.
Significance
The M4 relief road case is significant as it highlights the competing priorities of the devolved administrations versus the UK government. It raises questions about the balance of powers within the devolution system and the limits of central government intervention in devolved matters. The situation also emphasized the Welsh Government’s desire to assert its authority over matters that were intended to be within their control, particularly in areas affecting local economies and the environment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the M4 relief road controversy illustrates ongoing tensions in the UK’s devolution process, especially concerning economic policy and environmental concerns. It underscores the friction between devolved governments striving to assert their autonomy and the UK government’s interventionist stance in what they deem necessary for national progress. The debate is far from settled, and such conflicts over devolution and powers are likely to continue as different political priorities come into play.
DEBATE Has devolution worked well in the UK?
Debate: Has Devolution Worked Well in the UK?
STUDY TIP
When evaluating the impact and success of devolution, it is important to grasp different perspectives on what constitutes success. From a Scottish nationalist viewpoint, success might be measured by how far devolution has increased support for full independence. Those wishing Scotland to remain within the UK might interpret success in the opposite way.
Yes: Devolution Has Worked Well
1. Regional Political Differences Recognised
• Key Information: Devolution has allowed for regional political differences to be recognised, particularly in Scotland, where the Scottish Parliament has increased the income tax rate for the highest earners to 46p for those earning over £150,000 annually, compared to 45p in the rest of the UK.
• Significance: This allows Scotland to adopt policies that align with its political and social values, strengthening regional autonomy and reflecting its distinct political identity.
• Limitation: These variations in tax policy can create financial disparities between regions, contributing to a sense of inequality in terms of service provision and taxation.
2. Strengthened the Union
• Key Information: Devolution has created a ‘best of both worlds’ scenario where devolved regions have autonomy in many domestic policy areas but still benefit from the UK’s advantages in defence, trade, and other areas requiring national coordination.
• Significance: This model can foster regional autonomy while maintaining a unified national framework in key policy areas, ensuring that devolved regions are not isolated but still contribute to the strength of the union.
• Limitation: It might contribute to the perception that certain regions are granted limited power while still being subject to overarching decisions from Westminster, possibly eroding unity over time.
3. Popularity with Voters
• Key Information: Devolution has been particularly popular in Wales, evidenced by the significant increase in support between the 1997 and 2011 Welsh referendums.
• Significance: This growing popularity indicates that devolution has helped address regional desires for self-governance and empowered local political structures.
• Limitation: Popularity does not always translate into positive long-term effects, and could sometimes lead to calls for further powers or even independence, potentially destabilising the union.
4. Vital for Northern Ireland’s Peace Process
• Key Information: Devolution has been crucial for Northern Ireland’s peace process, encouraging cross-community cooperation and enabling the so-called ‘peace dividend’.
• Significance: By giving local communities political representation and control, devolution has contributed to peace and stability in a region long affected by conflict.
• Limitation: While important, devolution has not been a guarantee of sustained peace, as demonstrated by the prolonged suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly from 2017 to 2020.
5. Encouraged Minority or Cross-Party Government
• Key Information: Devolution has allowed for the use of proportional representation systems, which has led to successful minority or cross-party governments, proving that these models can work effectively.
• Significance: This demonstrates that a variety of electoral systems can be used to reflect more diverse political views, leading to more inclusive governance.
• Limitation: Minority governments can also face difficulties in achieving policy goals, as seen in Northern Ireland, where cross-party cooperation has led to political gridlock at times.
6. Innovation in Policy-Making
• Key Information: Devolved assemblies have acted as ‘legislative laboratories’, learning from successful policies in other regions and adapting them. A notable example is Scotland’s 2006 decision to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces, which was later implemented in Wales, Northern Ireland, and England.
• Significance: This fosters policy innovation and allows for regional responses to emerging social issues, contributing to more tailored and responsive governance.
• Limitation: Some argue that such policies would have eventually been implemented through Westminster anyway, thus questioning whether devolution’s impact was truly necessary in these cases.
No: Devolution Has Not Worked Well
1. Inequalities in Public Services
• Key Information: Devolution has created disparities in the provision and cost of public services within the UK. For example, university tuition is free in Scotland but costs over £9,000 per year in England. Prescriptions are free in Scotland and Wales, but not in England.
• Significance: This highlights the variations in regional policy that can lead to unequal access to services for residents in different parts of the UK, potentially fostering resentment or a sense of unfairness.
• Limitation: While devolution allows regions to make decisions that suit their needs, it can also result in a fragmented system of public services across the UK, making it harder to standardize policies and creating inequalities in service delivery.
2. Encouragement of Greater Separation and Independence
• Key Information: Devolution has sparked demands for greater separation and full independence, particularly in Scotland. The Scottish referendum result in 2014 was close (55%-45%), and devolution has given many Scots the confidence to push for full independence, evidenced by the SNP’s calls for a second referendum.
