The decision turned less on a settled alternative than on distrust: the floor’s most-respected No argument called the UK “an anachronism”, but offered federalisation, independence or greater centralisation as competing exits. That tension mattered: the winning side was united against the proposed settlement more than it was united about what should replace it.
Yes voters made the cleaner constitutional case. One of their strongest voices said, “Confederal constitution would be better”, while another promised a “genuine partnership of equals”: entrenched powers, no overlap of competence, protection from Westminster’s whim and a written settlement capable of settling the West Lothian question. Even here, though, the offer came with a caveat that central government powers should not be lessened and that every nation should receive equal powers.
No voters answered with the record rather than the architecture. The argument the floor rated highly insisted, “Devolution should be localised not nationalised”, while another called it “a way to swerve scrutiny and accountability”; others cited the failures of Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont, the cost of extra government, the danger to the Union and the case for England to take power back. Fiscal transfers and the Barnett formula were treated not as the machinery of a federation but as evidence that the proposed division would remain dependent on Westminster.
The two sides were often talking past each other: Yes voters wanted to constrain power through rules, while No voters distrusted the people and institutions that would operate them. A weary constitutional critique said the media was “obsessed with written constitution” while checks and balances had been “corruptly removed or ignored”; the result therefore belongs to the live argument about whether Britain’s governing problem is defective design or defective accountability.
The chamber rejected a grand constitutional redesign without finding devolution an uncontested success — a verdict against the settlement, not a ringing endorsement of the status quo.
13 Opinions
It more or less is. Money from the government goes to the various arrears. Done using the Barnett formula, money comes from central government as it has previously. We are meant to be a United Kingdom. Separating it up is somewhat like, putting the clock back. IMO
England should take back full power!! Devolution has failed. Just more pen pushers
Confederal constitution would be better. Own parliament for country's needs and UK parliamentary committee for whole of UK needs ie foreign matters and all parts of UK needs. Sorry about spellings and grammer I am dyslexic.
As with many of these it's an important caveat, yes BUT the UK central governments powers shouldn't be lessened. If all the devolved nations had the same level of powers but no more than Scotland has now, then I would support a written constitution with a more federalised feel.
I want the United Kingdom to stay united and devolution destabilises the United Kingdom. Our biggest problem is politicians defying the people. Extra layers of government - who would cost more and still defy us - are not the answer.
Stormont, Holyrood and Cardiff have each been such failures. No thank you.
Media is obsessed with written constitution. Issue is those in power abuse our constitution & the checks & balances have been corruptly removed or ignored by our Politicians. Blair effectively destroyed our constitution elevating the all knowing but incompetent technocrat / bureaucrat & actively worked to destroy Parliament as an effective democratic entity. Hence the worst incompetent & ignorant set of MPs in living memory. This is the Fabian aim of a One World government.
Absolutely not! Devolution should be localised not nationalised. I support local accountability not giving Swinney carte blanche to destroy the economy. He is trying very hard just now with limited powers
TBPH The United Kingdom is an anachronism, The only country which seems to want it whole heartedly is England (And not THAT wholeheartedly). I wonder if Scotland should be independent, Ireland reunited, and England & Wales allowed to federalise on a. German model, with 'States' having day to day power, and Westminster only running Foreign and truly National policies
I think demanding a federal system but continued fiscal transfers won't hold up tonany scrutiny. If anything devolution is such a toxic failure id rather be going back to more centralised government from Westminster