Talk:Devolution in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Current first sentence is nonsense

The opening sentence at present reads:

  • "In the United Kingdom, devolved government was created following simple majority referendums in Wales and Scotland in September 1997."

This is total nonsense I'm afraid. I cannot answer for Wales or Northern Ireland, but Scotland has always had devolved government since it co-founded the Union in 1707. The separate legal and education systems were under the control of devolved administrations. And as time went on there were separate, devolved government departments for just about everything else too, eg Agriculture, Transport, Industry, and of course Health (the NHS has always been devolved, since day 1).

What happened in 1999 is that Scotland re-gained a democratically devolved legislature to control the previously largely unchecked devolved government departments.--Mais oui! (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Section on Crown Dependencies

The article mentions that the UK parliament has some "residual" powers - is this the best word as this suggests that they used to have more powers and that the powers of the governments of the dependencies derive from the UK parliament? Also, it mentions the possibility of independence - legally, are they not already independent realms which happen to share the same monarch as the UK (like Canada or Papua New Guinea)? Theoretically, could the queen and the government of a Crown Dependency agree that the UK parliament no longer had any authority over it? Count Truthstein (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the wording about "residual powers" to "...the British Government is responsible for the overall good governance of the islands and represents the islands in international law."
WRT, "independence", the Crown Dependencies are not part of the UK but not "independent" either. See example. A practical example of this is that the UK Dept. of Justice vets all legislation passed by the parliaments of each of the Crown Dependencies. --RA (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

England

I removed this quotation because I think it gives undue weight to a minority opinion:

He also argues that "despite devolution and occasional bursts of English nationalism – more an expression of exasperation with the Scots or Northern Irish – the English remain on the whole satisfied with current constitutional arrangements"

I think its widely accepted that people in England are not happy with the current constitutional arrangements, even if they stop short of calling for an English parliament. Jay-W (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You say: "I think its widely accepted that people in England are not happy with the current constitutional arrangements". I disagree, and agree with Kumar. But, our opinions don't count - it would be useful to have some sources for either view. I don't think it's undue weight to include his quote, and indeed in my view it gives a misleading summary of his views to leave those words out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly my experience that English people are not happy with the current arrangements and that Kumar is wrong. Here are a few sources I found on a quick Google:
According to The British Social Attitudes Survey (2012): "Devolution does not appear to have weakened commitment in England to being governed from the House of Commons. However, people in England do want changes – most agree that Scottish MPs should not be able to vote on England only matters, and strength of feeling on this issue has increased." [[1]]
The more English a person feels the more likely they are to be dissatisfied with the way that the UK is being governed post-devolution” - Prof Richard Wyn Jones, Cardiff university [[2]]
According to a 2012 IPPR report: "79% of English voters want Scottish MPs barred from votes on English only laws. Ahead of the launch of the UK Government’s West Lothian Question Commission this week, new polling from the think tank IPPR and Cardiff and Edinburgh Universities, shows overwhelming public support within England for addressing this constitutional anomaly."
A 2007 poll showed 61% of voters in England supported an English parliament. [[3]]
According to UKIP: "Twenty five opinion polls have now shown that the English are in favour of having their own parliament and the latest one revealed that a massive 79% support the idea." [[4]]
Jay-W (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'd be content if you added reliably sourced info like that to the article, but balanced it with the whole of the Kumar quote. I think that it is misleading to quote a commentator but only give one half of the substance of what he is saying. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
That's a fair point. But in that case should Kumar be quoted at all if the polling info says he is wrong? Jay-W (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason why he shouldn't be quoted. Better to include, for comprehensiveness, rather than to exclude. I haven't checked your sources and don't intend to - but are you sure that they are a full list of relevant surveys, or have you picked ones that supported your argument? I think that what Kumar is essentially saying is that it's not seen as a big issue for most people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
That isn't what he says though, he says that people are satisfied with the current arrangements. The sources I gave weren't filtered at all, they were just the first ones I found, and as far as I can see the demand for some constitutional change, especially "English votes for English laws", is overwhelming. I've also just seen that exactly the same Kumar quotes appear in the same form in the article Devolved English Parliament. In which case I think it would be better to remove them from this article, but keep them in that one where this can be gone into in more detail. Jay-W (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Areas of competence

In which areas do the devolved governments have primary responsibility, and which are reserved for the UK? -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Devolution in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Devolution in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

