Notes · PoliticsUK · A-Levels

Devolution

Devolution is the statutory transfer of powers from the sovereign Westminster Parliament to elected bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, creating a quasi-federal but still unitary United Kingdom. This topic examines the meaning of devolution and how it differs from federalism, the settlements in each nation, the unresolved 'English question', and the central debate over whether devolution strengthens or threatens the Union.

5 sections~21 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 3 · Advanced 1

T·0555 / 18

Exam profile

AO1 · Demonstrate knowledge of the devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and EnglandAO2 · Analyse how devolution has redistributed power and produced policy divergenceAO3 · Evaluate the impact of devolution and whether it strengthens or threatens the Union, reaching a substantiated judgement

Operators:explain and analyseevaluateto what extentanalyse and evaluate this statementexamine

basic level

AS-Level expects the meaning of devolution and the main powers of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish bodies.

higher level

The full A-Level requires sustained evaluation of the impact of devolution on the Union and of the English question, reaching a judgement.

Depth

Text

Contents · 5 sections

Devolution

What is devolution? Devolution versus federalism#

FoundationAQA 7152/1 Section A: The relationships between the branches (devolution)DfE GCE Politics subject content

Devolution versus federalism

Fig. 1Both disperse power to sub-national bodies; devolution is statutory and reclaimable, federalism entrenched and guaranteed.

Devolution is the transfer, by Act of Parliament, of powers from the central UK Parliament to subordinate elected bodies in the nations of the UK, while sovereignty formally remains with Westminster. The crucial constitutional point is that devolution is not the same as federalism, and the distinction is a frequent exam discriminator. In a federal system (such as the USA), power is divided between national and state governments by an entrenched, codified constitution, and neither level can abolish the other - the states have a constitutionally guaranteed existence. Under devolution, by contrast, the powers of the devolved bodies are granted by ordinary statute, and because Parliament is sovereign, it retains the legal right to alter, reclaim or even abolish those powers.

This means the UK is best described as a unitary state that has become 'quasi-federal' rather than a genuine federation. Legally, sovereignty is undivided and rests at the centre; politically, so much power has been transferred, and the devolved bodies have acquired such democratic legitimacy, that it is now extremely difficult for Westminster to reclaim devolved powers against the wishes of the nations concerned. The Sewel Convention formalises this restraint, holding that Westminster will not normally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the devolved legislature - though, being a convention, it does not bind Parliament legally, only politically.

Devolution is also asymmetrical - it differs in form and extent between the nations - which distinguishes the UK from most federal systems where the units are treated uniformly. Scotland was granted the most extensive powers, including a primary law-making parliament and significant tax powers; Wales began with weaker, executive powers and has gradually acquired primary legislative and some tax powers; Northern Ireland's settlement is embedded in a power-sharing agreement designed to reconcile divided communities; and England has no devolved parliament of its own at all. This asymmetry reflects the different histories, national movements and political circumstances of each nation, and is itself a source of tension and of the 'English question'.

Understanding why devolution happened frames the whole topic. It was introduced by the post-1997 Labour government partly to respond to demands for self-government - strongest in Scotland, where a nationalist movement and a sense of democratic grievance had grown - partly to bring peace to Northern Ireland, and partly to decentralise an over-centralised state. Referendums in 1997 (Scotland and Wales) and 1998 (Northern Ireland) endorsed the settlements, giving them popular legitimacy. The result was a fundamental reshaping of the UK's territorial constitution, transferring power away from Westminster while leaving its legal sovereignty formally intact - the tension that runs through every debate about devolution.

Worked example

Why the UK is 'quasi-federal' but not federal

Explain why the UK is described as quasi-federal rather than federal after devolution.

The legal position
Parliament remains sovereign; the devolution Acts are ordinary statutes it could amend or repeal - so sovereignty is undivided and central.
The political reality
So much power has been transferred, and the devolved bodies have such democratic legitimacy, that reclaiming powers is politically near-impossible.
The Sewel Convention
Westminster does not normally legislate on devolved matters without consent - a political, not legal, restraint on its sovereignty.
Conclusion
The UK looks federal in practice (dispersed power, hard to reverse) but remains legally unitary - hence 'quasi-federal'.

