The Nature of the US Constitution

Paper 3: Comparative Politics  |  Component 3A: The US Constitution and Federalism  |  Specification reference: 9PL0/3A

“But no language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea, or so correct as not to include many equivocally denoting different ideas.”

James Madison, Federalist No. 37 (1788)

Madison wrote those words while trying to persuade sceptical states to ratify (formally approve) the new Constitution in 1787 and 1788. He was defending, not apologising for, the fact that a written constitution could never spell out every rule with total precision. Almost two and a half centuries later, that same vagueness is still doing real constitutional work.

This document introduces the nature of the US Constitution: its vagueness, its codification (being set out in a single written document) and its entrenchment (being deliberately difficult to change). It then covers the constitutional framework of powers given to the three branches of federal government, and the formal amendment process set out in Article V.

Introduction to the course

Paper 3 of the Edexcel A-level in Politics (specification 9PL0) is called Comparative Politics. Students who study the USA option sit paper 9PL0/3A, a two-hour examination worth 84 marks. It counts for one third of the overall A-level grade, the same weighting as each of the other two papers.

The paper has three sections. Section A offers a choice between two source-based questions, of which you answer one. Section B contains a single compulsory question. Section C offers a choice of two essays from three options, including a 24-mark question that draws on all three assessment objectives: AO1 (knowledge and understanding), AO2 (analysis) and AO3 (evaluation).

Component 3A covers five topics: the US Constitution and federalism, the US Congress, the US presidency, the US Supreme Court and civil rights, and comparative theories linking the USA to the UK institutions studied in Component 1. This document begins that course with the first sub-topic, the nature of the Constitution.

You will notice comparative questions in this document, asking you to set the USA alongside the UK. At this early stage, you are not expected to use formal comparative theories, such as the rational, cultural and structural approaches, since these are taught later in the course as their own topic. For now, simply compare the two systems directly, using what you already know about the UK from Component 1.

Overview of and background to the structure of US government

Delegates from twelve of the thirteen states met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to revise the failing Articles of Confederation. Instead, they wrote an entirely new Constitution. James Madison played such a central role in drafting it and defending it afterwards that he is often called the “Father of the Constitution”.

The Constitution was ratified by the states through 1787 and 1788 and took effect in 1789. It created a federal system, meaning that power is legally divided between a national government and individual state governments, each with its own sphere of authority.

At the national level, the Constitution establishes three separate branches: Congress (the legislature, Article I), the presidency (the executive, Article II), and the Supreme Court and federal judiciary (the judicial branch, Article III). This structure rests on two related principles: the separation of powers, meaning each branch has distinct personnel and functions, and checks and balances, meaning each branch can restrain the other two.

Figure 1: the three branches of federal government and the core checks each holds over the other two.

Key terms Codification: setting out a constitution’s rules in a single authoritative written document, rather than leaving them scattered across statutes, conventions and common law. The US Constitution has been codified since 1787. Entrenchment: making a constitution deliberately difficult to amend or repeal, usually by requiring a higher threshold than a simple majority. Article V entrenches the US Constitution by requiring supermajorities (thresholds higher than 50% plus one, such as two-thirds) at both the proposal and ratification stages. Vagueness: the use of broad, open-ended or ambiguous language in a constitutional text, which leaves room for later interpretation. The phrase “necessary and proper” in Article I is a well-known example. Judicial review: the power of the courts to strike down a law or executive action that conflicts with the Constitution. The Supreme Court established this power for itself in Marbury v Madison (1803).

  Vagueness, codification and entrenchment

The US Constitution is a codified document. Its original text, ratified in 1788, ran to roughly 4,500 words: a Preamble followed by seven Articles. It has since been extended by 27 Amendments, the first ten of which, ratified together in 1791, are known as the Bill of Rights.

Codification gives the Constitution a clear, singular status as the “supreme Law of the Land”, a phrase taken directly from Article VI. Any federal or state law that conflicts with it can, in principle, be struck down by the courts through judicial review.

