‘Devolution’ vs. ‘devolution’: One word, two distinct national projects

Lewis Norton PhD Researcher, Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University

With the arrival of Andy Burnham as the new Prime Minister, devolution has found itself hoisted up the agenda in a manner which has been absent for quite some time.

The now ex-Mayor of Greater Manchester is something of a devolution-fanatic, whose rather radical ideas are going to challenge the very centralising features that have long defined the ‘British Political Tradition’.

The jewel in Burnham’s devolution crown thus far has been the ‘No.10 North’ in Manchester, supposedly set up to “oversee the biggest rebalancing of power our country has ever seen”, though it is yet to prove itself as more than a gimmick.

From No.10 North, much of the discussion has been regarding empowering England’s regional mayors.

For keen surveyors of the politics of devolution in the nations, there has been a noticeable absence in much of Burnham’s early discussions on devolving power: where do we fit into these plans?

Before officially taking office, Burnham penned very similar articles for WalesOnline and The Scotsman (as well as other regional outlets in England) regarding his plans for Welsh and Scottish audiences.

These articles faced significant criticism, particularly from WalesOnline who labelled it ‘error-filled’ and questioned Burnham’s devolution commitments as he continuously made pledges in policy areas which lay in the hands of Wales and Scotland’s devolved parliaments.

These questions have since reverberated, not least by one Professor Richard Wyn Jones who has sought to highlight the ‘contradiction’ in Burnham’s pro-devolution discourse and his appointment of generally devo-sceptic territorial secretaries in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

‘Devolution’ vs. ‘devolution’

What some arguments seem to be assuming is that there is only one lens through which ‘devolution’ can be looked at.

Outside of England this is understandable. For many decades the term ‘devolution’ has been loaded with elements of the ‘national question’, taking powers from Westminster to give to the devolved parliaments.

But devolution as a broader concept is simply about moving power from the centre. In the British context, especially as devolution becomes more of a salient topic in England, it may be wise to outline the distinctions when we speak of devolution. From here on, I do so through capitalisation:

“Devolution” concerns the territorial settlements and distributions of power within the UK as established since 1998. It centres on the relationship between Westminster and the devolved national institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

While “devolution” focuses on the decentralisation of power to any kind of local or regional authority, usually discussed within the English context but is equally applicable to local authorities elsewhere. This concerns bringing decision-making ‘closer to the people’.

Now, this may seem like an obvious point to make, and almost a matter of pedantry. But this distinction is important in considering why in fact the divergences from Burnham’s devolution discourse are not only uncontradictory, but in fact logical. This is not about drawing a conclusion on the merit of Burnham’s agenda, but simply underscoring that there is a clear project and logic in place. Ultimately, we need to consider ‘devolution’ now as one word but representing one of two different national projects.

Independence

Casting aside those who desire independence for Wales and Scotland for whom Devolution is ultimately a means to an end, Devolution has served as a tool of territorial management and as a strategy of maintaining the Union. Andy Burnham’s devolution agenda as-is does not serve this purpose.

His focus is not on territory or nationhood but on improving regional disparities within England by taking power from Westminster. As many are eager to remind us, local government is within the gift of the Welsh Parliament and so much of Burnham’s agenda in England cannot be enacted by him in Wales.

Richard Wyn Jones asked “How do we explain the contradiction between Burnham’s enthusiastic championing of devolution and the deep devo-scepticism of his territorial Secretaries?”. Essentially asking how one can champion ‘devolution’ but not ‘Devolution’. I would argue that there is no inherent contradiction between wanting to move certain powers down to local authorities in England and not supporting the further transfer of competences such as policing, justice and the Crown Estate to Wales.

These issues operate at different constitutional levels. A unionist can support powerful regional government as a device for improving accountability, but not support further Welsh autonomy on the grounds of its potential upset to the union. This is particularly true for those operating under a ‘unitary’ idea of the British state, but this is not necessarily the only applicable perspective.

Studies like my own on the parties of the political-right in Wales highlight the differences and tensions between ‘devolution’ and ‘Devolution’. These parties have long spoken about “real devolution”, contesting the meaning of Devolution to emphasise decentralising power to bring it closer to the people as a criticism of the current centralised model of Devolution in Wales.

This helps deprive the issue of its ‘national question’ elements, of which parties on the right in Wales have usually been uncomfortable with, while avoiding the projection of simply taking from Wales and giving back to Westminster.

Real Questions

Of course, this is not the context with Andy Burnham, and while I appreciate the likely logic at work this doesn’t mean there are not some genuine questions to be asked.

As I asked rhetorically at the start: where actually does Wales (and Scotland) fit into Burnham’s agenda? At least in Wales, our new Secretary of State has remained sufficiently vague in not being “entirely convinced” but still “open to the conversation” on Welsh powers. So while I dispute the idea of a contradiction, I do understand people’s instinct to ultimately question how Andy Burnham does view Wales and Welsh Devolution.

Many seem to have arrived at the conclusion that Andy Burnham in fact knows little of devolution outside of England, and thus far I find it hard to dispute that point.

And not to disregard Richard Wyn Jones’ assessment completely, far from it actually, he does raise genuine points about the territorial secretaries and the elements of party management likely at play in the selections.

Through this lens, it is important to ask if there will be any recognition of the state of Welsh Labour in the Senedd partly as a result of losing their image as ‘the party of Wales’: will Andy Burnham throw them a devolved powers bone at all?

---

Get more trusted Welsh news

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News to see more of our journalism.