More Devolution in Scotland?
The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the UK has led to a focus on the priorities he brought with him into the job, including for increased devolution, particularly in England. However, the Cabinet statement made at the end of his first week Rewiring the State also promises to make reforms to the powers of the Devolved Governments and separately PM Burnham has stated that all these changes might require some constitutional reform, going further than any previous Prime Minster.
While the popular view appears to be that the new PM does not understand devolution outside England, this early commitment to reform both for the devolved nations and within England sets some challenges which the Scottish government may need to consider and be ready with their ‘asks’, both now and when any more formal engagement is launched. Further, the extension of powers to subnational government in England provides some challenges to subnational arrangements in Scotland. While there is a view that only the Glasgow City Region compares economically with Greater Manchester in England, this is to overlook the extension of strategic authority established status to four more predominantly rural areas in England – North Yorkshire and York, Cambridge and Peterborough, East of England and the East Midlands – announced at the same time as the devolution statement. This is a policy for all geographies – not just urban economies.
In 2025, we published an analysis of the potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats which a new sub-national government insertion would offer Scotland. In the light of these recent developments, we return to this and apply this approach firstly to the potential for the extension of devolution at national level before returning to the sub-national possibilities.
For the UK, there has been a strengthening of the position of those in favour of more devolution, towards independence, in the election of majority parties in favour of this outcome in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. While the First Ministers have not publicly proposed any way forward to meet their aims, except for the potential of referenda at a future date, the opening of the PM’s commitment suggests a more active response is required and from this stronger position. What is it that these parties and nations wish to see?
If constitutional reform is discussed, then what model might the UK realistically pursue, and what processes might be adopted to reach the final destination? With respect to England, the government could place sub-regional bodies on a firmer legal basis, but ossifying immature arrangements carries risks. With respect to the ‘nations’ of the UK there is the thorny issue as to the conditions of exit from the UK’s multi-national state – while the Good Friday Agreement provides arrangements for Northern Ireland, it is less clear how policymakers in London (or indeed Manchester) would approach current and future demands for full independence under a new constitutional model. Assuming that secession is not imminent, we may also ask what constitutional model might be considered – shifting the UK more fully towards a federal or even confederal model, with England, Scotland, and Wales each acting as essentially self-governing, but pooling resources over external policy. Alternatively, arrangement may be developed from those currently in effect, offering structural continuity but greater freedom in decision making. It is also unclear how any such process might tackle the House of Lords, with a reformed second chamber at times mooted as a representative body for the UK’s regions and nations. Lastly it is unclear what processes, such as constitutional conventions or consultation with stakeholders at various ‘levels’ of government, might accompany moves towards constitutional reform.
More likely in the medium term are efforts on the part of Scotland and Wales to gain more substantive de facto independence from Westminster. So, we may ask, what are the opportunities that the Scottish government is seeking to take to achieve more independence? Options could include an increase in taxation powers of different types, a translation of the Sewel Conversion into legislative or constitutional requirements, rolling back the 2020 UK Single Market Act, or a resurrection and reform of the institutional arrangements established after devolution and subsequently revisited after Dunlop into a more visible construction of the intergovernmental state apparatus with regular meetings, meaningful agendas and binding decisions within a transparent context. Finally, there are threats. If the Scottish government cannot identify its ‘asks’ or be clear about the end point of its journey and necessary stages on the way, then the promises of more devolution might disappear. There are also threats from the political right to dismantle the Scottish Parliament and, without going forward, there may be pressure to go back.
The issues are complex, loaded, and time-sensitive. The change in PM appears to offer more opportunities for devolution reform but within a very short time horizon, until the next general election. Missing these windows may be politically damaging from the perspective of some of these majority party supporters. But there are also obvious weaknesses in the Scottish government’s position if there is no clear way forward.
Within Scotland, reform of subnational government arrangements focuses primarily on the Glasgow City Region (GCR). It is already receiving direct funding from the Treasury in London, like some of the other Strategic Authorities in England and has a direct relationship with Whitehall but it has no option to elect a mayor or take on some of the promised powers that may be on offer in England, outside London. Some of these GCR deal projects commit long term funding from the Scottish government, eating away at their discretionary spending options. Will a Scottish government with more powers expect these relationships and funding agreements to be with it rather than London? Or will the next step be an integrated settlement in a revised format now being considered for English strategic authorities and will the GCR have its own Local Accounting Officer as proposed in England? There are strengths in this approach for Glasgow but also potential opportunities for the rest of Scotland’s geography which already has deals with Whitehall. Will these deal structures continue, and will Scotland’s local authorities be satisfied with a two-speed UK at local level, even if they prefer their current stability and continuity? Existing deals will maintain strong relationships with the Treasury over project priorities and selection which an emerging English model, applied in GCR, may sweep away. There are some opportunities for Scotland’s government to seize the initiative by announcing its own new sub-national government package. It may also be able to devolve more policies and services from Holyrood as happened in Northern Ireland as part of the Review of Public Administration, although admittedly, in a more centralised administration.
Without these sub-national reforms will Scotland become weaker within a UK content not least if sub-national mayors in England have a seat at the table with First Ministers? This position may be unsustainable in the longer term and a weak response from the Scottish government may lead to some backlash and greater calls for further independence.
These proposed reforms from the new UK PM are still being evolved and unveiled. They will need both stimulation and response and it appears that public inactivity on the part of the Scottish government will be regarded as weakness and a lost opportunity.
About the authors
Janice Morphet is an independent researcher, Visiting Professor in the Bartlett School of Planning at University College London and is a Design Council Built Environment Expert. Janice was a member of the Planning Committee of the London 2012 Olympic Games. She was a Senior Adviser on local government at DCLG 2000-2005, having been Chief Executive of Rutland CC, Director of Technical Services at Woking, and Professorial Head of the School of Planning and Landscape at Birmingham Polytechnic. Janice has been a trustee of the RTPI and TCPA.
Sean Kippin is Senior Lecturer in Public Policy at the University of Stirling. He is an expert in UK politics and policymaking, and has published widely on topics including democratic backsliding and public policy, UK political institutions, and inequalities in education policy. He is the author of Democratic Backsliding and Public Policy in the UK (Springer, 2025) and co-author, with Paul Cairney, of Politics and Policy Making in the UK (BUP, 2025).
Photo credit: Dorian Labbe on Unsplash