Result: The UK is quasi-federal because devolution has dispersed power in a way that is politically very hard to reverse, yet Parliament remains legally sovereign and the devolved powers are statutory and reclaimable - so it is not a true federation.

Typical mistakes

Calling the UK a federal state - it is a unitary (now quasi-federal) state; devolved powers are granted by statute and remain legally reclaimable.
Assuming devolution is uniform - it is asymmetrical, with different settlements in each nation and none in England.

Active revision

Explain and analyse three differences between devolution and federalism. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

Devolution in Scotland#

StandardAQA 7152/1 Section A: The relationships between the branches (devolution)DfE GCE Politics subject content

Reserved versus devolved powers

Fig. 2Westminster reserves defence, foreign affairs and the constitution; devolved matters such as health and education pass to Holyrood.

Scotland has the most extensive devolution settlement, and its development illustrates how devolution has deepened over time. The Scotland Act 1998, endorsed by a 1997 referendum, created the Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Government (originally 'Executive'), and gave the Parliament primary legislative power over a wide range of 'devolved' matters - those not explicitly 'reserved' to Westminster. Devolved matters include health, education, local government, housing, justice and policing, the environment, and agriculture; reserved matters (kept at Westminster) include defence, foreign affairs, immigration, the constitution and most economic and monetary policy. The Parliament is elected by the Additional Member System, a mixed system that produces a more proportional result than Westminster's FPTP.

The settlement has been repeatedly strengthened, showing devolution as a process rather than a single event. The Scotland Act 2012 followed the Calman Commission and transferred further powers, including some over taxation and borrowing. After the 2014 independence referendum - in which Scotland voted to remain in the UK, but which prompted promises of further powers - the Smith Commission led to the Scotland Act 2016, which devolved significant additional powers over income tax rates and bands, some welfare, and other matters, and declared the Scottish Parliament and Government to be permanent parts of the UK's constitutional arrangements. Scotland now has one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world.

The Scottish settlement is politically distinctive because of the strength of the nationalist movement. The Scottish National Party, which favours independence, has governed Scotland for a sustained period and used devolution both to pursue distinctive policies and to press the case for independence. The 2014 referendum was itself a product of this dynamic - the UK government agreed to a legal referendum, which the pro-Union side won, but the question of independence has remained live, especially after the Brexit vote, which Scotland opposed. This makes Scotland the sharpest test of whether devolution has strengthened or weakened the Union.

Devolution has produced real policy divergence in Scotland, which is central to evaluating its impact. Using its powers, the Scottish Parliament has pursued policies different from those in England - for example on university tuition, personal care for the elderly, and prescription charges - demonstrating that devolution allows government closer to, and more responsive to, the distinctive preferences of the Scottish people. Supporters see this as devolution working: policy tailored to national circumstances and a strengthened democracy. Critics see growing divergence, disputes over funding (the Barnett formula) and the persistent independence question as evidence that devolution has fed rather than satisfied nationalism, deepening the strains on the Union.

Worked example

Has Scottish devolution strengthened or weakened the Union?

Assess whether devolution to Scotland has strengthened or weakened the Union.

The strengthening case
Devolution answered demands for self-government within the UK; the 2014 referendum was won by the pro-Union side; policy can be tailored to Scottish preferences, reducing grievance.
The weakening case
The SNP has used devolution to advance independence; divergence and funding disputes have grown; the independence question remains live, sharpened by Brexit.
Weigh the two
Devolution both accommodated and empowered nationalism - it kept Scotland in the Union in 2014 but gave nationalists a platform and institutions.
Judgement
Conclude that devolution has strengthened the Union in the short term (a 'No' vote, self-government within the UK) but created institutions and momentum that keep the independence question alive.

Result: Scottish devolution has both stabilised and strained the Union - it accommodated demands for self-government and delivered a pro-Union referendum result, yet also built powerful national institutions and a governing party committed to independence, so its long-term effect on the Union remains genuinely contested.

Typical mistakes

Treating Scottish devolution as a single 1998 event rather than a deepening process (1998, 2012, 2016).
Confusing devolved matters (health, education, justice) with reserved matters (defence, foreign affairs, immigration, the constitution).