London Assembly in the table

Shouldn't the London Assembly have a column in the "Competences..." table? Adam Dent (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"ultimately reside in central government"

The powers ultimately reside with the central legislature/UK Parliament, not the Government. FerranValls (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes @FerranValls: you are correct. I have amended a sentence which supposes that. Hopefully this is fixed now DukeLondon (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Local government

The definition of "devolution" that this article uses is strange. It refers to country-level devolved bodies and the Greater London Authority, but fails to mention other layers of local governance that exist across the UK. This is all devolution of power and so surely warrants a mention if the GLA warrants a mention. I wanted to mention this here in case I was missing something, but I'd be happy to help out and amend this article to make it more suitable if I'm not. Local government is a little bit confusing in the UK, but I like to think that I have a good enough grasp of it to help improve this article. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Mention of Internal Market Act 2020 in Lead Section

Should the Internal Market Act be mentioned in the lead and if so how?

Option 1, Keep as currently written: Legislation passed following the EU membership referendum, including the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, has undermined and restricted the authority of the devolved legislatures in both Scotland and Wales.

Option 2, Change wording: Various academics have suggested that legislation passed following the EU membership referendum, including the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, has undermined and restricted the authority of the devolved legislatures in both Scotland and Wales.

Option 3, Remove sentence

--Llewee (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The Internal Market Act 2020 caused some controversy a couple of years ago because it was felt to restrict the rights of the devolved administration in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland a line about the law is currently included in the lead. However, as it is currently written it seems to express a political opinion as fact and could arguable be putting excessive emphasis on one law rather than a broader trend over the last twenty years of greater and greater devolution of powers. There has been significant dispute over the matter in the article's history. — Preceding comment added by Llewee (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No "political opinion" is given in the sentence. The peer-reviewed analysis of specialists in the field can and should be cited for factual statements about the function of legislation, as per WP:SOURCES and WP:SOURCETYPES. It is appropriate for Wikipedia to represent mainstream scholarship in the encyclopaedia's voice. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

!Votes

  • Option 1. Either the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 restricts the powers of the devolved administrations in certain areas or it doesn't, it's not simply the opinion of academics but straightforward fact. FDW777 (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1. The information in the sentence presents a well-documented fact, and hence its statement in Wikivoice is appropriate. Neutrality requires that we avoid stating facts as opinions (WP:WIKIVOICE). The introduction of the weasel words "Various academics have suggested" is directly contrary to the style guidelines.
The peer-reviewed articles in law and public policy journals,[1][2][3][4] and other scholarship cited elsewhere,[5][6][7][8][9] present their analysis as fact. These publications indicate a clear and unambiguous consensus that supports the current wording. The words are those used by scholarly sources, e.g.:

The result is that, while the devolved governments retain regulatory competences, these are undermined by the fact that goods and services originating in, or imported into, England can be marketed anywhere.[1]

In so doing, England could competitively undercut producers and in effect undermine permitted divergence.[7]

The market access principles undermine devolved competences in two ways...[they] significantly undermine the purpose of devolution, which was to enable the devolved nations and regions to legislate according to their own local needs and political preferences.[5]

None of those sources suggest their analysis is an opinion, or a value judgement, or a claim that this function is good or bad. They state what legal scholars know from their expertise in how trade law operates. There is not a shred of evidence that this is in competition with alternative theories or controversial within the relevant field. The proposer has not pointed to any kind of reliable, expert source that states otherwise. With no evidence to the contrary, inaccurately framing this as an opinion instead of what it is – the mainstream consensus on the fact of the legislation's function – would be inappropriate, and contrary to NPOV policy. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Agree with the arguments above. Facts are facts, no need to change it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Llewee, would you please consider withdrawing this RfC. Though there has been back-and-forth editing in the article, it does not appear that there has been any talk page discussion related to this dispute. Per WP:RFCBEFORE, we should be putting in the work on developing local consensus before seeking out wider dispute resolution options. Firefangledfeathers 20:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'll remove the Rfc it was a bit premature.--Llewee (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it should be put in the infobox or not. But, after having read the article, the enactment of the Act has certainly upset people. The suggestion being that the British government has centralised power, at the expense of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Parliament & Northern Ireland Assembly. I'd say the English Parliament too, but there isn't any. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • While I don't intend to disagree that the sentence states a fact, it seems rather out of place in the lead section as it is. That sentence is far too specific compared to other parts of the lead; there's no mention of time or legislation elsewhere, for example. Creating a new "overview" section and putting it there would be the optimum solution, I think.--YTRK (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing, I'm not saying that isn't the widely held academic view on the subject but the wording just comes across a slighty opinionated. More broadly it seems a quiet one sided to mention one law which rolled back devolution to some extent in the lead but not the broad trend in the development of devolution since 1999 which has been Scotland, Wales and to a much lesser extent parts of England becoming steadily more self governing.--Llewee (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The wording follows the sources as closely as possible, to the extent of using the same verbs that the sources use. The sources indicate that recent developments have reversed the practical effects of earlier legislation. I am not aware of scholarly sources which support the notion of a broad trend towards self-governance. That said, I see no reason not to include a sentence on the laws that the post-Brexit legislation looks to reverse i.e. Wales Act 2014, Scotland Act 2012, the original late 90s devolving legislation. It would need to be fully supported by scholarship and in the body. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing Obviously it's not independence but the broad trend at least throughout the 2000s and 2010s was a steady expansion of devolution...

