Conclusion

Devolution was a major policy commitment from the new Labour government elected in 1997. It is arguably New Labour's most radical policy with far-reaching and unseen consequences for the future constitutional shape of Britain. Such changes in the constitutional make-up of the UK had not been seen for decades, since the introduction of the Scottish and Welsh Offices and the Scottish Grand Committee. Eighteen years of centralised Conservative governments had seen devolution permanently put on the back-burner. The Scottish, and to a certain degree the Welsh, people, were increasingly feeling alienated and disenfranchised from an English -dominated, London-based parliament and government. The Scottish electorate felt so aggrieved that they returned not one single Conservative Member of Parliament in 1997. The Scottish Conservative Party paid the price for ignoring their wishes.
Whether devolution will break up the United Kingdom is a moot point. The right of the people of Northern Ireland to leave the union if and when a majority wishes is part of the new constitutional settlement in Ulster. No similar right has been formally agreed in the case of Scotland, but, argues Tony Wright, the political reality is that independence is available to Scotland if and when this becomes the majority will of the Scottish people. (Wright, 2000, 9) A new version of Britishness has emerged, encompassing identity, culture and territory, with the old notions of sovereignty fading, giving rise to a multicultural and multinational kingdom. This new kind of Britain, argues Wright, will be loose and untidy, with power organised at different levels, a home to experiment and diversity. It will be a union state, but not a unitary state.
Devolution came about because Westminster passed the Scotland Act. Whether a Westminster parliament could ever deny the wishes of a majority of the Scottish people to become independent and leave the United Kingdom and form a separate country is impossible to say, but the debate about Scottish separatism has been replaced by a debate about how the new devolved government and parliament in Edinburgh will work. Devolution is a new concept in the terms of the British constitution (apart from Northern Ireland). Judgements about the constitutional implications for the UK are premature. In my view this asymmetrical form of devolution allows the Scottish people to control their own affairs, but very firmly keeps Scotland within the United Kingdom. It does not satisfactorily deal with the issue of the West Lothian Question, but it does acknowledge that Scotland, which has an identity and culture different from that of England, is entitled to autonomy within the British state. Policy outcomes different from those of Westminster, are starting to emerge, and Scottish MSPs are beginning to exert their power with confidence.
Will the English demand a parliament of their own, as they see the differences in policy emerging in Scotland ranging through abolition of university tuition fees and long-term care costs, big rises in pay for teachers and banning hunting with dogs? Devolution has been seen as a success and is really delivering in Scotland, passing legislation which Westminster, or rather the UK government, has fought shy of. This success has spurred Labour MPs in northern constituencies to press the case for regional assemblies. In a recent BBC survey of 3,000 people, almost two-thirds favoured some form of regional government across England, with 72% wanting regional government in the north-east and north-west, Yorkshire and the West Midlands. (Hetherington, 2002, 17) Cornwall has even demanded its own parliament.
As with so much policy making in Britain, devolution has been a controversial political issue and as such has been carried out in a piecemeal fashion, which is the reason why it is asymmetrical. The governing party, the Labour Party, will make a judgement about the political popularity of introducing regional assemblies, and whether such a move would strengthen or weaken its electoral support. With the Conservative Party now beginning to talk the language of "middle England", and perhaps starting to challenge Labour as a serious party of government again, Tony Blair does not want the devolution agenda stolen from under his nose by a Tory Party eager to win power. Therefore regional assemblies, and perhaps more financial autonomy for Wales and Scotland, might be on the agenda as the Tories move into the centre ground where elections are won. Also on the agenda could be proportional representation for Westminster elections too.
The Scottish Press and public may not have wholeheartedly embraced the Scottish Parliament and Executive, and there are real issues such as the West Lothian Question and the funding arrangement under the block grant, which have not been satisfactorily resolved, but from an English perspective the Scottish Parliament seems like "a breath of fresh air". Proportional Representation, coalition governments, a less adversarial system, more women, and a willingness to get things done - hunting with dogs is banned in Scotland but Westminster still can't decide. The Scottish Parliament is in the gift of Westminster. Westminster has the power to annul the Scotland Act and abolish the Scottish Parliament; but such a move would now be practically and politically impossible. The success of devolution can only bring about further devolution in England and Wales and advance the cause of further constitutional change throughout Britain.

Appendix