Active revision

Explain and analyse three powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification (AQA)

Devolution in Wales and Northern Ireland#

StandardAQA 7152/1 Section A: The relationships between the branches (devolution)DfE GCE Politics subject content

The devolution settlements compared

Fig. 3Devolution is asymmetrical - Scotland the most powerful, Wales deepening from an executive base, Northern Ireland a power-sharing peace settlement.

Welsh devolution began weaker than Scotland's and has gradually deepened, a useful contrast in the asymmetry of the settlement. The Government of Wales Act 1998, narrowly endorsed by referendum, created a National Assembly for Wales with executive powers only - it could make secondary legislation within Westminster frameworks but could not pass primary laws. The Government of Wales Act 2006 and a 2011 referendum gave the Assembly primary law-making powers in devolved areas, and the Wales Acts 2014 and 2017 transferred further powers, including some over taxation, and moved Wales to a 'reserved powers' model like Scotland's. The body was renamed the Senedd (Welsh Parliament) in 2020. Wales thus shows devolution as an evolving process, moving from the weakest settlement towards something closer to Scotland's.

The gradual deepening of Welsh devolution reflects a shift in Welsh attitudes. Support for devolution was initially lukewarm - the 1997 referendum was won by a tiny margin - but experience of self-government appears to have increased support, and successive extensions of power have been endorsed or accepted. Wales has used its powers to pursue distinctive policies, particularly in health and education, contributing to the policy divergence across the UK. The Welsh case suggests that devolution can generate its own momentum, as bodies granted limited powers acquire legitimacy and press for more.

Northern Ireland's devolution is fundamentally different because it is embedded in a peace settlement designed to reconcile a deeply divided society. The Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement of 1998, endorsed by referendums on both sides of the Irish border, created the Northern Ireland Assembly and a power-sharing executive in which the two communities - broadly unionist and nationalist - must govern together. The system uses proportional representation (STV) for elections and the d'Hondt method to allocate ministerial posts across parties, with key decisions requiring cross-community support, so that neither community can dominate. The settlement also has an 'Irish dimension', linking Northern Ireland, the Republic and the UK.

The consociational (power-sharing) design of Northern Ireland's devolution is both its strength and its fragility, and evaluating it requires acknowledging both. Its strength is that it brought a measure of peace and stability to a society scarred by decades of conflict, giving both communities a stake in government and institutionalising cooperation. Its fragility is that power-sharing depends on the willingness of the two communities' parties to work together, and the institutions have been suspended for extended periods when that cooperation broke down, leaving Northern Ireland without a functioning devolved government. Brexit added new strains, since the arrangements for the Irish border and trade became deeply contentious. Northern Ireland thus illustrates both what devolution can achieve - peace through shared government - and how contingent and fragile a settlement built on reconciling division can be.

Worked example

Explaining the power-sharing design of Northern Ireland

Explain how the Northern Ireland Assembly is designed to reconcile a divided society.

Origins
The Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement 1998, endorsed by referendums north and south, created the institutions as part of a peace settlement.
Proportional representation
STV elections ensure both communities are represented in the Assembly in proportion to their support.
Mandatory power-sharing
Ministerial posts are allocated across parties by the d'Hondt method, so unionists and nationalists govern together - no single community can dominate.
Cross-community consent
Key decisions require cross-community support, protecting each community from being overridden by the other.
The fragility
The system depends on cooperation and has been suspended when it broke down - reconciliation built into institutions, but contingent on political will.

Result: Northern Ireland's devolution is a consociational (power-sharing) settlement - PR elections, a d'Hondt executive and cross-community consent force the two communities to govern together - which brought stability but remains fragile and has been suspended when cooperation failed.

Typical mistakes

Treating all three settlements as equivalent - Wales began with executive powers only, and Northern Ireland's is a power-sharing peace settlement, not a standard devolution.
Ignoring the fragility of Northern Irish power-sharing, which has been suspended when cooperation broke down.

Active revision

Explain and analyse three features of the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

England and the English question#

StandardAQA 7152/1 Section A: The relationships between the branches (devolution)DfE GCE Politics subject content

The English question and proposed answers

Fig. 4England has no devolved parliament; the West Lothian question and asymmetry drive proposals none of which has settled the issue.

