BREXIT has disrupted devolution in the UK and seen a reduction in the extent of devolved powers, a political expert has said.
Professor Dan Wincott, the Blackwell Law and Society Chair at Cardiff University, further said that the idea of obtaining consent from devolved admins had “gradually been degraded” by the Tory government.
Wincott’s statements may give the lie to claims from Tory figures such as Scottish Secretary Alister Jack, who said that post-Brexit laws represented a “power surge” for devolved administrations.
READ MORE: 'Pause' indyref2 plans even if Supreme Court rules in favour, Yes strategist says
Jack insisted previously that the UK Internal Market Act, introduced in the wake of Brexit, was not a power grab, with then business secretary Alok Sharma claiming it represented “the biggest transfer of powers in the history of devolution”.
However, Wincott told an audience in Glasgow that it was “very hard” to describe what the UK Government had done as providing a “power surge”.
Speaking at A UK in a Changing Europe event on Scotland’s constitutional future, the Cardiff professor said: “The UK’s EU membership served as a kind of scaffold for devolution, supporting devolution, allowing some divergence but within the constraints of the EU system …
“Any kind of Brexit was going to disrupt devolution, but it’s not so much Brexit per se as the way that Brexit has been implemented from [Westminster] that I think has been particularly disruptive and served as a kind of pivot in the trends around devolution, trends away from gradual growth to a kind of retrenchment of devolved powers.”
READ MORE: Choice facing Scotland in indyref2 'much bigger' than in 2014, John Curtice says
Wincott said that the UK Internal Market Act in practice created a “hyperactive” version of the EU’s internal market against which Brexiteer Tories in Westminster had raged.
He said: “This quote-unquote hard form of Brexit has had particularly disruptive consequences for devolution. Particularly important here I think has been the UK Internal Market Act, described by devolved politicians as a power grab.
“Members of the European Reform Group, enthusiastic Brexiteers at Westminster, thought of the EU’s internal market as a kind of device driving integration of the European market and perhaps helping to build EU-level political institutions. The UK Internal Market Act looks like a kind of imagined version of that system rendered especially powerful.
“The UK Internal Market Act, as well as providing for at the UK level economic regulation, gives the UK authorities powers to spend money and make policy in a range of areas that are traditionally understood to be devolved, and to make those interventions directly. So it’s almost like it’s a kind of hyperactive version of the EU system.
“But it’s not just the UK Internal Market Act. There is a whole series of bits of UK-level legislation which are generally speaking giving more power to executives and particularly giving more power to the UK executive to make policy and to make interventions in policy areas that are traditionally seen as devolved.”
The Internal Market Act contains controversial laws that mean that anything which passes regulatory hurdles in one part of the UK can be sold in any other part.
This means that if England legalises some forms of genetically modified food, as it plans to, those foods will appear unlabelled on Scotland's shop shelves.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel