Does devolution constitute a challenge to the British political tradition?

Résumé du document

In 1998, the New Labor government passed the Scotland Act, the Government of Wales Act and the Northern Ireland Act, enforcing devolution in the United Kingdom. In order to determine if devolution constitutes a challenge to the British political tradition, one needs to look at pre-devolution Britain, examining whether or not devolution involves a philosophy of discontinuity, breaking with the past evolution of Britain. Secondly, one should wonder if devolution could initiate, in the near future or in the long term, essential changes in the British political tradition. If it involves, at least, one of these two dimensions, then, devolution can be said to be a challenge. It will be argued that devolution poses a challenge to the British political tradition. It will initially be demonstrated that the challenge does not lie in the fact that it is a breakthrough in British political tradition. Indeed, devolution, in spite of its apparently sudden character, is a logical continuation of British evolution and does not involve such radical short-term changes when considering its extent. The challenge lies elsewhere: it is embodied in the questioning of the deep-rooted fundamental functioning of the British political tradition (the so-called Westminster system, notably majoritarian).

The United Kingdom has not been constituted on a "one State, one nation" basis but as a Union of Nations. This provides for a sort of historical path of blatant or underlying regional particularities across the territory and throughout centuries. England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland were united step-by-step under the unique representation of a single parliament, and forced to give up their own parliaments (for those which had one). This union was first built on rather unequal terms. The 1707 and 1801 Acts reflect the supremacy of England (and particularly of Anglo-Norman elite). However, in spite of the fact that the destinies of Scotland, Ireland and Wales were fully placed in the hands of the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish and Irish particularities (not so much the Welsh one) were recognized. The way the United Kingdom was created and the persistence of regional specificities, in a sense, paved the way for devolution.

Meanwhile, frequent requests were formulated for "Home Rules" throughout the centuries. Indeed, the case for devolution, first advocated by Edmund Burke in the late 18th century, sounds a bit like a leit motiv in British political tradition. The late 19th century was significantly characterized by Irish nationalists' demands for a Parliament in Dublin. The same era also witnessed a revival of Scottish and Welsh nationalism. As a consequence, several proposals were formulated for "Home Rule all-round" in Great Britain (e.g. Russell's Home Rule plans from 1872 on). It is true that, prior to 1998, action has never replaced words as far as legislative devolution is concerned (except for Northern Ireland from 1921 to 1972). But what matters is that the concept of devolution is far from new in the British political tradition.

Therefore, one could see the 1998 devolution, following Bogdanor (1999) and based on these past evolutions as nothing more than a sort of logical "renegotiation of the Union", and therefore not such a challenge to the British political tradition.

Extraits

[...] Second, devolution is rather limited when considering the financial means transferred. While Scotland enjoys a -restricted and poorly- used taxation power, the Welsh Assembly, for example, has no authority in this matter. Third, nor has the central organization of Whitehall been altered (for example, no landmark specific unit has been created), neither has the legislative process in the central institutions been changed. Fourth, the home civil service's responsibility still lies ultimately in the Prime Minister's hands. Here again, there is no evidence that devolution would shatter existing structures. [...]

[...] The way the United Kingdom was created and the persistence of regional specificities, in a sense, paved the way for devolution. Devolution has always been part of the British political tradition as a frequently raised issue In the mean time, frequent requests were formulated for “Home rules” throughout the centuries. Indeed, the case for devolution, first advocated by Edmund Burke in the late 18th century, sounds a bit like a leit motiv in British political tradition. The late 19th century was significantly characterized by Irish nationalists' demands for a Parliament in Dublin. [...]

[...] Today, illustrations of divergences are already numerous in health policy (more healthcare in Scotland), and in the housing sector. Setting social standards and minimums (as in Spain) could be a solution, but no efficient way to do it has yet been determined in the little formalised and coercive British legislative environment. In conclusion, devolution does not so much constitute an immediate challenge to the British political tradition. This is explained by the fact that it follows from an history of specificities and home rule and does not reform the existing institutions on such a radically large scale. [...]

[...] First of all, devolution has created new centres of power which, whatever the amount of competences transferred, benefit from democratic legitimacy. This legitimacy stemming from elections (unlike most of the previous experiences of devolution in the UK) could be directly concurrent with Westminster's one, even though devolved assemblies do not play in the same league considering the extent of their constitutional powers. What matters is that they are strengthened by the fact that their existence is consistent with the will of the peoples (of Scotland, Wales, Ireland) and could on that basis (why not?) try to expand their rights. [...]

[...] But what matters is that thinking about devolution is far from new in the British political tradition. Therefore, one could see the 1998 devolution, following Bogdanor (1999) and based on these past evolutions as nothing more than a sort of logical “renegotiation of the Union”, therefore not such a challenge to the British political tradition. The 1998 devolution does not induce such radical changes in comparison with the pre-existing political status quo To start with, devolution, though it has been implemented in a large portion of the United Kingdom's territory (and in three over four regions) only affects a small share of the citizens of the population lives in England). [...]