Politics Essay: Main Advantages and Disadvantages of the UK\'s System of Devolution PDF

Preview

Summary

This essay was marked at an A4- 19/22. "While the focus on Scotland is certainly appropriate, a discussion of the benefits and risks of devolution and independence to the UK as a whole would have added nuance to the argument. In addition, linking the argument even firmer to the academic literature c...

Description

51984242 What are the main advantages and disadvantages of the UK’s system of devolution?

Devolution was introduced at the time of democratic renewal; it refers to the legislature of a superior government transferring one or more of its powers to inferior governments with the promise of active engagement from a local government (Jeffery, 2006). The 1997 Labour Party manifesto gave Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland greater powers to self-govern and implement their own policies in their region (Paun and Macrory, 2019: 7). The purpose of this essay is to explore how devolution allows for the development of policy at a more local level and also provides a platform that supports the popular interest for national regions to selfgovern. In spite of these assets, it is important to consider the ongoing debate of Brexit and how it has introduced new problems for the UK government requiring cooperation with the devolved regions to work together to come up with a post-Brexit agreement. Furthermore, this essay will evaluate the merits and criticisms of devolution and acknowledge the possible alternatives to the devolution system which will consider, for Scotland in particular, the potential for devolution-max and the suggestion for a second independence referendum.

With the devolution system, comes the sense of partnership in pursuit of a territorial general interest; this close partnership has helped to legitimize the devolution system (Jeffery, 2006: 70). This is a key advantage of the devolution reform; it has been carried out in a way that will not undermine the role of local government which means that the devolved governments actively promote the local governments, thus decisions can be made as close to the citizen as possible. This introduces another notable merit of devolution, being that it allows the devolved regions within the UK, to develop and implement tailored policy decisions at a more local level (JRF, 2002). This is an effective and more democratic way to govern as it takes into consideration the specific issues and challenges which exist in each region. Jeffery

1

51984242 states, “The Scottish people will be served best by a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Executive working closely with strong democratically elected local government” (2006: 59); in the simplest form, this means that Scottish citizens know Scotland best, thus should govern its own people in its own country. In comparison to their UK predecessors, the devolved Scottish and Welsh institutions have been significantly more open and accessible (Jeffery, 2002). This means that devolution allows for a quicker and efficient response to particular problems in that region. An example of this is where the levels of alcohol consumption in Scotland is so high that Scotland utilised their powers within devolution to create numerous laws that would help tackle this issue. The Scottish government so far has spent £173 million on drug and alcohol services (Audit-scotland.gov.uk, 2019: 7). It could be argued that without Scotland's devolved powers, the money dedicated to tackling this specific issue may never have been distributed in such a way if the region had still been governed by Westminster. The Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012 continues to be one of the most successful pieces of legislation, (Audit-scotland.gov.uk, 2019: 11) with the minimum price for a unit of alcohol being 50p. The Scottish government recognised that as alcohol becomes more affordable, the harm increases, so the government took action and put their devolved powers to good use by limiting the ability of retailers to sell cut price alcohol. Thus, where the alcohol problem in the other regions of the UK is not as critical as the issue in Scotland, the advantage of having the devolution system available means that the Scottish government can legislate tailored policies that will tackle the alcohol problems prominent in the region without affecting the alcohol laws in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

However, it is important to note that although devolution allows for closer links between citizens and local government, adapting to devolution has been difficult for the UK government, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Devolution requires the cooperation of

2

51984242 the UK government and the devolved governments, particularly when agreeing on how to manage the powers that the EU gives back to these governments if and when Brexit comes into force (Cheung et al. 2019: 5). To reach a stable, post-Brexit settlement, the governments have agreed that there must be a significant expansion of the current devolved powers held by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (Cheung et al. 2019: 5). However, the problem lies within the regions disagreeing on which areas should be covered by UK-wide frameworks and how these should be managed (Cheung et al. 2019: 5). The disadvantage of the devolution system here is that the UK and the devolved regions constantly have to make joint decisions, working towards resolving disputes in areas where EU law has played a role in regulating until now. If the UK didn’t transfer devolved powers to the regional governments, then the post-Brexit settlement, in theory, can be agreed upon far more efficiently as one whole government. There would not be four different governments with different opinions and needs, deciding upon these agreements. In addition to this criticism of the UK’s devolution system, the Scottish and Welsh governments regarded the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 a breach of the Sewel Convention (Cheung et al. 2019: 6). Under the terms of this convention, the UK Parliament usually will adhere to the consent of the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland before passing legislation (UK Parliament, n.d.). In the case of confirming the wish to withdrawal from the European Union, the UK parliament did not recognise that Scotland did not consent. Consequently, this has led to the breakdown of trust between the UK government and the devolved institutions. This proves that there is a lack of transparency in these systems and the nations are failing to work together. The Scottish National Party argues that "Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will" (Sargeant, 2019), would justify a second independence referendum, thus opening up the debate for a different approach to governing these nations.

