Devolution of the United Kingdom

As we learned this week in class, the United Kingdom consists of four distinct territories – England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland – who answer to the authority of the Crown and Parliament in London. The four territories are unified by Parliament under a “political constitution,” as Wright deems it, which is not a single written document but a compilation of common law, statutory law, constitutional conventions, and the powers of the monarch.

Wright calls attention to the fact that constitutions usually exist in written form for the purpose of pointing out unconstitutional actions. The written form acts as a physical standard against which actions are judged, however, Wright states that written constitutions may also “prevent the game’s natural evolution and development in response to new players and changed circumstances” as well as “not accurately describe how the game [of politics] is actually played” (17). Wright goes on to say that Britain’s “political constitution” does not encounter these last two problems due to its malleable and easily changeable nature – as compared to the nature of other constitutions such as the Constitution of the United States.

Up until 1999, all four territories of the United Kingdom were solely accountable to the UK Parliament; however, the powers of the UK have begun to devolve with the creation of the Scottish Parliament among other things. Each territory has a distinct background and identity, Scotland in particular (God forbid you make the mistake of calling a Scottish, British citizen English!), and this devolution of power only further widens the gap between the territories, making each one more distinct and closer to acting as an individual state.

You cannot help but wonder how this devolution of power has developed. One possible answer to this question is the lack of a written constitution. Because of the flexible nature of the constitution, laws are easily changed because the government is not held accountable to a specific document – it is held to history and tradition. Wright pointed out that a non-written constitution allows for natural evolution and development but it could also allow for devolution and reverting back to a former political agenda. If a non-written constitution allows for an accurate description of the political game, again, according to Wright, then you have to wonder what the future holds for the United Kingdom. If the constitution currently allows for devolution of power today, could one of the territories such as Scotland become an independent state in the near future? Or, could Northern Ireland become part of the Irish state? Does this malleable constitution allow for too drastic a change in too short a time period? Would the adoption of a written constitution change or stop the devolution of power?