The Constitution is also heavily entrenched. Article V requires a proposed amendment to pass by a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Alternatively, it can be proposed by a national convention called at the request of two-thirds of state legislatures, a route never yet used. It must then be ratified by three-quarters of the states, currently 38 of 50.

This is a genuinely high bar. According to the Congressional Research Service, close to 12,000 measures to amend the Constitution were introduced in Congress between 1789 and January 2025. Only 27 have ever been ratified.

Alongside codification and entrenchment sits vagueness. Much of the Constitution’s text is written in broad, open-ended language rather than precise rules, something Madison defended in Federalist No. 37 as an unavoidable feature of political language. This vagueness gives the document flexibility that a more detailed text would lack, but it also hands considerable interpretive power to the Supreme Court.

Vague phrase	Where it appears	Why it is open to interpretation	Example of Supreme Court interpretation
“Necessary and proper”	Article I, Section 8	Does not define how closely a law must relate to an enumerated power	McCulloch v Maryland (1819): the Court read the clause broadly, allowing Congress to charter a national bank
“Commerce among the several states” (the Commerce Clause)	Article I, Section 8	Does not define the boundary between interstate and purely local commerce	Wickard v Filburn (1942): the Court read “commerce” broadly enough to cover wheat grown for a farmer’s own use
“Cruel and unusual punishments”	Eighth Amendment (1791)	Provides no fixed definition, so standards can shift over time	Roper v Simmons (2005): the Court ruled that executing offenders who were under 18 at the time of their crime is cruel and unusual
“High crimes and misdemeanors”	Article II, Section 4	Does not list which offences count as impeachable (chargeable, as part of the formal process for removing a president from office)	Left to Congress’s own political judgement in each of the four impeachment votes held so far, against three different presidents

Table 1: examples of deliberately vague constitutional language and how the Supreme Court has interpreted it.

These examples show a clear pattern in how vagueness operates within the Constitution.

• Vague phrases transfer real power to the Supreme Court, since the Court, not Congress or the President, usually has the final word on what they mean.
• The same vague phrase can be read narrowly or broadly by different Courts at different times. This is why interpretations of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have shifted across the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
• Vagueness allows the Constitution to apply to situations the Founding Fathers (the political leaders who wrote and signed the Constitution) could not have foreseen, from federal banking to social media, without needing a formal amendment.
• The same flexibility makes constitutional meaning less predictable, since two reasonable judges can reach opposite conclusions about what a vague phrase requires.

Analysis

Evaluation

Codification fixes the words of the Constitution on the page.Entrenchment then makes those words hard to change formally, through the difficult Article V process.Vagueness gives the Supreme Court room to update the Constitution’s meaning informally, through judicial review, without any change to the text itself.

This combination has let a very short, largely eighteenth-century document survive almost unchanged for over two centuries, longer than most national constitutions written since.However, this stability comes at a cost: the Constitution’s real-world meaning now depends heavily on the ideological balance of an unelected Supreme Court.Critics argue this makes the Constitution’s meaning less democratically accountable than it appears on paper.

Check your understanding 1. Define codification and entrenchment in your own words, using one example of each from the US Constitution. You could: anchor each definition in Article V and the 1788 ratification date given above, rather than defining the terms in the abstract. 2. Explain how vagueness in constitutional language increases the political importance of the Supreme Court. You could: use one row from Table 1 above, such as McCulloch v Maryland or Roper v Simmons, to show the causal link between a vague phrase and a specific judicial ruling. 3. Compare the way the US Constitution uses deliberate vagueness with what you already know about the flexibility of the uncodified UK constitution. Which system gives judges more power to shape constitutional meaning, and why? You should: reach a clear judgement rather than just listing differences. UK flexibility comes mainly from Parliament being able to legislate freely, while US flexibility comes mainly from judicial interpretation of a fixed text; decide which form of flexibility hands more power to unelected judges.

