Constitutional reforms since 2015

• Argument 1: Scotland Act 2016 has gone far enough

  • The Scotland Act 2016 represents a step for devolution -> it granted the Scottish Parliament control over major areas such as fiscal policies. For example, Scotland can now set its own income tax rates and keep a portion of VAT receipts, giving it substantial financial autonomy -> This level of devolution means the Scottish Government now raises more than half of the money it spends, which is a considerable shift from previous arrangements -> the Act recognized the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Government, stating they cannot be abolished without a Scottish referendum -> This constitutional safeguard addresses concerns about the security of devolved institutions and fulfills the Smith Commission recommendations made after the 2014 independence referendum.
• Counter argument on the scotland act 2016

  • Critics argue the UK remains a highly centralized state; the Act did not create a clear federal structure or constitutional protection for devolved powers, so Westminster can still override Scottish decisions. -> Independence Demands Persist: The reform has not quelled calls for a second independence referendum (Ipsos polls show 53%) or addressed the democratic deficit perceived by many Scot -> Limited Sovereignty: Scotland still lacks full control over key areas like immigration, most welfare, and foreign policy.
• Argument 2 Wales act

  → The Wales Act 2017 strengthened Welsh devolution by guaranteeing the Senedd’s permanence, requiring a referendum for abolition.→ It moved Wales to a reserved powers model, clearly defining what the Senedd can legislate on.

  → The Wales Act 2017 gave the Senedd power to set its own taxes, such as Land Transaction Tax (LTT), which replaced Stamp Duty in Wales.→ For example, as of April 2025, the main residential LTT rate is 0% for properties up to £225,000, and 6% for the portion from £225,001 to £400,00→ The Act granted significant new powers, including tax-setting, energy, and local governance.→ These changes increased Welsh accountability, self-determination, and brought Wales in line with Scotland’s devolution settlement.
• Counter argument 2 wales act cannot legislate on crucial issues

  → The Wales Act 2017 did not go far enough because key powers remain reserved: areas like policing, justice, and significant aspects of criminal law are still controlled by Westminster, so the Senedd cannot legislate on these crucial issues.→ Legal entrenchment is weak: UK Parliament retains sovereignty and can still legislate over devolved matters or even amend the settlement without Welsh consent, as there is no constitutional entrenchment. → Funding remains problematic: The Barnett formula, which determines Welsh funding, is widely criticized for not being based on need. For example, in 2023, Wales received about £21 billion via the block grant, but critics argue this does not reflect the relative needs of Wales compared to other parts of the UK, limiting the Senedd’s ability to address local priorities.
• Argument 3: EVEL finally resolved

  • EVEL, introduced in 2015 -> "West Lothian question" by ensuring that only English MPs could vote on legislation affecting only England. This procedural reform was first used in 2016 for parts of the Housing and Planning Bill, giving English representatives a distinct voice in the legislative process. -> By providing English MPs with a veto over England-only laws, EVEL balanced the devolution settlements made for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It demonstrated a willingness to address English concerns within the UK’s constitutional framework and provided a practical solution to a complex issue.
• Counter argument 3: It hasnt gone far enough - with the new labour government implementing new measures to push devolution further through "Labours devolution revolution" - a commitment to devolution to all england - more democratic - fair and equal - sincce elections, 2 new maoral and 6 non mayor devolution agreements signed and more powers to existing mayors -> this shows how labour party are appealing to other regions and by allowing devolution to be pushed it means that respectively it was hasnt gone far enough