My first thought after the Scottish referendum is “what is wrong with the British state?” It is the question that needs to be answered before we try to fix it with a new constitutional settlement. My answer is that almost uniquely among developed countries the UK has been on a centralising trajectory since the first world war. Nearly every major institution that provided a check and balance against the executive has had its wings clipped. Joseph Chamberlain’s gas and water socialism in Birmingham is unimaginable given the loss of local authority powers. The House of Commons is only just winning back the power to set some of its own agenda, stripped away in the first world war so only ministers determined house time.
The consequence that people usually discuss—the greater distance between the exercise of power and the voter—is crucial for democracy and is an important source of anti-politics feeling. Until the 1950s, people would know a local councillor who was able to get things done for them, and provided at least a first point of contact with the political system. That is no longer the case.
There is a second important consequence: mistakes get made on a much bigger scale (look at the poll tax, despite the Scottish trial). And there is a third key consequence: there is very little room for experimentation in the British state or public services. If there is substantial decentralisation, different places can try different solutions. The public sector develops a way of being creative, rather like the private sector. Good results can be emulated, bad ones shunned. This is particularly important as society becomes more and more complex: we need experimentation in the provision of public goods, just as we need competition in the provision of private ones.