England is the great anomaly of the UK's devolution settlement: it is the only nation of the UK without its own devolved parliament, and this creates a cluster of problems known as the 'English question'. England accounts for around 85 per cent of the UK's population, yet its laws are made by the same Westminster Parliament that also governs the whole UK - there is no separate English legislature to which English matters are devolved. This asymmetry, in which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own bodies but England does not, is widely seen as unfinished business and a source of constitutional imbalance.

The sharpest expression of the problem is the West Lothian question: the anomaly that MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can vote at Westminster on matters that affect only England (because those matters are devolved in their own nations), while English MPs have no say over the equivalent devolved matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This can mean that legislation applying only to England is passed with the help of the votes of MPs from other nations whose own constituents are unaffected - an apparent unfairness to England. Various answers have been proposed and none has settled the matter.

The main attempted solution, 'English votes for English laws' (EVEL), was introduced in 2015 and operated until 2021. It gave English (or English and Welsh) MPs a veto stage over legislation certified as applying only to their part of the UK, so that such laws needed the consent of MPs from the affected area as well as of the Commons as a whole. EVEL was criticised as creating two classes of MP, as procedurally complex, and as failing to give England a genuine voice, and it was eventually abolished. Other proposed answers include an English parliament (mirroring the others but risking dominating the UK because of England's size), regional devolution within England, and the current partial approach of elected mayors and combined authorities in some city-regions, which devolve some powers below the national level.

The English question matters for evaluating devolution as a whole, and a strong answer connects it to the health of the Union. Its persistence shows that devolution left the UK's territorial constitution incomplete and unbalanced: the piecemeal, asymmetrical way devolution developed created anomalies that no government has resolved. Some argue this feeds English resentment and instability and that only a coherent, symmetrical settlement - or a federal UK - can put the constitution on a stable footing. Others argue that England's size makes an English parliament impractical (it would overshadow the UK government) and that the flexible, evolving approach, including city-region mayors, is a reasonable response to a genuinely difficult problem. The English question is therefore a key piece of evidence for the view that devolution has been a significant but incomplete and destabilising reform.

Worked example

Weighing solutions to the West Lothian question

Assess the main proposed solutions to the West Lothian question.

State the problem
Non-English MPs can vote on English-only matters, while English MPs cannot vote on devolved matters elsewhere - an apparent unfairness to England.
EVEL
Gave English MPs a veto stage (2015-2021) but was criticised as creating two classes of MP and was abolished without settling the issue.
An English parliament
Would give England its own body but, at 85% of the UK, would overshadow the UK government - impractical and destabilising.
Regional / city-region devolution
Elected mayors and combined authorities devolve some powers below the national level, but do not answer the national-level anomaly.
Judgement
No solution is satisfactory: EVEL failed, an English parliament is impractical, and regional devolution is partial - the English question remains genuinely unresolved.

Result: Each proposed answer to the West Lothian question is flawed - EVEL created two classes of MP and was abolished, an English parliament would dominate the UK, and city-region devolution is only partial - so the English question stands as strong evidence that devolution is incomplete and unbalanced.

Typical mistakes

Thinking England has its own devolved parliament - it does not; English laws are made by the UK Parliament.
Confusing the West Lothian question (non-English MPs voting on English-only matters) with devolution generally.

Active revision

Evaluate the view that devolution has created serious problems for the governance of England. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification (AQA)

The impact of devolution and the future of the Union#

AdvancedAQA 7152/1 Section A: The relationships between the branches (devolution)DfE GCE Politics subject content

Devolution and the Union: strengthen or weaken?

Fig. 5Devolution has reshaped the UK into a quasi-federal state; whether it strengthens or weakens the Union remains genuinely contested.

The central evaluative question is whether devolution has strengthened or weakened the United Kingdom, and a sophisticated answer treats it as a genuine open question rather than assuming an answer. The case that devolution has strengthened the Union is that it responded to real demands for self-government and defused pressures that might otherwise have driven the nations towards separation. By giving Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland their own democratic institutions and control over matters they care about, devolution made the Union more responsive and accommodating, allowing distinctive national identities to be expressed within the UK rather than against it. On this view devolution was a flexible, unifying reform - and the 2014 Scottish referendum result, keeping Scotland in the UK, is cited as its vindication.

