Does the UK need further devolution

• Argument 1: Federal solution

  Devolution → Federal UK → Solves English resentment

  • No English Parliament → English MPs = dual role (UK + English) → Inefficient, unfair. - devolution would ensure symettrical responsibilities and fairness
  • Barnett Formula →  England gets less £ per person than devolved nations → Feels unfair, fuels resentment.
  • Scotland Act 2010 → Scotland gets more powers (Devo-max) → England left behind → Tensions rise.
  •  Federal solution → English devolution + equal powers → MPs focus on clear roles → Less resentment. 
  • Parliament outside London → Bridges North-South divide → Reduces alienation. Could promote equality + unity, but risk of England dominating system.
• Counter Argumnet 1: Unnecessary

  • Devolution for England = extra, unnecessary layer → Would not reflect how the UK union developed historically → Could create more imbalance, not less

   Westminster = already England’s Parliament → 85% of MPs are English (compared to 117/650 from devolved nations) → England already has strong representation

  •  English Parliament = more asymmetry  → Would give England even more power, unfair to smaller nations
  • West Lothian Question = minor issue → Devolution protects minority nations (Scotland, Wales, NI) from English domination → English Parliament not needed
  • English content with current system → Little public demand for English Parliament → Westminster already seen as representing English interests  Devolution helps protect small nations, and no strong case for more English powers → Risk of worsening asymmetry
• Argument 2: It would bring power close to the people by addressing the rise of regional nationalism - due to the constant conflict of english citizens, made worse by brexit - many areas have gained a strong sense of regional identity - this could be a good incentive to create assemblies that coordinate with these ideas

  • 2015 - Cornwall was the first country in england to be given a devolution deal - they would now have further vontrol over public sector funding - For example London voterd overwhelmingly in favour of 'remain'. compared to the norths vast 'leave' vote; it was suggested that the capital would receive a special deal. - notions of reclaiming sovereignty with the EU from the broader leave campgin could eventaully be charged against regions - it would be pragmatic - introducing further english devolution - pre-empt future instability
• Counter argument 2:

  • Regional devolution has been rejected overwhelmingly, given that most english people dont make a logical distinction between england and the wider UK, they see westminsters as their parliament as a whole
  • Blairs proposals to introduce devolution in the northeast were overwhelmingly rejected with 78% to 22% - In reality voters dont have much of a care of a reform that doesnt directly affect them immediately - focusing on rather short term issues is more important
  • Furthermore the 24% turnout in manchester proves the disinterest of the people
  • While scotland, wales and northern ireland can claim historyic cultural and social sohesion and operate as distinct entities. Whereas the people of the NE regard themselves as english rather than north eastern
• Argument 3: Solving west Lothian question

  • Whilst the introduction of EVEL in 2015 went some way towards establishing a discernible politcal identity for england by allowing english MPs the opportunity to veto laws which only effect england. However, it hasnt gone far enough to achieve parity between each UK country
  • 2015 Scottish MPs were able to block conservative proposals to lift the existing ban on fox hunting - contrast westminster couldnt block scotland abolishing university tuition payments
  • A bill to become statue law, it still requires a majority of affirmative votes from all MPs, including those from non - English constituencies - allow elected members from the devolved assemblies to vote on amtters that dont affect them - EVEL is not equal to devolution and lacks clear competencies and responsbilities - English MPs with no say
• Counter argument 3: the west Lothian question doesn’t appear to be a significant problem.

  • There have been very few instances where the votes of Scottish MPs have made a discernible difference to the outcome of an English vote. 
  • with only 54 seats in Westminster the Scottish MPs did not making the decision on extending Sunday trading laws in 2016. Instead, the 560 conservative and labour MPs won the disagreement vote for England and Wales
  • The establishment of an English parliament based on a relatively minor problem would be an overreaction, particularly at a time with more pressing issues