• Significance: Devolution has inadvertently fostered stronger desires for independence in some regions, especially Scotland, and Brexit has highlighted these divides, with both Scotland and Northern Ireland voting heavily to Remain in the EU while being excluded from the negotiations.
• Limitation: Rather than quelling separatist ambitions, devolution has empowered movements seeking full autonomy, potentially weakening the overall unity of the UK.
3. Fragility of Community Relations in Northern Ireland
• Key Information: Community relations in Northern Ireland remain fragile, with devolution itself being unstable at times. The Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended for three years between 2017 and 2020 due to political gridlock.
• Significance: Devolution in Northern Ireland was intended to encourage cross-community cooperation and peace, but the suspension of the Assembly shows that these goals are not always sustained, and tensions between communities can resurface.
• Limitation: The fragility of the political system in Northern Ireland suggests that devolution in this context is not always effective in fostering long-term peace and stability.
4. Lack of Momentum for Electoral Reform
• Key Information: Devolution has not led to significant momentum for replacing the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system in UK general elections. Despite cross-party cooperation in the devolved regions, the electoral system for Westminster elections remains unchanged.
• Significance: The fact that devolution has not led to major electoral reform at the national level may suggest a limitation in the influence of devolved governments on UK-wide policies, and the persistence of an electoral system that many argue fails to represent diverse political views.
• Limitation: This also indicates a disconnect between the success of proportional representation at the devolved level and its limited impact on broader UK politics.
5. Policy Changes Could Have Happened Through Westminster
• Key Information: Some argue that policies implemented by devolved governments, such as the banning of smoking in enclosed public spaces or the 5p charge for plastic bags, would have eventually been introduced via Westminster.
• Significance: If these policies would have been enacted anyway, the significance of devolution in bringing about these changes is diminished, raising questions about whether devolution is truly necessary for such policies to be implemented.
• Limitation: This argument suggests that some of the innovations attributed to devolved governments may not be exclusive to them, reducing the perceived value of devolution in policy-making.
Conclusion
Devolution in the UK has undoubtedly had both positive and negative effects. It has allowed for greater regional autonomy, innovation in policy-making, and even peace-building in Northern Ireland. However, it has also led to inequalities, a potential weakening of the union, and occasional instability in devolved governments. While devolution has empowered regions and reflected their distinct identities, it has also sparked debates about further separation and independence, especially in Scotland. Ultimately, whether devolution has worked well depends on one’s perspective—some see it as an essential step toward regional empowerment, while others view it as a catalyst for division and inequality within the UK.
Argument for devolution in England
Existing Devolution in England
Key Information:
The idea of devolving powers to England has been widely debated, especially given the success of devolution in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Some argue that England should have its own devolved parliament, allowing Westminster to focus solely on national and international matters. However, the case for English devolution is complex and controversial. While England does not have a formal devolved parliament, there is a structure of local government institutions, including directly elected mayors and regional police and crime commissioners. These local authorities, however, do not possess primary legislative powers and only manage powers delegated to them by central government. The scope of powers for different local government authorities varies, with some having more autonomy than others.
Significance:
The lack of formal devolution in England contrasts with the devolved administrations in other parts of the UK. England’s local government structure, although extensive, does not provide the same level of legislative autonomy as the devolved regions. The debate over English devolution is significant as it raises questions about the balance of power within the UK, particularly in light of the growing calls for greater regional autonomy and fairness across England.
Limitation:
One limitation of the current devolution model in England is the inconsistency in the powers granted to different local authorities. Some regions have more devolved powers than others, leading to unequal development and governance across the country. Additionally, the absence of a unified English parliament means that decisions affecting England are often made by the UK government in Westminster, creating a sense of imbalance with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
What are the categories of local government authority and some of their main areas of responsibility:
Types of Local Government Authorities in England
1. 57 Unitary Councils:
• These are single-tier bodies responsible for a full range of local services, including education, social care, libraries, refuse collection, and parks.
• Most unitary councils are in large towns and cities (e.g., Portsmouth, Derby), but some are also in small counties (e.g., Rutland).
2. 36 Metropolitan Boroughs:
• These are similar to unitary councils in terms of powers but were created in 1974.
• Found in heavily urbanised areas of the North and Midlands (e.g., Barnsley).
3. 25 County Councils:
• Part of a two-tier local authority structure, responsible for key services like education and social services.
• Primarily found in less urbanised areas (e.g., Suffolk).
4. 188 District, Borough, or City Councils:
• Also part of a two-tier system, these councils handle more localised services such as leisure, planning, and refuse collection.
• Generally located in less populated areas (e.g., New Forest District Council).
5. Combined Authorities (10 as of 2020):
• A group of two or more councils collaborating to make collective decisions across council boundaries.
• Examples include Greater Manchester and Sheffield City Region.
6. 32 London Boroughs:
• London operates a unique local government structure with 32 boroughs and the Greater London Authority (GLA), which includes 25 elected members and a directly elected mayor.