The case that devolution has weakened the Union, and may prove a step towards its break-up, is equally serious. Critics argue that devolution has entrenched and empowered nationalism rather than satisfying it: nationalist parties have used devolved institutions as platforms and springboards, policy divergence has pulled the nations apart, and the independence question in Scotland remains live and was sharpened by Brexit, which the nations voted on differently. The asymmetry of the settlement, the unresolved English question, and recurring disputes over funding and powers have created instability. On this view devolution set in motion a dynamic of ever-greater divergence that a unitary state struggles to contain, and it is not obvious the Union will hold.

A balanced analysis recognises that devolution has had genuinely transformative effects whichever way one judges its impact on the Union. It has decentralised power and made the UK quasi-federal; it has produced real and lasting policy divergence, so that the nations of the UK are now governed differently in important areas; it has strengthened national democracy by creating governments closer to the people; and it has permanently changed the constitution, with the Scottish and Welsh legislatures now declared permanent. These effects are not in dispute; what is contested is whether they have made the Union stronger by accommodation or weaker by empowering the forces of separation.

The judgement a strong answer reaches is likely to be conditional and honest about uncertainty. Devolution has clearly strengthened the Union in some respects (accommodating self-government, delivering a pro-Union referendum result) and strained it in others (empowering nationalism, creating divergence and anomalies), and its ultimate effect depends on political developments that are not yet settled - above all the future of Scottish independence and the working of the Northern Ireland settlement. The best conclusion is that devolution has fundamentally and irreversibly reshaped the UK into a quasi-federal, multi-national state, and that whether this proves a durable new equilibrium or a staging-post to break-up is a question the evidence leaves genuinely open - a conclusion that is stronger for acknowledging the uncertainty than for asserting a false certainty either way.

Worked example

Model essay plan: has devolution weakened the Union?

Plan a 25-mark answer evaluating whether devolution has weakened the United Kingdom.

Introduction and thesis
Note devolution's transformative effect; signal a conditional judgement - it has both strengthened and strained the Union, with its future uncertain.
The strengthening case
Accommodated demands for self-government; made the UK responsive to national preferences; the 2014 Scottish referendum kept Scotland in the UK.
The weakening case
Empowered nationalist parties and gave them platforms; policy divergence pulls the nations apart; the independence question remains live and was sharpened by Brexit; the English question and funding disputes.
The transformative effects
Whichever way judged, devolution has decentralised power, produced lasting divergence, strengthened national democracy and made the Scottish/Welsh legislatures permanent.
Judgement
Conclude that devolution has reshaped the UK into a quasi-federal, multi-national state, strengthening the Union by accommodation but straining it by empowering separation - so its ultimate effect is genuinely uncertain and depends on unresolved developments.

Result: A top-band plan weighs accommodation and the 2014 result against empowered nationalism and divergence, and reaches a conditional judgement - devolution has irreversibly reshaped the UK into a quasi-federal state whose durability remains genuinely open - a conclusion strengthened by acknowledging the uncertainty.

Typical mistakes

Asserting flatly that devolution has strengthened or weakened the Union, ignoring the strong evidence and arguments on the other side.
Describing the settlements without evaluating their cumulative impact on the Union and its future.

Active revision

'Devolution has weakened the United Kingdom.' Analyse and evaluate this statement. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

References & sources

Sources

Department for Education

GCE AS and A level subject content for politics

AQA

AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification

Devolution

5 sections~21 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 3 · Advanced 1

Devolution

Key points

Why the UK is 'quasi-federal' but not federal

Key points

Has Scottish devolution strengthened or weakened the Union?

Key points

Explaining the power-sharing design of Northern Ireland

Key points

Weighing solutions to the West Lothian question

Key points

Model essay plan: has devolution weakened the Union?

Sources

Devolution

Key points

Why the UK is 'quasi-federal' but not federal

Key points

Has Scottish devolution strengthened or weakened the Union?

Key points

Explaining the power-sharing design of Northern Ireland

Key points

Weighing solutions to the West Lothian question

Key points

Model essay plan: has devolution weakened the Union?

Sources