Summary: Territorial Politics: parties, nationalism, and the reshaping of territorial politics in the UK

As part of the Campaign for Social Science’s series on devolution, we were delighted to attend a session at the Political Studies Association 2026 conference held on 30 March 2026. The session was organised and chaired by Dr Coree Brown Swan (University of Stirling) and featured presentations from Professor Matthew Wall, Professor Murray Leith and Jan van Heese, Associate Professor Ben Wellings, and Dr Davide Vampa on their research.

Matthew, who is Professor in Politics at Swansea University, presented co-authored work with Professor Jonathan Bradbury on parties’ territorial strategies on the development of UK devolution following Brexit. He began by outlining previous work examining the impact of Brexit on the UK’s constitutional arrangements, arguing that Brexit had brought into focus debates over whether there should be further devolution in the UK, or even a breakup of the Union. By looking at party manifestos in the elections which have taken place since Brexit, Matthew observed that there has been a much greater emphasis by political parties on the “shared rule” aspect of devolution, which enables the UK’s regions and nations greater say over the central state.

This aspect of devolution is underdeveloped in the UK constitution, and Matthew argued that the critical juncture of Brexit this opened the way towards a more balanced relationship between the devolved nations and UK Government. However, despite the increased attention being paid to devolution, parties’ overall positions on the topic were largely unchanged from where they had been prior to Brexit – with the exception of the Conservative Party, which became more cautious about expanding the authority of devolved polities.

Consistent with their long term pro-devolution stance, the UK Labour Party did promise greater devolution to the nations and regions with proposals to enhance shared rule powers emerging post Brexit. This policy trend was crystallised in Gordon Brown’s review of the UK’s constitutional and devolution arrangements. However, a comparison of this document to Labour’s 2024 manifesto revealed that the policies in the latter had less breadth and impact than the Brown proposals, indicating that Labour’s approach to devolution became much more cautious in the run-up to the 2024 General Election.

The second presentation by Murray, who is Professor of Political Science, and Jan, who is a PhD student, both at the University of the West of Scotland, looked at how perceptions of Scottishness have changed over 27 years of devolution and how Scottishness is marked and experienced by citizens today. Whilst noting differences in how Scottishness is defined by ‘elites’ and by the ‘masses’, which have existed for much of the period of devolution, in general terms the data show that ancestry has become less important over time, whereas civic markers have become more dominant. Nevertheless, whether or not an individual is born in Scotland remains a very important factor to some groups of people, especially those who consider themselves Scottish rather than British, and there is some evidence that birthplace has become increasingly important to that group. The presentation ended with a question of whether and how perceptions of Scottishness might be changed by the outcome of May’s poll, especially if there is a strong Reform cohort elected to Holyrood.

Next, Ben, who is Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations at Monash University,  presented his work exploring nationalism within England, and how Englishness has been mobilised within wider political movements. The literature and history around nationalisms indicate that in pluri-national polities, the role of the majority national movement is to keep that pluri-national polity united. By that measure, England is not yet being abandoned by its political elites, as there is no large-scale coherent movement to withdraw England from the wider Union. Or, to put it another way, England’s political elites have not given up on Britain and “Britishness” as a suitable vehicle for their political aspirations. Ben went on to argue that the latest British disintegration was just one of many of the last century, including Brexit, post-1997 devolution, decolonisation and the end of Empire, and Irish independence. Furthermore, Brexit was unusual in shifting English nationalist rhetoric away from an integrationist mode into a secessionist one.

Similar to Matthew’s presentation, Ben identified the Brown Review (2022) as being an important marker for where UK Labour currently sit in relation to sub-national identities in the UK. In the case of England, he argued that Labour struggles to know what to do with England and Englishness, and indeed with the wider ‘white working class’ which shapes the politics of England under Labour.

The final presentation from Davide, who is Senior Lecturer in Territorial Politics at the University of Edinburgh, explored examples of populist radical right parties and considered where Reform UK sits philosophically against that list. He argued that Reform is an interesting case study for how populist radical right parties approach territorial politics, because they are unusual in moving between territorial identities (English and UK-wide) fairly seamlessly according to the pragmatic demands of political campaigning. This was contrasted with European models where parties tend to be more fixed in terms of where they target their messages and where they place the blame for political problems (ie, either at a sub-state level or state level) which they promise to fix. Reform, interestingly, has been successful in strategically shifting its focus from the EU to a domestic anti-elite narrative, specifically those across different tiers of government at Westminster, Holyrood and the Senedd. In that sense, there is a comparison which can be drawn to the Northern League in Italy in how Reform has expanded from a focus on one specific region to a national one. This may bring electoral gains but it also risks future internal tensions.

Across four very different presentations, there were two interesting overlaps and areas of consensus. The first was that national identities – both in Scotland and England – are in a state of flux, with Reform UK being at the centre of several narratives around how definitions and perceptions of national identity are changing. Reform’s position after May’s elections will likely have a major bearing on the future of devolution. Secondly, the relationship between the UK’s devolved nations and regions is also at an inflection point, with parties paying closer attention to the issue of devolution, but not necessarily knowing how to respond to the shifts in public mood. This is particularly true of UK Labour, for whom devolution and Englishness are concepts with which they have struggled to develop a clear narrative in recent years.

The Campaign for Social Science is grateful to all the panellists for their excellent presentations, and to the Political Studies Association for allowing us to record and report on proceedings.

The Campaign for Social Science Devolution Hub showcases research and evidence-led insights from leading social scientists, through written contributions and events, to shine a light on devolved and sub-national government in the UK, including how the different polities across the UK might learn from each other, and whether the inconsistencies of the UK’s devolution map are an inherent strength or a challenge for a harmonious union of regions and nations. Explore the hub for more.