3

51984242 In the lead up to the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the narrowing of the polls followed with promises which would deliver Scotland significantly more powers within the Union, providing that the vote resulted as remain. The rejection for independence was confirmed with a 55% remain vote, however it was suggested that most Scots wanted a third option of ‘devolution-max’; an enhanced version of devolution which would allow Scotland to take control of the majority of taxes, welfare and social security whilst remaining in the union (Fleming, 2014: 17). In Lord Ashcroft’s post-referendum polling, it is suggested that 25% of No voters proceeded with their vote due to the promise of these extra powers (Ashcroft, 2014). In essence, the fact that devolved powers are flexible and not so rigid that Westminster couldn’t promise these additional powers, can be considered a merit of devolution. However, the complication, still, is that change is lacking; the expected powers that were promised to the Scottish government have not been fulfilled. Consequently, those who voted no, expecting Westminster to grant more powers, have been left disappointed and confused. This criticism of our devolution system shows that a second independence referendum for Scotland may be a suitable option for ultimate powers to be granted for Scotland. In spite of the lack of action taken, the option for devolution-max as a satisfying middle ground between devolution and independence, would protect Scotland’s current powers whilst taking the country a step further to self-government; it would allow Scotland to control everything excluding macro-economics, defence and foreign affairs (Bell, 2018). This essentially means that Scotland will have the powers of a separate nation without the requirement of military chiefs, diplomats, expensive embassies and the efforts of going through a second independence referendum (Buchanan, 2012). Evidently, one major advantage of our devolution system is having the ability to enhance Scotland’s devolved powers as opposed to opening up another Scottish independence referendum. This means less confusion for voters because the concept of devolution-max, referring back to Lord Ashcroft's

4

51984242 post-referendum polls, appeared to be what the majority of voters in Scotland would have preferred in the first place.

After exploring the advantages and disadvantages of devolution, it is apparent that for devolution to run successfully within the UK, then Westminster and its devolved regions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, must make progress towards overcoming the lack of trust within their relationships. To agree on a post-Brexit decision, the requirement of trust and cooperation between the UK parliament and the devolved regions is fundamental for the devolution system to run smoothly. However, it is important to credit devolution for uniting national government with local government, which allows the close link between the two institutions to build a strong foundation of trust. Ultimately, it can be argued that the overarching solution, for Scotland in particular, would be to put devolution-max into force before introducing a second-independence referendum, which evidently would give Scotland the powers that it is determined to have, without going through the inconvenience of another vote. The practicality of introducing devolution max for Scotland and whether or not it would work was considered with the promise of devolution-max from Westminister after the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, so in theory, Westminister just needs to deliver now. Overall, it is clear that the advantages of devolution introduce the more efficient alternatives to devolution, being devolution-max and independence, which would seem to satisfy the devolved region's desire for more power.

1576 words

5

51984242 Ashcroft, L. (2014). How Scotland voted, and why [Online] Lord Ashcroft Polls. Available at: [Accessed: 22 October 2019]. Audit-scotland.gov.uk. (2019). Drugs and alcohol services [Online] Audit Scotland. Available at: [Accessed: 25 October 2019]. Bell, A. (2018). It may be time for Devo Max [Online] The Courier. Available at:

[Accessed: 22 October 2019]. Buchanan, M. (2012). What is devolution max? [Online] BBC News. Available at: [Accessed: 23 October 2019]. Cheung, A., Paun, A. and Valsamidis, L. (2019). Devolution at 20 [Online] Institute for Government. Available at: [Accessed: 23 October 2019]. Fleming, C. (2014). ‘Now Deliver, Say the Scots’, The World Today, 70 (5), 17–18. Jeffery, C. (2006). ‘Devolution and Local Government’, Publius, 36 (1), 57-73. Jeffery, C. (2002). Devolution: Challenging Local Government? [Online] Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available at: [Accessed: 23 October 2019]. Paun, A. and Macrory, S. (2019). Has Devolution Worked? [Online] Institute for Government. Available at: [Accessed: 23 October 2019]. Sargeant, J. (2019). A second referendum on Scottish independence [Online] Institute for Government. Available at: [Accessed: 25 October 2019]. UK Parliament. (n.d.). Sewel Convention [Online] UK Parliament. Available at: [Accessed: 25 October 2019].

6...