What do you understand by devolution? Explain the circumstances surrounding devolution in the UK post - 1997. What criticisms can be made of devolution?

LSK Blankfield Politics 5/10/2007

What do you understand by devolution?
Explain the circumstances surrounding devolution in the UK post – 1997.
What criticisms can be made of devolution?

Devolution is the establishment of autonomous Government within regions that consider themselves to have a national identity, and decentralisation of power. However, this does not involve transferring legal sovereignty to these nations. There are three different forms - Legislative, Financial and Administrative devolution. Legislative Devolution is the power to make Primary Legislation. It is only held by the Scots in the UK. Financial Devolution is the ability to alter taxation and revenue within a band of 3%; again this is only the case in Scotland. Finally, Administrative Devolution is what the Welsh Assembly holds. It devolves responsibility for carrying out laws.

Labour’s 1997 General Election Manifesto had included the promise of referendums for Devolution in Scotland and Wales. New Labour introduced devolution in Scotland for two main reasons. There had been a strong call from the Scottish public for Constitutional Reform after the 18 years of Tory rule, which included the testing of the Poll Tax in Scotland in 1989, a year before it was introduced in England. Living conditions within Scotland had dropped to an average level of 3% below the average in England. In the 1990’s Scotland began to become more culturally attractive and films like Braveheart only reinforced this. Glasgow also became the European City of Culture during this period. Scotland had always had a certain amount of Administrative devolution, with its own Church and Judicial systems. New Labour was aware that if it didn’t do anything about the growing north/south economic and social divide then they would suffer electorally as Scottish voters could turn to the SNP. Linked to this was the idea that if there were no change in set up then it would put a huge strain on the United Kingdom with Scottish voters looking for another way to change the status quo. Labour was scared that a failure to act would lead to increased support for the Secessionists. This became known as ‘pressure from below.’ The Scottish Parliament was set up with 129 members and was first elected in 1999 under AMS. The Scottish Parliament has Legislative and Financial Devolution while the Welsh Assembly only has Administrative Devolution.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In Wales there was much less of a force for devolution, with Plaid Cymru being much weaker than the SNP. Wales had always had a closer relationship with England than the Scots and this was shown in the relative apathy towards devolution. However, the Welsh came to see devolution as a way of preserving their cultural identity. In James Callaghan’s 1979 Devolution Referendums, the proposals had been voted down by a ratio of four to one. Labour believed however that if there was to be devolution in Scotland it was only fair for there to be devolution in Wales as well. However, the Welsh were only given an Assembly, while the Scots have a Parliament. The Welsh Referendum was held a week later than the Scottish one as Tony Blair looked to get the result that he wanted. The Richard Report later suggested stepping up Welsh devolution to the same level as in Scotland and replacing the Additional Member System with the Single Transferable Vote System. The Welsh Assembly also has control of Quangos and Executive Agencies within Wales.

In Northern Ireland, the current devolutionary situation – a limited Administrative Devolution - is not a finally settled one. There have always been plans to expand the powers of the Northern Irish Assembly to include things such as policing once the region was more stable. The official review occurred in 2003 and further developments are ‘on the table.’

There are several criticisms of Devolution. The first is that raised by Tam Dalyell, (a Scottish MP who was anti-devolution) when he asked the Westlothian Question in 1997. He questioned why Scottish MP’s could still vote on issues that didn’t affect Scotland, ‘For how long will English constituencies tolerate MP’s from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?’ An example of this was that Scottish MP’s still have influence over such issues as Top-Up Fees in England, while English MP’s have no say in whether the fees are introduced in Scotland. Without the forty or so votes for the Bill from Scottish MP’s it would not have passed, having only eventually passed by five votes. This led on to the idea that the current Constitutional status quo was unfair to England, as Scotland and Wales still attained the same number of MP’s after Devolution, while English MP’s lost a lot of influence over the Scottish and Welsh regions. The Westlothian Question is unlikely to be addressed under Labour Government, as it is not in their interests to do so, being the dominant party in Scotland. Labour would not have won the vote on Top-Up Fees for instance without the 40 or so Scottish MP’s who voted for the Bill.

The second main criticism is linked to the first and concerns the over-representation of Scotland and Wales that is now apparent within the UK political system. This is because the MP – demographics have always been over-generous with regard to the two regions. Devolution since 1997 has only reinforced this and it is thought that at the next meeting of the Boundary Commission the number of Scottish MP’s will drop from 72 to 58. Scotland and Wales hold too much influence in Westminster for the size of their populations. Scotland in particular is also hugely over-represented in the financial sphere, thanks to the Barnett Formula. It receives far more money and investment than its population and industrial size merits.

Thirdly, after Devolution, what is there for Scottish MP’s in particular to do at Westminster? Important matters to that particular region have been devolved and so the representation of the electorate that the MP’s for Scotland in particular do is reduced because many decisions are taken at Holyrood instead of Westminster. Scottish MP’s now find themselves with less to do. This may however be of benefit to their constituents and their MP – Constituency links. Lastly, Devolution reduces the power that the Executive and the Legislative can wield within the United Kingdom as power for decision-making is put in the hands of regional representatives. Some who are anti-devolution also claim that Devolution is the first step on the road to the break-up of the UK. This view is prevalent amongst the ranks of the Conservative Party. For Secessionists the break-up of the UK is a good thing and their goal all along, but for the majority this would be undesirable.

The cost of the new administrations and the staff needed to run them has also been criticised as money spent on nothing more than even more levels of bureaucracy. Linked with this, the lack of expertise in this type of Government may also lead to further rising costs and delays in passing of Legislation. Many, especially within the Conservative Party, argue that the central Government in Westminster has this expertise and can make quicker and more sensible decisions than its devolved bodies. This also brings up the question of whether another layer of government could also cause problems with decisions that are wanted by the regions but are not supported by central government in Westminster. If there is a problem, who do the people in that particular region complain to? If it is the Government in Westminster, why have regional governments in the first place?

Finally the legitimacy of the devolutionary process has been called into question due to relatively low turnout in the referenda both in Scotland and in Wales. In Scotland, only 61.5% of the electorate voted and 25.7% of those people voted ‘no’ to a Scottish Parliament. Furthermore another 36.5% who voted ‘yes’ to the Parliament voted ‘no’ to that Parliament having the tax-setting powers that it now holds but has never used. In Wales, turnout was even lower, at 51.2%, barely enough to make the Referendum legitimate. Of those, only 50.3% said ‘yes’ – a very narrow margin. The results in these referenda have been criticised as a minority dictating to the majority and therefore extremely undemocratic.

Bibliography:

British Law: Kenneth Smith

Social Policy: Brian Abel – Smith

www. History learningsite.co.uk

The Times Newspaper