Devolution is the process of delegating powers away from Westminster to regions and cities within the UK, originally introduced in Labour’s 1997 election manifesto. There is consistent discourse over the success of this change, and thus this essay will reject that devolution in the UK was successful.

Some argue that decisions about local decision making has been brought closer to the people, increasing local autonomy. A strong geographical link is maintained because of policy divergence between the regions. Decentralisation has led to the decrease in an ‘elective dictatorship as it allows local people to have a check on the government’s power. The Scotland act of 2016 gave further ‘devo max’ to Scotland, giving them full power over things like a disability allowance to better suit Scottish residents instead of the whole UK. Devolved institutions can ensure the prime minister’s power is put in check, and that legislations can be brought in to better the people no matter the PMs views. The population in Scotland is generally more left-wing than the rest of the UK, and therefore devolved bodies can respond to issues holistically.This has led to the election of a left-wing SNP government that has introduced policies including free prescription charges, free tuition fees and a higher top rate of income tax than the rest of the UK.

Critics of this, including the Lib dems and nationalist parties, would argue that Devolution is limited, Scotland cannot make significant decisions about currency, foreign affairs etc. as reserved powers are centralised at Westminster. Furthermore, local decision making is not equally spread throughout the country. Currently, Scotland, Wales and NI have separate forms of representation in their respective parliaments, but England lacks this clear separation. Devolution has moved at different speeds for each region/each region has different powers; this makes the whole practice unbalanced and undemocratic. The west Lothian question was brought up- how was it fair that Scottish MPs could vote on solely English legislations but not the other way round?  This led to ideas that England’s residents are being treated with less interest, and their democratic rights aren’t taken as seriously than those in the established devolved institutions. Furthermore, Northern Ireland has been greatly affected by the asymmetry of devolution and has led to unstable governing. Government in Stormont is very fragile with frequent suspensions in which parties refuse to work together. This shows that whilst devolution does deliver effective local representation, this creates inequality amongst UK citizens, as divergences in policy mean that different members of the population have different access to healthcare, education, and are subject to unequal laws, as well as causing unnecessary conflict within government that effects citizens negatively.

Therefore, even though devolution has increased local democracy, we can see that it has not been successful in enhancing democracy because of the unequal distribution of devolved privileges across the UK.

The use of AMS to elect the devolved parliament keeps constituency link but allows greater proportionality, in this case we can link synoptically to the UK politics topic of electoral systems. It avoids too much executive dominance as it eradicates the winner’s bonus of the 2 larger parties. Smaller parties have a chance of being elected, which is highly democratic as it ensures so many previously disenfranchised groups to be represented. Furthermore, these systems provide greater participation for elections- combatting the participation crisis. For example, independence referendum in Scotland stemming from the SNP’s success in Scottish election had an 85% turnout, demonstrating the devolved electoral systems are not only fairer but effective in improving turnout on important issues to the people in these devolved bodies. This provides a fair outcome, the voters in these devolved areas see their votes being counted and have their opinions looked after.In Scotland and Wales, more proportional electoral systems haven’t led to unstable coalition governments. There have mostly been coalition/minority governments, but these have been very stable with a number of popular leaders like Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford.

However, although AMS is used for Scottish parliament, STV is used for the local elections. This adds unnecessary confusion and increases the chance of votes being spoilt and thus, wasted. Arguably, the link between constituents and MPs may have been weakened due to the nature of the large constituencies and several representatives for one area. Furthermore, these elections have only led to minority governments or coalitions, which produce weak mandates and low legitimacy- proving that devolution is purely undemocratic if their parliament cannot carry out their job effectively. For example, the Scottish parliament election only received a 56% turnout in 2016, this shows that the electorate is not necessarily engaged with the devolved bodies. General elections to Westminster are seen as more important and are met with better turnout. Parliamentary sovereignty has been the bedrock of British democracy for centuries, yet devolution undermines it by transferring power away from parliament. it can therefore be argued that this damages British democracy.  Devolution has arguably undermined liberal and representative democracy. Too many elections can cause a voter’s fatigue, that’ll inevitably harm the participation crisis.

Overall therefore, we can infer that devolution has not been a success and has ultimately resulted in a lower voter turnout. Whilst devolved bodies are elected using more proportional electoral systems, a lack of turnout undermines the legitimacy of these assemblies.

Devolution has enhanced democracy by furthering the access to services- giving the citizens an extension of their rights and has kept stability within the nation. For example, prescription charges in Scotland were abolished and vital drug treatments for healthcare elements are more readily available due to parliamentary legislations. Furthermore, one of the key aims of devolution was to keep the UK together. It was believed that granting significant autonomy to Scotland within the UK in particular would prevent them from voting for independence. Citizens are kept content as residents in devolved institutions have multiple representatives than can address their problems-meaning you will find at least 1 person whose ideologies you agree with, and you get a greater pick on who you go to with your concerns, while also having MPs at Westminster to deal with broader issues. EVEL hashelped address the unfairness where Scottish MPs were able to vote on English only legislation, and were barred from doing so – e.g., they were barred from voting on the housing bill in 2016. This demonstrates some equalising of fairness and ensures the English population feel secure in devolution.

However, this argument is weak as this asymmetrical nature of devolution, with different powers and policies for parts of the UK, has undermined equal citizenship- causing the unity of the nation to be fragile. The unbalanced format means that the English taxpayers are paying for the extension of services even though they’re not available, resulting in resentment and conflict throughout Britain. The Barnet formula favours those Scotland and Wales- the Welsh assembly gained more power due to the 2011 referendum. This means the representative bodies established to enhance democracy are being undermined by referendums produced by the devolution process. Moreover, EVEL is difficult to enforce correctly as many ‘English only’ matters have a direct knock of effect to those in Scotland (Sunday trading laws). This led to EVEL being repealed in 2021, proving its inefficiency. It can be argued that devolution has fuelled increased nationalism and calls for independence by showing the ability of devolved institutions to govern for themselves, as well as aiding a platform for nationalist parties and politicians. In Wales, Mark Drakeford accused Johnson of neglecting the Welsh population in the way he formulated and announced the COVID policies in 2020, this has birthed appeals for Welsh independence. This shows that devolution has simply strained and fragmented the relationships of UK citizens and politicians alike.

By the way of evaluation, devolution has certainly not been a success in terms of unity of the UK. Since it was introduced, there has been a marked increase in support for independence in both Scotland and Wales, as well as major tensions between government and leaders of the devolved bodies.

In conclusion, devolution has been a success according to some of its aims, like enabling further representation to countries within the UK outside of England, however it has ultimately failed. The majority of England lacks local governance at all, failing a section of the UK population. It can be argued that there has been little ‘devolution dividend’ in terms of economic and policy improvements, with devolved bodies even falling behind the rest of the UK; the SNP in particular has been criticised for focusing too much on independence and neglecting day to day policymaking. Ultimately, this proves devolution hinders the UK as a whole and thus, it has not been a success in the UK.

Nora