• This structure was established following a referendum in 1998, with Sadiq Khan serving as mayor in 2020.
7. City Mayors:
• Introduced through the Local Government Act 2000, city councils in England can hold a referendum to elect a directly elected mayor.
• In 2017, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act led to the election of ‘Metro Mayors’ for combined authorities, such as Andy Burnham in Manchester.
• By 2020, there were 15 directly elected city mayors and 8 metro mayors.
Significance to Devolved Bodies in England:
• Regional Autonomy:
Local government authorities, such as unitary councils and metro mayors, provide some level of regional governance, but these bodies are not as autonomous as devolved parliaments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The lack of a formal English parliament means that decisions affecting England are still often made centrally in Westminster.
• Greater Localised Governance:
The system of combined authorities and city mayors enhances local decision-making power. This allows for tailored solutions to regional issues, especially in urban areas like Greater Manchester and Sheffield. This can be seen as a form of devolution on a smaller scale, offering a more direct connection between citizens and their local governments.
• Fragmented Devolution:
Unlike Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, where devolution provides a clear, centralised structure of regional governance, the devolution model in England is fragmented. The different types of local councils (unitary, metropolitan, county, district) lead to inconsistencies in the powers and resources available to different regions. This results in unequal local governance and an uneven distribution of resources.
• Engagement with Devolution Debate:
The creation of metro mayors and combined authorities can be seen as a step towards greater devolution within England, but it raises questions about the need for a fully devolved English parliament. The success of these initiatives could fuel further calls for English devolution, pushing for a more equitable distribution of power across the UK.
Limitations:
1. Lack of Legislative Power:
Despite the local authority system in England, the local government bodies do not have the same legislative power as the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Local authorities can only manage powers delegated to them by central government, which limits their ability to address regional issues comprehensively and independently.
- Unequal Powers Across Regions:
The existence of different types of councils and local authorities creates a situation where some areas, especially urban regions, have more devolved powers than others. This fragmentation can result in inequalities in how services are provided and in the economic development of different regions. - Central Government Control / Dependence:
Even though local authorities have some devolved powers, they remain dependent on Westminster for major decisions and funding. This centralised control means that local governments lack full legislative power and may struggle to address regional issues effectively without the approval or funding from central government. For example, local authorities in England cannot independently change key policies like welfare or immigration, which remain reserved matters handled by Westminster. - Unequal Political Influence Across Regions:
The different types of local councils and authorities across England have varying degrees of political power, which can create a disparity in political influence. Larger urban areas, such as London or Greater Manchester, have more substantial political power due to metro mayors and combined authorities, whereas rural areas with county councils may have less political leverage. This can lead to unequal treatment of regions within England when it comes to policy priorities or funding allocations. - Limited Public Engagement and Support for Devolution:
While there is some support for devolution in England, the concept has not gained the same widespread public support as in Scotland or Wales. Without a clear, unified call for a fully devolved parliament, the current local government system risks becoming a patchwork solution that doesn’t satisfy the needs of all regions. The lack of a strong, national movement for English devolution has meant that regional governance is often seen as secondary to Westminster, limiting its political effectiveness and authority. - Frustration Over Regional Inequalities:
Devolution in England has also led to political tensions between regions. Areas like London and Manchester have gained greater political autonomy, but other regions feel neglected or underrepresented. This inequality can lead to political dissatisfaction and demands for more power to be transferred to regions that feel they are not receiving the same level of attention from Westminster. The perceived unevenness in how political power is distributed across the country contributes to political instability and calls for more balanced devolution.
These political limitations highlight that while England has local government structures in place, they are still subject to significant constraints from Westminster, which prevents the country from fully enjoying the benefits of devolution experienced in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
The Limitations and Challenges of Local Government in England
Key Facts:
1. Reorganization of Local Government:
• Local government in England has been frequently reorganised with mergers and new formations.
• The government tends to favour merging smaller units for efficiency, highlighting the lack of real autonomy for local councils compared to devolved assemblies.
• This contrasts with Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, where there have been no similar restructurings from Whitehall.
2. Revenue-Raising Powers of English Councils:
• Local councils in England are heavily reliant on block grants from central government for funding.
• Councils have some ability to raise funds via council tax, but the government controls the extent to which this can be increased.
• Some councils, like Bath and North East Somerset, have sought the ability to levy a local tourism tax, but as of 2021, this had not been implemented.
3. Directly Elected Mayors:
• The idea of directly elected mayors in England has not gained widespread support.
• In towns like Torbay and Hartlepool, referendums abolished the post of mayor after initial introduction.
• The election of a mascot, H’Angus the Monkey, in Hartlepool demonstrates public sentiment towards the office, reflecting a lack of seriousness in the role.