Key terms Enumerated powers: the specific powers explicitly written down in the Constitution’s text. Congress’s enumerated powers are listed mainly in Article I, Section 8, and include the power to levy taxes, coin money and declare war. Implied powers: powers that are not written down explicitly but are considered reasonably necessary to carry out an enumerated power. These are drawn from the Necessary and Proper Clause (also called the elastic clause) at the end of Article I, Section 8. Necessary and Proper Clause: the clause giving Congress power to make all laws “necessary and proper” for carrying out its enumerated powers. The Supreme Court interpreted it broadly in McCulloch v Maryland (1819). Separation of powers: the constitutional principle that legislative, executive and judicial power are held by three distinct branches with different personnel. Checks and balances: the mechanisms that allow each branch to restrain the actions of the other two, for example through the presidential veto or Senate confirmation of appointments.

  The constitutional framework: powers of the branches of government

The Constitution gives each branch a defined set of enumerated powers, but it also leaves room, through the Necessary and Proper Clause, for Congress to exercise implied powers. This distinction between what is written down and what is inferred from it sits at the heart of debates about federal power.

Branch	Article	Key enumerated powers	A significant implied or contested power
Congress	Article I	Levy taxes, borrow money, regulate interstate and foreign commerce, declare war, raise and support armies, coin money	Implied power to charter a national bank, upheld in McCulloch v Maryland (1819) via the Necessary and Proper Clause
The presidency	Article II	Serve as commander-in-chief (head) of the armed forces, make treaties (with Senate consent), nominate federal judges and officials (with Senate confirmation), grant pardons for federal offences	Claimed power to issue executive orders directing federal policy, a power not explicitly listed in Article II
The Supreme Court and federal judiciary	Article III	Decide cases arising under the Constitution, federal law and treaties; try disputes between states	Implied power of judicial review, the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws, established by the Court itself in Marbury v Madison (1803)

Table 2: enumerated powers of the three branches of federal government, and a significant implied power exercised by each.

This table highlights an important feature of the constitutional framework: two of the three branches’ most significant powers, the national bank power and judicial review, are not written into the constitutional text at all.

• Judicial review is arguably the most powerful implied power of all, since it gives the Supreme Court the final say over what the Constitution means, despite no justice ever being elected.
• The presidency has expanded its practical power mainly through implied and claimed authority, such as executive orders, rather than through formal constitutional amendment.
• Congress’s enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 are unusually detailed for an eighteenth-century document, listing eighteen specific powers before the Necessary and Proper Clause opens the door to further implied ones.
• Because implied powers are established through Supreme Court rulings rather than the text itself, the practical balance of power between the branches can shift without any change to the words of the Constitution.

Analysis	Evaluation
Enumerated powers give the constitutional framework a fixed core that all three branches can point to. Implied powers, developed mainly through the Necessary and Proper Clause and judicial review, then let that core expand to meet situations the Founding Fathers never anticipated, from central banking to social media regulation.	This flexibility has kept the federal government able to function in a modern economy the Founding Fathers could not have imagined. Yet it has also let presidential and congressional power grow well beyond what Article I and Article II describe on paper. This raises a real question: do checks and balances still restrain the branches as intended, or have implied powers quietly hollowed them out?

Check your understanding 1. Explain the difference between an enumerated power and an implied power, using one named example of each. You could: take your enumerated power example directly from Article I, Section 8, and your implied power example from the Necessary and Proper Clause discussion above. 2. Explain how McCulloch v Maryland (1819) and Marbury v Madison (1803) each expanded the practical power of a branch of government beyond its enumerated powers. You could: deal with the two cases in turn, naming the branch strengthened by each ruling and the specific power it established. 3. Compare the way power is granted to the executive branch under the US Constitution with the source of executive power in the UK, where the Prime Minister’s authority rests heavily on convention and royal prerogative rather than a codified text. Which system constrains the executive more tightly, and why? You should: contrast a codified, enumerated source of power (Article II) with an uncodified, convention-based one, then reach a judgement about which is easier for courts, Congress or Parliament to check in practice.

