Should further powers be given to devolved governments?

And, should devolution be extended to England (for example creating regional assemblies or an English Parliament)?

Arguments in favour of extending devolution include:

Devolution has been successful and is now accepted by the vast majority of people in those regions
It would further address the problem of over-centralisation of power in the UK Parliament
There are strong regional identities in areas such as Cornwall, which may be well-served by having power devolved to them
It addresses the ‘West Lothian question’- currently, England constituency MPs cannot vote on many matters affecting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, however Westminster MPs from these regions can vote on matters which potentially only affect England- this is unfair
It may make the break-up of the UK less likely- regions such as Scotland will be given more control over their own affairs so may be less inclined to wish to achieve full independence
Currently, under the Barnett formula, England receives less funding from UK taxes per capita than other UK regions. This could be addressed by having a devolved English Parliament

Arguments against extending devolution include:

Power may end up being too fragmented, leading to possible differences in legislation in different areas and confusion over how laws differ in the different UK regions
If an English Parliament was introduced, the role and significance of the UK Parliament would be much reduced, leading to questions over the location of sovereignty
The proposal of ‘English votes for English laws’ may solve the West Lothian question without the need for an English Parliament
There is little public appetite for an English Parliament, demonstrated by a strong no vote for a proposed North East Assembly
There may be arguments over which regions would get a devolved assembly, and which wouldn’t- in some area of the UK there is a weaker regional identity than others
Giving regional governments more powers may actually accelerate demands for independence- if these regions are effectively controlling all of their legislation, they may wish to become formally separate to reflect this. The demands of the SNP for Scottish independence have not been dimmed by the creation of, and accumulation of powers of the Scottish Parliament

Should the UK adopt a codified constitution?

Arguments in favour include:

It would provide clear rules, with less confusion as to what the constitution means
It would formally limit the powers of government, addressing the problem of elective dictatorship
It could be policed and protected by judges, who are politically independent and neutral
It would allow for a stronger protection of rights, as rights would be fully entrenched and more difficult to set aside
It would strengthen citizenship, giving people a clear idea of not only their rights but the purpose and workings of the political system. It could also be a source of unity for the nation
It would bring the UK into line with other modern democracies

Arguments against include:

It would be too difficult to change and may become outdated
It would give unelected judges to power to prevent elected government from carrying out its pledges
Uncodified constitutions are organic and naturally evolving, codified constitutions are more ‘legalistic’ and arbitrarily implemented
A codified constitution may be unnecessary- government power could be checked by strengthening the existing systems
It may be harder for a government to get things done and fulfil its manifesto promises

Arguments in favour include:

It would make the government more subject to the law, as rights will be ‘higher’ than other laws. This will make the government more responsible and accountable
Civil liberties would be better guaranteed and protected- they wouldn’t be set aside under any circumstance
It would make people more aware of their rights, so has educational benefits
There is already an agreement on rights (through the European Convention and Human Rights Act), so implementing a fully entrenched bill of rights would not be controversial

Arguments against include:

Judges become more powerful and influential, meaning they end up making law- and they are unelected and socially unrepresentative
Judges may become politicised and lose their independence, as they are more involved in the policy process
Raising awareness of rights may come at the expense of awareness of responsibilities. Individual rights may supersede the rights of the community
Rights are artificial constructs which may be difficult to implement in ‘the real world’

The UK constitution is not fit for purpose’. Discuss.: Your answer should include: Uncertainty / Concentration / Dictatorship / Power / Human Rights / Flexible / Democratic / Effective / Government / Traditional / Tested