Significance:
• Local Government Structure and Self-Determination:
• The frequent reorganization of local councils points to a lack of genuine autonomy in England’s local governance. Central government’s intervention and policy-driven restructurings undermine the potential for councils to establish independent, locally-driven governance structures.
• This is significant because it shows that despite the existence of local authorities, their power and influence are restricted compared to devolved regions like Scotland and Wales.
• Revenue Dependence and Local Control:
• The limited revenue-raising powers of local councils further highlight the constrained nature of local government in England. Reliance on central government for funding and the inability to raise taxes freely (such as the proposed tourist tax) diminishes the power of local authorities to address regional needs and issues.
• This also underscores the ongoing centralisation of power in Westminster, where England’s local councils are not given the fiscal autonomy needed to act independently.
• Electoral Enthusiasm for Mayoral Posts:
• The lack of enthusiasm for directly elected mayors, particularly in places like Hartlepool, indicates that English citizens may not view local government reform through the introduction of mayors as a priority.
• This sentiment also reflects a potential mistrust or lack of confidence in the effectiveness of mayors in improving local governance. The election of a mascot rather than a serious candidate also suggests that the role is not taken seriously by the electorate.
Limitations:
• Lack of Devolution for England:
• The frequent reorganization of local councils, without a clear, autonomous structure like Scotland’s Parliament or Wales’ Senedd, reveals the political limitations of England’s current system. Local government lacks the powers and self-determination needed to address specific regional needs, and the central government’s continual restructuring limits the ability of local authorities to assert independent political and legislative power.
• Public Disinterest in Mayoral Elections:
• The failure of directly elected mayors to capture the public’s interest shows a limitation of the current devolution structure. Citizens are not enthusiastic about having mayors with broad powers, particularly when the role is perceived as trivial or ineffective.
• The public’s preference for the abolition of the post in some areas shows that there is a disconnect between what central government views as useful reforms and what local communities actually need or want.
The Debate over the Introduction of Proper Devolution to England
The issue of devolution for England, compared to other regions of the UK, remains less emotional and less high-profile. The debate dates back to 1919–20 when a Speaker’s Conference considered the possibility of devolution in England. At that time, the conference suggested that a national institution for England might be preferable to a more regionalized approach, but this recommendation had little impact.
After devolution was implemented in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the Campaign for an English Parliament was formed in 1998. However, the movement has not gained significant support from the major political parties.
USEFUL CONCEPTS
- Asymmetry:
A lack of balance, used to refer to the way the system of devolution only applies to parts of the UK. - West Lothian Question:
Refers to the fact that, following devolution, MPs from the devolved regions still have the right to vote on matters that relate only to England but, by contrast, MPs from English constituencies cannot vote on issues devolved to the regions.
Arguments for an English Parliament
For arguments:
1. Parity with the Rest of the UK Argument: A devolved English parliament would provide fairness and parity with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Teresa Gorman, a Conservative MP, argued in 1998 that England deserved “fair and equal treatment.” This would correct the imbalance in the UK’s devolution process. Significance: It would address the perceived asymmetry in the devolution structure and solidify England’s role in a fully devolved system. Limitation: While it may correct the asymmetry, some argue that England is already represented in Westminster, so creating a separate English parliament may be unnecessary and duplicative. The effectiveness of such a parliament in improving fairness is debated. 2. Resolution of the West Lothian Question and English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) Argument: An English parliament would permanently resolve the West Lothian Question, ending the debate over English votes for English laws (EVEL). For example, in 2015, David Cameron’s government faced complications over Scottish MPs voting on English-only matters, like the foxhunting ban. Significance: This would streamline the legislative process and prevent conflicts between MPs from different regions voting on laws that only affect one part of the UK. Limitation: While an English parliament might solve the issue of EVEL, it could exacerbate tensions in the UK by further dividing the regions, and it would likely lead to more complex governance without necessarily creating more effective legislation. 3. Reduction of Centralisation of Power in Westminster Argument: A devolved English parliament would decentralise political power, moving it away from Westminster and reducing the dominance of London over England’s politics. Significance: This would allow local and regional issues in England to be addressed more directly, fostering regional identities and needs. Limitation: A further decentralisation of power could make national coordination more difficult and could potentially lead to regional imbalances, with some regions receiving more influence than others. Additionally, it could fragment decision-making and increase bureaucracy. 4. Expression and Priority of English Identity and Interests Argument: An English parliament would give clear expression to English identity, reflecting England’s political preferences, which tend to be more right-wing compared to the rest of the UK. The Brexit vote, for instance, highlighted political differences, especially between England and Scotland/Northern Ireland. Significance: It would allow England to pursue policies that reflect its political inclinations, potentially enhancing the democratic representation of English voters. Limitation: This could further deepen regional divisions within the UK, particularly with Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, which may feel alienated by England’s dominance. Additionally, the UK’s overall unity might be undermined if each nation pursues divergent policies. 5. Success of Devolution in Other Parts of the UK Argument: Devolution has generally worked well in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, suggesting that it could also be successful in England. Significance: The success of devolved assemblies in other regions supports the idea that devolution can benefit England, offering local control over key policy areas. Limitation: While devolution has worked in other parts of the UK, England’s larger size and the concentration of its population in the southeast could create challenges in implementing a devolved system that serves the entire nation equitably. 6. Growing Support for an English Parliament Argument: There has been increasing support for the idea of an English parliament, particularly among Conservative politicians. Notable figures such as Andrew Rosindell and John Redwood have backed the idea, along with some members of the SNP. Significance: Growing political backing signals that there is increasing recognition of the need for an English parliament, which could reflect the wishes of many English voters. Limitation: Despite growing support, the idea remains controversial and has not garnered broad support from all political parties, particularly from Labour or the Liberal Democrats. The idea also risks deepening regional divides, making it a politically charged issue.
In summary, the arguments for an English parliament are focused on achieving fairness, resolving parliamentary issues like EVEL, decentralising power, and expressing English identity. However, challenges include the potential for further division within the UK, increased complexity in governance, and lack of widespread political support for such a move.
Arguments Against an English Parliament
Arguments against
1. Dominance of England in a Federal United Kingdom
Argument: Any English parliament would likely dominate the rest of the UK, both economically and by population, as it would represent 85% of the total UK population and generate the majority of the national GDP.
Significance: This would create an imbalance in the federal system, where England’s influence could overshadow that of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, potentially leading to resentment and the weakening of the union.
Limitation: The dominance of England is already a reality in the current political system, with Westminster being the decision-making body for the entire UK. Creating a separate parliament for England would only make this dominance more explicit, but it would also allow more localised decision-making for England’s own needs. The economic and political weight of England is hard to mitigate under any devolved structure.
2. Lack of a Cohesive English Cultural Identity
Argument: Unlike Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, England lacks a strong and unified cultural identity. Regions like Cornwall and Merseyside may have strong local identities, but these do not easily align with each other, complicating the creation of a singular English identity.
Significance: Without a cohesive cultural identity, it would be difficult to justify an English parliament that truly represents the diverse regional identities within England. It may also lead to unequal representation and regional tensions within England itself.
Limitation: While England lacks a singular identity, the existence of local regional identities could still support a devolved parliament if these regional voices were given prominence within the system. The lack of one overriding cultural identity doesn’t necessarily prevent the creation of regional or national governance.
3. Debate Over the Location of the English Parliament
Argument: There would be significant disagreement over the location of an English parliament. Should it be in London, close to Westminster for efficiency, or should it move to the Midlands or the North? The decision would be contentious, potentially exacerbating regional divisions.
Significance: The location debate would delay the establishment of a devolved English parliament, creating additional political friction and complications. It could also reinforce perceptions of regional inequalities if the parliament were located in one part of England over another.
Limitation: While a location debate would be contentious, it is not an insurmountable challenge. The choice could be made on pragmatic grounds or through consultation, similar to how other devolved institutions have been established in the UK.
4. Extra Costs Involved in the Creation of Government Layers
Argument: The establishment of an English parliament would incur substantial costs, including the payment of new representatives, the recruitment of civil servants, and the creation of a new administrative structure.
Significance: The financial burden on taxpayers could be considerable, especially at a time when the UK faces other economic pressures. The potential inefficiency of adding another layer of government could be seen as wasteful.
Limitation: While there would be upfront costs, the long-term benefits of devolved decision-making could outweigh the costs by increasing efficiency, focusing on regional needs, and reducing the strain on Westminster. Additionally, there could be cost savings in central government spending through devolved powers.
5. Undermining the Role of Westminster
Argument: The creation of an English parliament could significantly undermine Westminster’s role, leaving it with less responsibility for domestic issues that currently affect England alone. This could lead to a diminished stature for Westminster, which is traditionally seen as the “mother of all parliaments.”
Significance: Weakening Westminster could lead to a disjointed political system, where decisions affecting the UK as a whole become fragmented. This might increase tensions between different parts of the UK and lead to confusion over the role of central government.
Limitation: While Westminster’s role may be reduced in English affairs, it would still play a central part in UK-wide issues, such as foreign policy, defence, and the economy. The creation of an English parliament would likely enhance, rather than weaken, the focus on national issues that affect all the UK.
6. Weakening the Union
Argument: Unlike the other devolved regions, there is no risk of England leaving the UK, but an English parliament could potentially lead to a weakening of the union. English self-determination could lead to greater regional divides and undermine the sense of British unity.
Significance: A stronger sense of English national identity and governance might drive the country further apart from the rest of the UK, causing greater tension and division.
Limitation: English devolution could actually strengthen the union by resolving internal conflicts and addressing local needs, preventing alienation in England. Further, there is no clear evidence that English devolution would lead to calls for secession, as in Scotland.
