Fractured Union? An analysis of the UK state and the consequences of devolution

Reported by Samuel Houlberg (Policy Fellowships Coordinator, CSaP)

CSaP’s Continuing Policy Fellows met with Professor Michael Kenny, Inaugural Director of the Bennett Institute for Public Policy at Pembroke College. Professor Kenny led a roundtable discussion based on his book Fractured Union: Politics, Sovereignty and the Fight to Save the UK, beginning with a talk titled ‘Fractured Union? An analysis of the UK State and the consequences of devolution’.

Devolution: an unspoken crisis

Professor Kenny began by talking about the status of the UK Union. The relationship of the devolved administrations to the central government is unique, he said: the Union is an ‘object of piety’, rarely criticised, yet the UK is also unusual in recognising the right of national minorities to leave the state, at least under certain conditions. And, at the same time, there is a reluctance among policy makers to talk about the issues facing the Union, with devolution not usually seen as a question of the first order.

This produces the greatest problem that Professor Kenny foresees for devolution. The British political class is not directly focused on the existential future of their state. As a result devolution policy is often inconsistent or underdeveloped. Two trends in thinking about constitutional futures have emerged in recent years: a centralising unionism, perhaps best highlighted by some of the discourse around Brexit; and a federal dream, or desire to let devolution ‘properly’ play out, with the aspiration to align the UK more with comparable European countries. Neither, however, is a route to stability in the short to medium term. The 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, Brexit, and then the COVID-19 pandemic, have exacerbated tensions, highlighting conflicting visions for the future of the Union, while demonstrating the need for more cross-border administrative cooperation. For Professor Kenny, therefore, the question is how we can make the existing model work better, while learning the lessons of these recent crises.

Professor Kenny then laid out three expected developments for devolution going forward. Firstly, he anticipates a greater focus on reserved powers. Already, we have seen tension over the role that devolved administrations should play in trade deals, while a focus on immigration and an increasingly tense geopolitical situation draw attention to the limitations of devolved powers. Secondly, this will produce a need for creative ambiguity. In many ways, this has been challenged by debates over Brexit, but Professor Kenny suggested that adaptive approaches will be necessary for responding to questions regarding where sovereignty lies. The recent use of the courts to settle such issues was not anticipated at the beginning of devolution and, in Professor Kenny’s view, is unsustainable. Finally, there is a need for politicians to talk more about the Union as it is, perhaps especially to the English. At present, most politicians are unsure about how to do this, and few institutions embody a pan-UK identity, with a lack of clarity over where the Union lives in the structures of British government. There should be greater engagement with both the benefits and weaknesses of the current devolution settlement.

The risks and possibilities of devolution

The discussion portion of the evening began with questions regarding the geopolitics of devolution. In the present era of heightened geopolitical competition, the complexity of British constitutional arrangements could be problematic, limiting the ability to operate at scale in areas like industrial policy and education, which is needed to respond effectively to new strategic challenges. Furthermore, devolution politics affects the way that the UK is perceived from abroad, although the opportunities for diversity and flexibility at certain levels do sometimes attract interest and even admiration. Comparisons were also drawn with Germany. There, complex constitutional arrangements are made to work through careful deliberation and thought. This is perhaps best expressed in the term sitzfleisch – the ability to sit and work on a problem for a long time. Perhaps it is the British political culture then, which makes complexity more dangerous?

The fellows then moved on to think about how devolution has worked in the public consciousness. London, for example, regularly draws criticism from other parts of the UK as a ‘dark star’ drawing investment and cultural focus to the Southeast. While the extent to which resentment of London is sincere, rather than whipped up by politicians, is debatable, there was more consensus around the idea that regional cultural identities are important and that this generates a desire for at least some degree of devolution. Recent mayoral elections, in which personality could be as important as national politics, demonstrate the ways in which voters relate differently to regional administrations.

A question was in turn raised about whether the progress of devolution suggests a gradual wearing away of the importance of the nation state, as the internet changes community structures and voters engage with global issues like climate change. Professor Kenny, however, was sceptical of this idea. In the 1990s moment at which devolution was introduced, the rise of globalisation left many politicians believing that the nation state might whither away. That no longer seems so likely – much of the excitement, or hubris, about globalisation has faded away in the decades since.

Questions regarding some of the limitations of the present devolution settlement – barriers for evidence sharing, a lack of standardised data, the absence of big politicians (with the notable exceptions of Michael Gove and Gordon Brown) strongly making the case for the Union – led Professor Kenny to draw comparisons with experiences in other countries. In particular, he focused on Québec. The close 1995 referendum on independence resulted in a concerted response from the political establishment, and a reset in relations with Québec with respect to the economy, culture, and policy autonomy. In contrast, the UK did not grapple so definitively with questions of devolution after the 2014 referendum. Instead, a close 55-45 vote which, at the beginning of the campaign, would have been seen as a disaster, was claimed as a resounding success and few meaningful policy changes were introduced. According to Professor Kenny, politicians are now only likely to definitively begin talking differently about devolution if English sentiment changes. His diagnosis of the role civil servants should therefore play: politicians want advice, and should be supported in talking about the benefits of devolution, without disregarding the correspondent tradeoffs.

The conversation moved on to a discussion of democracy. While warned against the experience of autocracy, the Continuing Policy Fellows talked about some of the potential reasons why local elections have such low turnout rates. It was felt that, in at least some cases, citizens felt they vote too much. With a distinction between politics and democracy, voters seem to reject the idea that certain areas are appropriate topics for politics. And there is a widespread resentment of politicians as being out for themselves, and no longer behaving by the rules of good behaviour which had previously been necessary for government. The discussion moved to Brexit, and particularly what civil servants' role should have been in the referendum. Some have criticised the civil service for not doing enough to proactively explain the benefits of the EU to the public. However, the principle of civil service neutrality is highly valued, and they would have been criticised if seen as advocating publicly for Brexit, particularly within a highly charged national debate. Perhaps there needs to be greater clarity around the limits of civil servants’ role, with a recognition that they do have some responsibilities to explain things to the public.

Professor Kenny wrapped up the discussion by talking about the way that the language of Union and devolution are usually seen as political. Where, therefore, is the distinction between the administrative and the political in this area? And as political disenchantment bites, and distrust rises in relation to questions like climate change, who should be expected to bear those costs?

Image by Darya Tryfanava on Unsplash.