  • In wales, according to Senedd's official history,[10] the Welsh assembly initially received most of the powers of the welsh office. The powers to make primary legislation were devolved partially in 2007 and then fully after a 2011 referendum. More powers were devolved in 2014 and 2017 included a move to a Scottish style reserved powers system and some control over taxes. It also became known as a parliament in 2020.
  • In Scotland, the Scottish Parliament started off in a much stronger constitutional position but some additional powers were devolved in the 2000s"[11][12] and the Scotland Act 2016 extended it's powers significantly.
  • Though its a slightly different situation devolution was also expanded in Northern Ireland in 2010.[13]
  • In England, various acts have also expanded devolution thought at at much a much slower pace.[14][15][16]

Whatever constraints the act may place on devolution particularly in relation to economic activity it clearly doesn't reverse all this. If theirs's going to be a sentence in the lead about changes which limit devolution then it's only fair that the other part of the picture also gets briefly mentioned. --Llewee (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Innumerable statutes have centralised or devolved specific powers in the constitutions of the various parts of the British isles since at least the fifth century. A couple of individual examples of claimed or actual devolution of particular competences is not evidence of a trend. None of the sources you cite use that word, and adducing those to support such a claim would constitute original research.
Contrary to your claim, scholarship examining the history of changes to competence in the period since the major devolutionary statutes of the late 1990s indicates that they have fluctuated, with instances of both centralisation and de-centralisation of powers over the period.[17]
As I state above, I see no reason not to include a sentence or two about the devolutionary changes in the 1997-1999 period, and neither I nor other contributors have raised an objection to it. We might also note the changes to taxation powers in the mid 2010s. Mentioning minor issues like coastal infrastructure, unmentioned in the body, is not appropriate to the lead. The notion of a "trend" is not supported. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Keating, Michael (2 February 2021). "Taking back control? Brexit and the territorial constitution of the United Kingdom". Journal of European Public Policy. 28. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis: 6–7. doi:10.1080/13501763.2021.1876156. hdl:1814/70296. The UK Internal Market Act gives ministers sweeping powers to enforce mutual recognition and non-discrimination across the four jurisdictions. Existing differences and some social and health matters are exempted but these are much less extensive than the exemptions permitted under the EU Internal Market provisions. Only after an amendment in the House of Lords, the Bill was amended to provide a weak and non-binding consent mechanism for amendments (equivalent to the Sewel Convention) to the list of exemptions. The result is that, while the devolved governments retain regulatory competences, these are undermined by the fact that goods and services originating in, or imported into, England can be marketed anywhere.
  2. ^ Kenny, Michael; McEwen, Nicola (1 March 2021). "Intergovernmental Relations and the Crisis of the Union". Political Insight. 12 (1). SAGE Publishing: 12–15. doi:10.1177/20419058211000996. S2CID 232050477. That phase of joint working was significantly damaged by the UK Internal Market Act, pushed through by the Johnson government in December 2020...the Act diminishes the authority of the devolved institutions, and was vehemently opposed by them.
  3. ^ Wolffe, W James (7 April 2021). "Devolution and the Statute Book". Statute Law Review. 42 (2). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 121–136. doi:10.1093/slr/hmab003. Retrieved 18 April 2021. the Internal Market Bill—a Bill that contains provisions which, if enacted, would significantly constrain, both legally and as a matter of practicality, the exercise by the devolved legislatures of their legislative competence; provisions that would be significantly more restrictive of the powers of the Scottish Parliament than either EU law or Articles 4 and 6 of the Acts of the Union...The UK Parliament passed the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the Internal Market Act 2020 notwithstanding that, in each case, all three of the devolved legislatures had withheld consent.
