The Archive of Market and Social Research

Current page: Home » Devolution in England

Devolution in England

Oct 7, 2026 | in-depth essay

Prepared by AMSR using the Archive

Debate around devolution in England & its impact on the Government of the UK

 

1. England’s distinctive position in the UK

The AMSR archive makes one thing clear: England did not develop the same constitutional momentum as Scotland or Wales. While Scottish and Welsh devolution was driven by strong national identity and long-standing political movements, English attitudes were more cautious, more divided, and more regionally varied.

The 1995 MORI/Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust survey shows that although the British public strongly supported devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a majority in England opposed devolving spending and taxation powers to English regions (MORI/JRRT, 1995). This early scepticism is crucial: it explains why England never developed a national devolution settlement of its own.

Support for regional powers in England (1999 MORI/Economist)

The most important AMSR evidence comes from the MORI/Economist survey of March 1999, conducted just before the first Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections.

Key findings:

  • 50% of English adults supported giving greater powers of government to English regions, with only 27% opposed.
  • Support was significantly lower in Scotland (28%) and Wales (36%).
  • This shows that English regional devolution was not simply an attempt to “copy” Scotland and Wales — it had its own logic and its own limits.

Support for elected Regional Assemblies

When asked whether their own region should have an elected assembly:

  • 45% supported,
  • 38% opposed,
  • with strong regional variation (see Section 2 below).

This is the clearest AMSR measure of English attitudes to devolved institutions.

Impact on the Government of the UK

The AMSR evidence shows that English attitudes contributed to the UK’s asymmetrical constitutional structure:

  • Scotland and Wales gained national institutions.
  • England did not.
  • Instead, England became the “default” level of UK governance, with debates focused on regionalism rather than national identity.

This asymmetry remains central to UK politics today.

Archive citations:

English Votes for English Laws (EVEL): Constitutional Response to Asymmetry

English Votes for English Laws (EVEL), introduced in 2015, was the UK Parliament’s procedural response to the asymmetry created by devolution. Scotland and Wales gained national institutions with legislative powers, while England did not. The AMSR archive shows why this asymmetry emerged: English public opinion displayed weak regional identity, mixed support for regional assemblies, and scepticism about devolving tax and spending powers. EVEL attempted to address the “West Lothian Question” by ensuring that legislation affecting only England (or England and Wales) required the consent of English (or English-and-Welsh) MPs. Unlike Scottish and Welsh devolution, EVEL did not arise from public mobilisation or identity politics; it was a parliamentary mechanism designed to manage the constitutional consequences of devolution elsewhere. Its suspension in 2021 reflects its limited political salience and the continuing challenge of governing England within an asymmetrical UK constitution.

 

2. Regional political cultures in England

England is not politically uniform

The AMSR archive shows that England’s political cultures vary sharply by region. This matters because constitutional preferences — including attitudes to devolution — are shaped by these regional cultures.

Regional variation in support for Assemblies (1999 MORI/Economist)

Net support for an elected regional assembly varied dramatically:

  • London: +39
  • North East: +22
  • North West: –2
  • Yorkshire & Humber: 0
  • South East: –10
  • Eastern: +1
  • South West: +8

This is powerful evidence that regional political cultures shape constitutional attitudes.

Regional identity awareness

Respondents were asked to identify their government region:

  • 78% answered correctly overall
  • But only 52% in the Eastern region
  • And only 60% in London
  • Compared with 97% in the North West

Weak regional identity correlates with weaker support for regional devolution.

Perceived effectiveness of Regional Assemblies

Across England:

  • 65% agreed that a regional assembly would look after local interests better than central government.
  • Agreement was highest in the North East (71%) and Yorkshire & Humber (70%).
  • Lower in the East Midlands (57%) and South East (60%).

This shows that support for devolution was strongest in areas with clearer regional distinctiveness and economic grievance.

Trust in Regional Politicians

When asked whether regional politicians would be more trustworthy than Westminster MPs:

  • Only 34% agreed,
  • 46% disagreed,
  • With negative net trust in most regions.

This helps explain why English regional devolution never gained strong momentum: people liked the idea of local control, but did not necessarily trust new institutions.

Archive citation:


3. Polling on national identity

Identity shapes constitutional preferences

The AMSR archive shows that national identity plays a central role in constitutional attitudes — but England’s identity politics differ sharply from Scotland’s.

Scotland: Strong identity, strong constitutional preferences

Across the archive (1976, 1977, 1979, 2012), Scottish polling shows:

  • Strong, stable support for a Scottish Assembly
  • Clear constitutional preferences
  • High political salience of national identity
  • Later strong support for devo-max and independence

This contrasts sharply with England.

England: Weaker regional identity, lower constitutional mobilisation

The 1995 MORI/JRRT survey shows:

  • English respondents were less supportive of constitutional change overall
  • English identity was less politically mobilised
  • There was no strong demand for an English Parliament
  • English respondents opposed devolving tax/spending powers to English regions

The 1999 MORI/Economist survey adds:

  • Weak regional identity awareness in many areas
  • Mixed support for regional assemblies
  • Limited trust in regional politicians

Together, these findings explain why England did not develop a national devolution movement.

Identity and asymmetry

The AMSR evidence shows that identity differences across the UK produced an asymmetrical constitutional settlement:

  • Scotland: strong identity → strong devolution
  • Wales: growing identity → moderate devolution
  • England: weaker regional identity → limited, uneven regionalism

Archive citations:

Links to later data:

Summary: What the AMSR Archive Reveals

  1. England’s devolution debate is shaped by weak regional identity, mixed trust, and uneven regional cultures.
  2. Regional political cultures vary sharply across England, influencing constitutional preferences.
  3. National identity polling shows why Scotland and Wales developed strong devolution movements while England did not.
  4. The UK’s constitutional structure is asymmetrical because public attitudes — not just political decisions — differ across nations and regions.

All of this is grounded directly in AMSR evidence.

Archive sources cited explicitly:

NOP Review No. 9 (January 1977) – MORI/ITN Scottish devolution survey NOP Political, Social, Economic Review Issue no.9 1977 January – Page 6 – NOP Reports – The AMSR Online Archive 

NOP Review No. 18 (March 1979) – Scotland Act 1978 referendum context NOP Political, Social, Economic Review Issue no.18 1979 March – Page 1 – NOP Reports – The AMSR Online Archive 

MORI British Public Opinion Newsletter, April 1999 – attitudes to devolution in Scotland & Wales British Public Opinion Issue 22.03 1999 April – Page 3 – MORI British Public Opinion – The AMSR Online Archive 

MORI/Oxfam Scotland Polling, 2012 – independence, devo-max, tax powers Polls on Scotland, 2005-2012 – Page 1 – Opinion Poll Reports – The AMSR Online Archive 

MORI/Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Survey, May 1995 – constitutional attitudes across the UK British Public Opinion Issue 18.04 1995 June – Page 1 – MORI British Public Opinion – The AMSR Online Archive 

Prepared by Phyllis Macfarlane with help from CoPilot

2026

Share this