A Study on the Effects of Devolution on Union-Wide Engagement in Politics
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Devolution and Disengagement in the United Kingdom: A Study on the Effects of Devolution on Union-Wide Engagement in Politics Hannah Scheckelhoff Honors Thesis Dr. James Allan (advisor) with Edward Hasecke and James F. Smith 18 April 2011 Scheckelhoff 2 Introduction Devolution, the process by which both Wales and Scotland were granted their own regional assemblies, has drastically changed the nature of government, politics, and culture in the United Kingdom in the last decade. As extensive debate over the logistics of devolution continues years after the first election— including everything from calls for increased power for regional governments in Scotland and Wales to demands for changes that would balance out the asymmetry of the new UK governing structures— there are increasingly concerns that devolution has not done all it was supposed to. The result of years of protest and attempts at legislation, devolution aimed to quell the increasingly nationalist sentiments of Scotland and Wales, both of which were growing restless in their positions of subordination the United Kingdom. Yet, in 2011, twelve years after the devolved governments’ first elections, it is clear that these nationalist sentiments have not been at all repressed by this change in governance. Both Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Nationalist Party, both major nationalist (read pro-regionalist pro-independence) parties in their given regions, have held substantial if not focal power over these devolved governments since their inception, and increasingly these parties bring up issues of independence from the United Kingdom. This trend speaks to a more specific concern about the purpose and aspirations of devolution by those who implemented it. The Labour Party, which won the government in the 1997 General Election with a pro- devolution platform and, in turn, mass support from the Scottish and Welsh people, did indeed fulfill its promise to devolve these governments and spread power to the other regions of the UK in 1998. This has seemingly resulted in increased nationalism, evidenced by the presence of high numbers of nationalists in the devolved governments, and continued thoughts of independence in Scheckelhoff 3 Scotland and Wales. Yet this is contrary to Parliament’s and even more the Labour Party’s intentions in supporting and initiating devolution: the Labour Party, while a major supporter of devolution, in 1997 was also a major advocate for the union and furthering the unity of Britain. Operating under the assumption that devolution was an effort on the part of Parliament not to lead Scotland and Wales down a path towards independence, but to reunite the UK by making concessions to the outer regions of the nation, the notable presence of these nationalist parties and sentiments in Scotland and Wales have forced the question, has devolution worked in the way in which it was originally intended? After spending a few months in the United Kingdom around the time of the 2010 General Election, I became more and more aware of the nationalist and unionist divisions in the UK. After following the 2010 election closely and continuing my interest in the topic after my return to the regions, I began to research this concept of devolution fulfilling its original purposes. Throughout my research process, I developed two hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Since devolution, nationalist sentiments have increased in Scotland as well as in England and Wales. Hypothesis 2: As a result of these increased attachments to regions and not to the UK as a whole, political interest and participation on the UK level, by those who feel disengaged from Britain, have lessened. I have compiled empirical evidence to assess the validity of these ideas. While the data on nationalist and unionist sentiments and their affect on engagement in UK politics differ from region to region, the general trends show that my hypotheses are valid to varying degrees in England and Scotland, and are substantially less valid in Wales. This study will proceed with a briefing on the history of the United Kingdom and devolution, a necessary component to Scheckelhoff 4 understanding the basis of this study. After that, we will take a look into the issues with devolution in each of the three UK regions included in this project and other studies similar to my own. Then, we will delve into the methodology and findings of my study, looking at the affects of nationalist identities on political engagement. Literature Review A Brief History of the United Kingdom Because the modern United Kingdom looks notably different than it did even twenty short years ago, it is crucial to this study to understand the history and evolution of the UK. Major changes to the governing systems in the last years of the 20th century unveiled to the new millennium a Britain with an increasingly dynamic population and new internal issues. Today, the United Kingdom refers to a sovereign state that includes the countries of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but this modern state began as a territory with many different occupants (from the Romans to the Normans to different Celtic tribes), grew into a series of separate states with their own laws, and much later came together in the way they exist today. The Welsh had a long-standing history of interaction with outside forces, beginning with Norman invasions of the 1000s and continuing to the English invasions of 1276 and 1277, both of which represented major events in the tale of the loss of Welsh independence. Wales was officially annexed by England in 1535, representing the beginning of a much longer process to unite the archipelagic states under one common law. The English Acts of 1536 and 1543 replaced Welsh law with English law and added a Welsh Member of Parliament for each new county. In addition, these acts established English as the primary language in the now united states of Wales and England (Pilkington 2002, 22-25). Scheckelhoff 5 Scotland, after years of fighting with the English, formally joined the union in 1707 with the Act of Union, though the nobility of the two countries had long been connected with each other as a result of the two monarchies merging in one person: James I of England and James VI of Scotland in 1603 (Pilkington 2002, 27). The Act of Union allowed Scotland 45 seats in the Westminster House of Commons and 16 elected representative peers. In addition, Scotland maintained its Presbyterian church, its own courts, legal system, self-governing royal burghs, and all hereditary positions were preserved (Pilkington 2002, 28). The preservation of these sorts of institutions has certainly aided in the maintenance of a Scottish national identity, which has remained quite strong over the course of the three hundred years that Scotland has been a part of the United Kingdom and not its own country. For the purposes of this study on devolution, Britain’s short relationship with Ireland and subsequent inclusion of Northern Ireland in the union is less important. However, it is important to note, for the sake of thoroughness, that the whole of Ireland was once a part of the United Kingdom, and as a result of nationalist demands for home rule, most of Ireland became an independent state in the 20th century. Ireland, being the last to join the Union and the first to leave, establishing an important precedent for home rule, which would feed into nationalist efforts for devolution in later years. Home Rule and the Separation of Northern Ireland: The Precedent for Devolution As a result of the potato famines of the 1840s and subsequent failure of the British government to properly attend to the needs of the Irish people, Irish nationalism flourished in the mid 1800s (Pilkington 2002, 35). The nationalist sentiments grew through the remainder of the 19th century, culminating in a full-blown call for home rule in the 1880s. Led by Charles Parnell, the Irish nationalists demanded independence from Britain (Pilkington 2002, 39). The first Home Scheckelhoff 6 Rule Bill of the 1880s failed, but was readdressed in the 1890s, and finally became a reality in 1912 under the Irish Home Rule Bill, renamed the Government of Ireland and House of Commons Bill (Pilkington 2002, 49). Drastically delayed by the First World War, the Irish, after some rebellion, resubmitted the bill to Westminster in 1919, which responded with plans for two devolved parliaments in Dublin and Belfast (a city in the northern area of Ireland which expressed largely unionist sentiments) as well as a Council of Ireland which would “deal with all-Ireland concerns and work for unity” (Pilkington 2002, 73). Members of the Dáil, a rebellious group from the Sinn Fein Irish nationalist party, rejected the offer, which resulted in “open warfare…between the IRA [Irish Republican Army] on one side and the British army, the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the specials known as Black and Tans on the other” (Pilkington 2002, 73). None the less, the UK Parliament established the devolved parliaments in Ireland and the newly autonomous Northern Ireland, both of which had their first elections in 1921. As a result of the political tensions between the North and South, the unionist inclined Northern Ireland became a member of the United Kingdom shortly after (Pilkington 2002, 73). The inclusion of Northern Ireland and its devolved government in the union brought issues of devolution in other regions to the surface over the course of a few decades. Stirrings of Devolution in Scotland and Wales According to Colin Pilkington, “For the most part, the inhabitants of the British Isles were content with the union as it existed in 1801, or at least they were not particularly excited at the idea of political separatism” (Pilkington 2002, 35).