The term ‘federalism’ or ‘federal system’ is often used to describe a particular type of state governance. In essence, a federal system describes a form of government that combines elements of a unitary and decentralised system of government.
The existence of a federal system in Britain has been debated since the 18th century, with different camps advocating sometimes contradictory views. There are those who claim that Britain does in fact feature a federal system, albeit one which is not as well-defined or institutionalised as those found abroad. Others claim that Britain, despite its distinct regions and devolved powers, is a unitary state.
Much of the evidence cited in support of either position is highly subjective, meaning that there is no unambiguous answer. Britain’s system of government, which is largely unwritten and reliant on a series of conventions and practices, has traditionally been categorised as either ‘unitary’ or ‘decentralised’. Experts have argued that this dichotomy is too simplistic, and that Britain actually features elements of both.
Since 1707, the state has been “singular” yet decentralised in its operation. Decentralised powers are delegated from the central government to its four constituent parts – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each jurisdiction enjoys considerable autonomy, with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly all enjoying considerable freedom in the areas under their jurisdiction.
Scotland in particular stands out as an example, with its own distinct legal system, education system and government. All four jurisdictions have powers to vary their own taxes, and regulation sometimes diverges substantially from the rest of the UK.
One could argue that the current state of affairs implies a federalistic structure. Decentralised powers are delegated from the central government to its constituent parts, with each jurisdiction exercising a degree of autonomy. In practice, however, Britain’s government is largely unitary in nature. The primary lawmaking power rests with the Crown in Parliament, and each part of the UK is ultimately subordinate to this body.
It could be said that Britain is neither a unitary nor a federal system. Rather, it exists in a kind of ‘limbo’ between the two, with elements of both present. The lack of any formal structures or framework also makes it difficult to draw conclusions either way.
Devolved Powers in Great Britain
Much of the debate regarding the nature of Britain’s government stems from the fact that it enjoys both distinct regional governments and a centralised, unitary state. While the central government retains certain core powers, its authority has been extended to regional administrations through a process of devolution.
The devolution process began in the late 1970s and culminated in the late 1990s. Under the process, certain powers have been delegated to the three devolved nations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This extends to areas of policy such as education, health, transport and agriculture. Matters which are considered to be of a national concern, such as defence or foreign policy, remain within the remit of the UK government.
The 1998 Northern Ireland Act places the legal framework for devolved powers granted to the Northern Ireland Assembly. This act originally granted the assembly the right to legislate in a number of specific areas, although these powers have since been extended. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now enjoy extensive powers in various domains, including health, education, and transport.
The devolution process has bolstered the autonomy of the devolved nations and has had a considerable impact on the day-to-day functioning of the state. It could be argued that the devolved powers prove the existence of a federal system, in which autonomy is delegated from a centralised institution to its constituent parts.
Devolved powers, however, are vastly limited in scope and are ultimately subordinate to the will of the Westminster Parliament. Consequently, the status of Britain’s government as unitary or federal remains inconclusive.
The West Lothian Question
The West Lothian Question illustrates the tension existing between Britain’s regional governments and its centralised, unitary state. This question — first asked in 1977 — inquires whether it is possible for MPs from devolved nations to vote on matters affecting only England despite lacking representation for those same matters in their own nations.
The creation of devolved nations and the ensuing transfer of powers suggested a shift in Britain’s system of government from unitary to federal. However, the West Lothian Question raises the spectre of unequal representation for English citizens, with MPs from other nations being able to vote on English-only matters. This has led to calls for the introduction of an English Parliament, as well as a select committee on English votes for English laws.
The West Lothian Question suggests the existence of a contradiction at the heart of Britain’s government; one which is unlikely to be resolved without drastic reform. The persistence of the question implies that devolution has not taken the form of a federal system, as had been anticipated by some.
Moreover, the UK lacks an annual federal budget which could in theory be used to fund different regional governments. This contrasts with France and Germany, where each region receives an allocation of funds from the central government.
The ambiguity surrounding the status of Britain’s system of government exposes a number of problems facing the state. While some view the state as being unitary in nature, others cite evidence that implies a more complex relationship between its centralised and decentralised elements.
The Role of Devolution in Britain
Some advocates of a federal system have argued that devolution serves to maintain the unity of the nation state by allowing for the expression of distinct identities in a single state. Others have suggested that, in Britain’s case, this decentralisation of power has actually hindered the development of a true federal system.
The existence of a central government implies a hierarchical power structure which many believe has prevented the creation of a more balanced and equal union of regions. Moreover, some have suggested that the lack of a formalised federal structure has enabled the Westminster Parliament to retain considerable control over the devolved nations, undermining their autonomy.
This lack of a formalised relationship between the centre and the regions has been used to explain some of the shortcomings of the devolution process. While it has granted autonomy to the nations of Britain, it has done so within the framework of a unitary state. This has has both enabled regional governments to exercise autonomy in some areas, while inhibiting their power in others.
The status of Britain’s government as a unitary-federal hybrid means that it remains in a state of flux, unable to settle permanently on one system or the other. This ambiguity has profound implications both for the state’s ability to function effectively, as well as its ability to maintain internal unity.
Implications of Devolution
The lack of a formalised federal system has implications for the state on a number of levels. It is often argued that a more structured system of decentralisation would reduce the power of the Westminster Parliament. This would would result in greater autonomy for Britain’s devolved nations and a more equal relationship between them and the centre.
Moreover, the absence of a formalised federal system means that Britain is not subject to the same levels of governmental oversight as other states. It has been argued that this lack of accountability has enabled corruption and inefficiency to flourish in parts of the state. This in turn has a knock-on effect on the state’s ability to function effectively.
Some have suggested that devolution, as implemented in Britain, serves more to legitimise the power of the centre than to grant autonomy to the nations. This means that the structure of Britain’s government remains largely unchanged, except for a few token reforms and the devolution of certain powers. As such, it can be argued that the current system of devolution does not constitute a genuine shift towards a federal system.
The absence of a formalised federal system in Britain means that there is no guarantee that powers devolved to its constituent nations will not be revoked or that delegation will be entirely equal. This has implications for the autonomy of each nation, and ultimately the state as a whole.
Conclusion
The debate regarding the nature of Britain’s system of government is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. Debate over the issue has been ongoing for centuries, with different sides defending mutually exclusive views. The evidence for any one position is highly subjective and inconclusive, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.
Britain’s government is a hybrid of unitary and decentralised elements, with devolved powers delegated from the centre to its constituent nations. Nonetheless, the central government retains considerable control over these nations, suggesting that Britain does not feature a true federal system. Moreover, questions of representation and unequal powers remain, suggesting that reform is necessary.
The current lack of a formalised federal structure has implications for the state as a whole, impeding its ability to function effectively and maintain internal unity. Whether or not Britain’s system of government is to be considered as federal remains a matter of considerable debate.