7. Lack of Public Enthusiasm
Argument: There is limited public support for an English parliament. A 2004 referendum saw the North East of England reject the idea of a regional assembly by a large margin (78%-22%). Many regions have also rejected the idea of directly elected mayors.
Significance: A lack of enthusiasm for devolution in England suggests that the broader public does not see the need for an additional layer of government, and such a system may face significant opposition.
Limitation: Public opinion can evolve, and devolution in other parts of the UK has seen increasing support over time. If presented with clear, practical benefits, public support for an English parliament could increase, especially in light of the perceived failures of Westminster to address regional concerns.
Conclusion: Arguments against an English parliament focus on concerns over England’s dominant role, lack of cohesive identity, potential for divisiveness, the additional costs, and the risk of weakening the union. However, while these challenges are significant, they may not outweigh the potential benefits of a more regionally focused political system.
DEBATE Should England have its own parliament?
DEBATE: Should England Have Its Own Parliament?
Yes:
1. Completion of Devolution and Removal of Asymmetry: An English parliament would complete the process of devolution, ensuring that all nations within the UK have their own institutions, thus resolving the current asymmetry in the political structure.
2. Flourishing of English Identity and Culture: A devolved parliament could provide a platform for the expression and development of English culture and identity, just as Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have been able to do.
3. Resolution of the West Lothian Question: An English parliament would effectively resolve the West Lothian Question, ensuring that only English MPs vote on English-only issues, rather than relying on the complex system of English Votes for English Laws (EVEL).
4. Decentralisation of Power: A devolved English parliament would allow for more political power to be decentralised away from Westminster, reducing the centralisation of authority in London.
5. Growing Political Support: There is growing support for an English parliament from various political figures, reflecting a shift in how devolution is viewed.
6. Devolution Has Worked Elsewhere: Devolution has generally been successful in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, suggesting that it could similarly work well in England.
No:
1. Size and Economy of England: England’s large size and its dominant role in the UK economy set it apart from the smaller nations. What has worked in these smaller devolved bodies may not be suitable for England, with its complex and varied political landscape.
2. Lack of a Cohesive National Identity: England lacks a unified national identity that the other devolved nations possess. Cultural and political differences are more regional within England, making a national parliament less effective in representing the population.
3. English Votes for English Laws (EVEL): The introduction of EVEL has largely addressed the West Lothian Question, allowing English MPs to have control over English-only laws, thus diminishing the need for a separate English parliament.
4. Cost and Weakening of Westminster: The creation of an English parliament would require substantial financial investment, potentially leading to inefficiencies. It could also diminish the role and importance of Westminster as the central institution for the entire UK.
5. Lack of Public Support: There is limited public enthusiasm for an English parliament, as evidenced by past failures such as the rejection of a regional assembly for the North East in 2004. Without widespread public backing, the move to create an English parliament may not be viable.
What are the 4 impacts of devolution on the government of the United Kingdom:
Alongside some demands for its extension to England, devolution has impacted in a number of other ways on UK government:
- British constitution
- Policy variation
- Alternative voting systems
- Pressure groups
Impact of devolution on the British constitution:
The British Constitution and Devolution
Devolution has significantly altered the British Constitution, moving it from a purely unitary system to one that is often referred to as “quasifederal.” This hybrid structure combines elements of both a unitary state and a federal state.
• Significance:
Devolution has fundamentally reshaped the governance structure of the UK. While ultimate sovereignty remains with Westminster in theory (meaning Parliament could, in theory, repeal devolution Acts), the reality is that power has been significantly transferred to the devolved bodies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This marks a shift in the centralisation of power, with many key domestic issues now decided within these devolved institutions, except for English-only matters. As a result, this change has led to a more complex and multi-layered governance system.
• Extent of Devolution’s Impact on the British Constitution:
Devolution has caused a substantial shift in the UK’s constitutional framework. While the UK technically remains a unitary state, the introduction of devolution and the establishment of devolved legislatures has created a “quasifederal” system where domestic policy decisions are largely handled by the devolved assemblies, significantly reducing the role of Westminster. The Scotland Act 2016 further entrenched this change, stating that Westminster cannot legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, a key departure from the unitary principle of parliamentary sovereignty. This recognition of permanent devolved institutions has reduced Westminster’s absolute legislative control over the devolved regions and introduced a degree of federal-like autonomy. However, as Westminster retains the power to amend or override laws in England, the full shift to a federal system remains incomplete, and the constitutional structure remains a mix of unitary and federal characteristics.
Impact of devolution on policy variation:
Policy Variation and Devolution
Devolution has led to significant policy variation across the UK, resulting in regional inequality in certain areas. While Westminster retains control over policy in England, devolved governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland now have significant autonomy over domestic matters. This has led to noticeable differences in areas like university tuition fees, hospital car parking, corporal punishment, and income tax rates. These policy variations are particularly prominent during crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, where regional responses varied significantly.
