Demand for self-government had grown significantly in the run up to the passing of the devolution acts. In Scotland especially there was a clear sense of patriotism and the Scottish people believe that devolution will maintain this. However some people have argued that the support for devolution in Scotland and Wales has been over exaggerated, especially in Wales where votes in favour of devolution held only a very slim majority. Sub national governments have reflected the different regions. Devolution has meant that both Scotland and Wales have a clearer sense of their country.
For Labour and the Liberal Democrats one of the best arguments for devolution was the idea that it would head off demands for full independence. Devolution has been successful in this way because it has prevented any kind of surge towards full independence by either Scotland or Wales. There were concerns that the Scottish Nationalists majority hold over the Scottish Parliament after the elections in 2007 would lead to further demands for full independence. However opinion polls suggest that the Scottish people are not ready for independence so it remains a distant prospect. Devolution has given Scotland and Wales their own responsibility over their own local affairs so that the need for independence is less likely.
Since issues involving Scotland alone can now be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament it has reduced the workload of the British Parliament thus making the introduction of any legislation much more efficient for the whole of the UK. Scotland and Wales have been able to introduce new policies in order to do what is best for their people. Local issues are represented better than could be done at Westminster and steps can be taken in order to solve them. Both Scotland and Wales have been given responsibilities over local affairs such as healthcare, education, housing and transport. This has produced two advantages; it helps to lighten the workload on Westminster allowing more time to be spent on English issues and foreign affairs. It has also meant that local parliament would be able to focus on specific areas in order to improve conditions. By 2003 Scotland had introduced forty pieces of legislation that would only apply to Scotland, such as no tuition fees and free elderly care. Wales have also introduced new policies like the introduction of the Baccalaureate system of education as well as the banning of school league tables and SAT tests for seven year olds. This shows that devolution has had a positive effect and has lead to effective self-government. Also local people are more likely to accept new legislation if it has come from a more local source that understands their position better.
Devolution has shown an increase in democracy as the Scottish and Welsh people have been given more say in matters that could affect them. The Scottish opposed a ‘Beef on the bone ban’ in 1999 that could have caused problems for Scottish farmers and the Welsh opposed the growth of GM crops because they feared the risk of cross pollination with their crops. Also there has been an increase in democracy concerning the voting systems put in place in both local and national levels; the new system has enabled more proportional representation by smaller parties.
However the devolution process has had some negative effects. A traditional policy within the UK has always been that all citizens should be treated equally no matter where they choose to live however; the introduction of new policies for different areas could lead to inequality, such as Theban on tuition fees for Scottish students. This could be viewed as unfair treatment.
One large objection to the introduction of devolution was the cost involved in the process. The Scottish Parliament gained the ability to change taxes by 3%. This had led to tax rises in Scotland because it is much less prosperous than the UK. Devolution has been very expensive, especially in Scotland. The escalating costs of the construction of the new Parliament building has led to widespread criticism. It was opened in 2004, three years later than expected and its estimated final cost was around £409 million, a huge increase from the original budget of £100 million. These huge cost overruns of the Scottish parliament Building further dented confidence in public opinion in the ability of the Scottish parliament to manage funds. The cost of the building remains far more controversial than any of the legislation than has been passed in it.
The West Lothian question was first posed by Tam Dalyell in 1977. It stated that a large problem involved with devolution was the fact that Westminster MPs representing Scottish constituencies can only vote on issues involving England and Wales and not Scotland, and that English and Welsh MPs have not say over matters involving Scotland alone. Polls in both Scotland and England conclude that the public find the situation unfair. For example, the legislation imposing top-up fees for English students was passed by only a small majority in Westminster. At the time opposition education secretary Tim Yeo argued that this low majority indicated that the passing of the law had hinged on Scottish MPs voting to introduce tuition fees that the Scottish would not have to pay.
There have been arguments about devolution in relation to it being seen by Scottish Nationalist as a stepping stone to independence. Before the UK general election the Conservative Party said that devolution would create a ‘slippery slope’ to Scottish independence and provide the SNPs with a route to power. John Major claimed that the Parliament could end ‘1000 years of British history’. The equally Labour Party met these criticisms by claiming that devolution would fatally undermine the SNP, and remedy the long-felt desire of Scots for a measure of . In practice the Tory fears have proved unfounded. Even after the SNPs gained a majority in the Scottish parliament after 2007 there has been no further surge towards independence. Support for the Scottish Nationalist Party has decreased as Scotland can now handle their own affairs and are over represented at Westminster. In Wales this issue is not as pressing because it is obvious that Wales could not cope independently so devolution has just allowed them to have some responsibility in handling their own affairs and reduced the workload at Westminster.
To conclude, there are advantages and disadvantages to the devolution process in Scotland and Wales but mostly devolution has been effective. It has lead to a more effective government because Welsh and Scottish people have far more of a say in issues that concern them and it has decreased the support for independence in both countries.