  4. ^ Wincott, Daniel; Murray, C. R. G.; Davies, Gregory (17 May 2021). "The Anglo-British imaginary and the rebuilding of the UK's territorial constitution after Brexit: unitary state or union state?". Territory, Politics, Governance. Abingdon/Brighton: Taylor & Francis; Regional Studies Association: 1–18. doi:10.1080/21622671.2021.1921613. Taken as a whole, the Internal Market Act imposes greater restrictions upon the competences of the devolved institutions than the provisions of the EU Single Market which it replaced, in spite of pledges to use common frameworks to address these issues. Lord Hope, responsible for many of the leading judgments relating to the first two decades of devolution, regarded the legislation's terms as deliberately confrontational: 'this Parliament can do what it likes, but a different approach is essential if the union is to hold together'.
  5. ^ a b Dougan, Michael; Hayward, Katy; Hunt, Jo; McEwen, Nicola; McHarg, Aileen; Wincott, Daniel (2020). UK and the Internal Market, Devolution and the Union. Centre on Constitutional Change (Report). University of Edinburgh; University of Aberdeen. pp. 2–3. Retrieved 16 October 2020.
  6. ^ Dougan, Michael (23 September 2020). Professor Michael Dougan: Evidence on the UK internal market bill. Finance and Constitution Committee (Report). Edinburgh: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. 21st Meeting 2020, Session 5. Retrieved 15 October 2020. By imposing widespread obligations of non-discrimination and, more important, mutual recognition, the bill seeks to restrict the way that devolved competences operate in practice.
  7. ^ a b Lydgate, Emily (23 September 2020). Dr Emily Lydgate, University of Sussex: Evidence on the UK internal market bill. Finance and Constitution Committee (Report). Edinburgh: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. 21st Meeting 2020, Session 5. Retrieved 15 October 2020. In that context, even though the new powers might not be used, I expect that the UK Government wants the legislation to be in place before those statutory instruments come into force, in case the common frameworks fall apart. What we are seeing is the UK Government responding to a threat by trying to centralise power or create a system that will function in case there is a problem...For example, England might authorise a new active substance for pesticides, or a new GMO, and would then be able to freely export those products to devolved nations, even if they had controls domestically. In so doing, England could competitively undercut producers and in effect undermine permitted divergence.
  8. ^ Hayward, Katy (19 October 2020). "How does the UK Internal Market Bill relate to Northern Ireland?". London School of Economics. Retrieved 1 February 2021. ...although the Bill only curtails devolved competence in specific ways (e.g. by making state aid a reserved rather than a devolved matter), it will undermine the effectiveness of devolved legislation in relation to goods and services. The UK Internal Market Bill would also be a protected enactment, meaning that the devolved legislatures cannot legislate in a way that contravenes the Bill. Devolved legislatures may be able to make laws to, for example, raise standards, but because they cannot stop goods made to a lower standard from being sold in their market from elsewhere in the UK, the effect of those laws will be limited
  9. ^ Dougan, Michael (15 September 2020). Briefing Paper. United Kingdom Internal Market Bill: Implications for Devolution (PDF) (Report). Liverpool: University of Liverpool. pp. 4–5. Retrieved 15 October 2020.
  10. ^ https://senedd.wales/how-we-work/history-of-devolution/
  11. ^ Executive in £325m rail takeover BBC News, 18 January 2005
  12. ^ Scotland handed sea planning role BBC News, 27 November 2008
  13. ^ https://education.niassembly.gov.uk/post_16/evolution_of_devolution
  14. ^ "A plain English guide to the Localism Act" (PDF). Department for Communities and Local Government. November 2011. Retrieved 15 December 2015.
  15. ^ "Combined Authorities" (PDF). House of Commons Library. 9 October 2015. Retrieved 15 December 2015.
  16. ^ "Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016". The Stationery Office. Retrieved 12 March 2016.
  17. ^ MacKinnon, Danny (March 2015). "Devolution, state restructuring and policy divergence in the UK". The Geographical Journal. 181 (1). Wiley-Blackwell; Royal Geographical Society: 47–56. doi:10.1111/geoj.12057.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Devolution_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=1179449582"