• Significance:
The decentralisation of power has resulted in important policy differences, which can sometimes be viewed as inequalities between the four nations of the UK. For instance, while some devolved governments can set higher or lower tax rates, or make more permissive or restrictive regulations on public health, these differences are particularly stark during national emergencies like COVID-19. As a result, the devolved administrations’ decisions can sometimes lead to tension between regions and highlight the complexities of a “quasifederal” state.
• Extent of Devolution’s Impact on Policy Variation:
Devolution has greatly reduced Westminster’s control over domestic policy outside England, leading to considerable variations in rules and laws across the UK. These differences can be particularly evident in times of crisis, such as during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Regional governments were able to implement their own lockdown measures, creating different guidelines on social distancing, travel, and business reopening. For example, while people in England could travel long distances for outdoor activities, they could not travel to Wales or Scotland, where stricter travel restrictions were in place. In England, shops and schools reopened sooner than in Wales and Scotland, where reopening measures were delayed. This case study exemplifies how devolution has allowed each region to manage its own policies independently of Westminster, leading to different lived experiences across the UK.
CASE STUDY:
Devolution and COVID-19 measures during the first lockdown
At the end of May 2020, the UK governments introduced differing measures for loosening the first COVID-19 lockdown, with significant contrasts across the regions.
• England:
• People were allowed to meet in groups of up to 6 from different households.
• Outdoor exercise and socialising were unlimited.
• Social distancing was required at 2 meters, and people could travel without distance restrictions.
• Shops were set to reopen from June 15, and primary schools in some areas began reopening from June 1.
• Scotland:
• People could meet in groups of up to 8 from two different households.
• Social distancing of 2 meters was also required, but travel was restricted to within 5 miles from home.
• Schools did not have a set reopening date at this point but were eventually reopened in late June.
• Shops did not have a clear reopening date either but were eventually allowed to open by the end of June.
• Wales:
• Similar to Scotland, people could meet from two households with no limit on the total number of people.
• Social distancing and travel restrictions were also in place, with travel limited to 5 miles.
• Like Scotland, there was no clear date for the reopening of shops or schools, with schools eventually opening in late June and shops in September.
This case study highlights the varying approaches between England, Scotland, and Wales in handling the same public health crisis. Even though the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, provided guidance, the devolved administrations had the power to implement their own restrictions and lifting measures, creating distinct regional differences in the process. This example underscores how devolution has given the devolved governments autonomy over domestic matters, even in a national crisis.
Impact of devolution on Alternate voting systems:
Alternative Voting Systems and Devolution
Devolution, along with European elections, has led to the introduction of alternative voting systems beyond the traditional First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system. These new systems, such as the Additional Member System (AMS) used in Scotland and Wales, and the Single Transferable Vote (STV) in Northern Ireland, have had significant consequences for the way politics operates in the devolved administrations. One of the most notable impacts has been the rise of minority or coalition governments.
• Significance:
The introduction of these alternative voting systems has shifted the political landscape in the devolved regions. While FPTP tends to favour larger, established parties, systems like AMS and STV enable smaller parties to gain representation, resulting in a more proportional outcome. This has made multiparty governance the norm in the devolved assemblies, challenging the previously dominant two-party system seen in Westminster. As a result, coalition governments have become more frequent, leading to more collaborative governance, but also potentially contributing to political instability and slow decision-making.
• Extent of Devolution’s Impact on Voting Systems and Governance:
The shift towards alternative voting systems has led to the fragmentation of the political landscape in the devolved regions, with no party able to secure an outright majority on its own in many cases. In Scotland, for instance, the Scottish Parliament’s use of AMS means that the Labour Party, Conservative Party, and the Scottish National Party (SNP) all compete for power, often resulting in coalition governments or minority administrations. This contrasts with the traditional FPTP system in Westminster, where one party often secures a clear majority. In Northern Ireland, the use of STV has resulted in power-sharing agreements between the region’s various parties, reflecting a broader range of political preferences. While this can lead to more inclusive and representative governance, it has also led to debates about whether it results in more political gridlock and weak governments or whether it encourages greater cross-party cooperation and compromises that better reflect the diverse political landscape.
In sum, devolution has had a profound impact on the balance of power in the devolved regions, facilitating the rise of multiparty governance. Whether this is seen as a positive or negative change depends on one’s perspective on the effectiveness of coalition governments and whether they promote or hinder the efficient functioning of government. However, what is undeniable is that these alternative voting systems have changed the way politics is conducted in the regions and have reshaped the political dynamics in ways that were not seen under the traditional FPTP system.
Impact of devolution on pressure groups:
Pressure Groups and Devolution
Devolution has had a profound impact on the way pressure groups operate within the UK. With the establishment of devolved legislatures, such as the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and Northern Ireland Assembly, pressure groups have increasingly directed their lobbying efforts toward these institutions, rather than focusing solely on Westminster. The Scottish Parliament’s involvement in shaping domestic policies, such as the law banning the smacking of children in 2019, serves as an example of this shift.
• Significance:
The shift in focus from Westminster to the devolved assemblies represents a significant change in how pressure groups engage with the political system. In the past, pressure groups primarily targeted the UK government in Westminster, but devolution has created new centres of political power at the regional level. As regional governments make policy decisions that affect their specific populations, pressure groups are now dedicating resources to lobbying these devolved bodies in addition to national government.
• Extent of Devolution’s Impact on Pressure Groups:
One example of this shift can be seen in the Scottish Parliament’s consideration of the law banning the smacking of children. In the run-up to the vote, the Scottish Government consulted with a wide range of organisations, including 12 charities, seven equality organisations, 12 police, legal, and human rights bodies, and 20 medical and care profession organisations. Children’s charities, like Children 1st, played a particularly influential role in lobbying for the law’s passage, reflecting the increased involvement of pressure groups in the decision-making process at the devolved level. The outcome was a law that aligned with the views and demands of various lobbying groups, showing the significant influence that these groups can have in a devolved system.
Pressure groups now tend to focus their efforts where policy is actually being made. In the case of Scotland, that means directing their lobbying efforts toward the Scottish Parliament, rather than solely on Westminster. This trend can also be seen in Wales and Northern Ireland, where regional issues are handled locally. The decentralisation of power has allowed pressure groups to directly influence policymaking at the regional level, meaning that their role is more significant in devolved governance than it was in the unitary UK state.
In conclusion, devolution has altered the landscape of lobbying in the UK, as pressure groups increasingly focus their energies on devolved institutions. This change has allowed regional governments to respond more directly to the concerns of local communities, leading to more targeted and region-specific advocacy by pressure groups.
Overall impact of Devolution:
The impact of devolution on the UK government Key points
✚ Devolution has reduced the power of Westminster as many areas of government are now the responsibility of devolved assemblies.
✚ It raises the issue of English devolution and the West Lothian question.
✚ It has led the government to transfer more powers to some English local authorities via combined authorities and metro mayors.
✚ It has not weakened (in theory at least) the concept of Westminster sovereignty. Devolved assemblies have their powers delegated, not inalienably transferred. In reality, however, it is highly unlikely that devolution would ever be reversed.
✚ It has created more variation across the UK. For example, prescriptions are free in Wales and Scotland, and those earning over £150,000 pay 1% more income tax in Scotland
Key dates for devolution:
Key dates:
- 1997 Tony Blair’s Labour government holds referendums in Scotland and Wales over devolution. Both vote in favour, albeit by a very small margin in Wales.
- 1998 The Good Friday Agreement leads to a ceasefire and an end to the Troubles in Northern Ireland, paving the way for a Northern Ireland Assembly.
- 1999 Devolved assemblies are set up in Wales and Scotland. 2011 A referendum in Wales supports the transfer of greater powers by a large margin (63% to 37%).
- 2012 The Scotland Act devolves some tax-raising powers (e.g. income tax) to the Scottish Parliament and allows it to borrow up to £2 billion a year.
- 2014 Scotland rejects full independence in a referendum (55% to 45%). The Wales Act grants more powers to the Welsh government including stamp duty, business rates and landfill tax.
- 2016 The Scotland Act devolves further powers including control over road signs and onshore oil extraction, and to change its electoral system, with a two-thirds vote by the Scottish Parliament.
- 2017 The Northern Ireland Assembly is suspended due to a breakdown in relations between the two largest parties, the DUP (unionist) and Sinn Féin (nationalist). Suspension only ended in January 2020.
The Wales Act gives further powers to Cardiff, largely similar to those granted to Scotland in 2016 but excluding the power to set income tax rates/bands. - 2019 Welsh government allowed to vary income tax rates.
- 2020 Welsh Assembly uses its powers under the 2017 Wales Act to change its name to Senedd Cymru or Welsh Parliament.
Devolution summary:
SUMMARY
- Devolution involves the delegation of some key
powers away from the central government but differs from federalism, where power is more permanently alienated. The UK has moved away from a very centralised and unitary structure since 1997 towards one that could be termed ‘quasifederal’.
- Devolution has developed and progressed slightly unevenly across the three regions since the initial 1997 reforms. The general pattern has been to extend the power and competences of the regional assemblies. In Northern Ireland, some measure of devolution has helped bring a degree of peace and stability.
- Local government in England takes a number of forms and has been frequently reorganised by
Whitehall. It remains under the direction of central government with no primary legislative powers. - Devolution in the UK is asymmetrical as it does not apply to the largest component part of the UK, England.
- There are a number of arguments for and against having an English parliament but public support remains underwhelming, and the alternative option of regional assemblies holds arguably more attraction among some voters.
- Devolution has affected UK politics in several ways. These include variations in laws, who pressure groups target for lobbying and the impact of different voting systems, especially the prevalence of coalition or minority governments in devolved regions.