Key terms Proposal: the first stage of the Article V amendment process, achieved either by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (the method used for all 27 existing amendments) or by a national convention called at the request of two-thirds of state legislatures (a method never yet used). Ratification: the second stage of the Article V process, in which states approve an amendment either through their state legislatures or through specially elected ratifying conventions. The convention method has been used only once, for the Twenty-first Amendment (1933, ending Prohibition, the nationwide ban on alcohol).

  The amendment process: Article V

Article V sets out the only formal route for changing the words of the Constitution. It splits the process into two stages, proposal and ratification, and each stage can happen in one of two ways.

Figure 2: the two stages of the Article V amendment process, showing which routes have actually been used.

Stage	Method	Threshold required	How often used
Proposal	Vote in Congress	Two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate	Used for all 27 ratified amendments
Proposal	National convention	Called if requested by two-thirds of state legislatures (34 of 50)	Never used
Ratification	State legislatures	Approval by three-quarters of state legislatures (38 of 50)	Used for 26 of the 27 ratified amendments
Ratification	State ratifying conventions	Approval by three-quarters of specially elected state conventions (38 of 50)	Used only once, for the Twenty-first Amendment (1933)

Table 3: the four possible routes through the Article V amendment process.

The figures in Table 3 show just how narrow the realistic route through Article V actually is.

• Only one of the four possible paths, proposal by Congress followed by ratification by state legislatures, has been used regularly. The other three routes are either unused or have been used only once.
• A proposed amendment can be blocked by a minority as small as thirteen states refusing to ratify, or by just over one third of either chamber of Congress refusing to propose it.
• Almost 12,000 amendments have been introduced in Congress since 1789, yet only 27 have cleared both stages, a ratification rate of well under one per cent.
• The gap between proposal and success can also be a gap in time: the Twenty-seventh Amendment, on congressional pay, took just over 202 years to be ratified after Madison first proposed it in 1789.

Advantages of the formal amendment process

• It gives the Constitution democratic legitimacy, since any lasting change needs supermajority support in Congress and across a wide range of states, not just a temporary simple majority.
• It protects individual rights and the interests of smaller states from being overridden by a temporary national majority, since ratification requires broad, geographically spread agreement.
• It produces amendments that tend to enjoy lasting legitimacy, supported by both major parties, once ratified. Neither the Nineteenth Amendment (1920, women’s suffrage) nor the Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971, lowering the voting age) has been seriously challenged for repeal.
• It keeps the core structure of government stable and predictable, which supporters argue has helped the Constitution survive for well over two centuries without a full rewrite.

Disadvantages of the formal amendment process

• It makes the Constitution very difficult to update, even when there is broad public support for change, since a well-organised minority in just thirteen states can block ratification.
• It has left some Founding-era provisions largely untouched by formal amendment, so much constitutional change instead happens informally through Supreme Court interpretation rather than through the more democratically visible Article V process.
• It has repeatedly failed to entrench popular reforms, including the Equal Rights Amendment, the Balanced Budget Amendment and the Flag Desecration Amendment, despite each attracting significant public and congressional support at different times.
• It gives disproportionate blocking power to small states, since the thirteen least populous states, representing a small fraction of the national population, can theoretically block ratification on their own.

Analysis

Evaluation

The formal amendment process protects the states and political minorities by requiring broad, supermajority consent for constitutional change.This is exactly what entrenchment is designed to do, but it also explains why the Constitution has been amended so rarely compared with how often it has been proposed.

If a constitution’s purpose is stability and protection from short-term majorities, Article V‘s difficulty is a success: the core 1787 structure has survived major social and economic change.But if a constitution’s purpose is to let society’s changing attitudes be reflected in the text, the process looks far less successful.The repeated failure of amendments such as the Equal Rights Amendment suggests it has become too difficult to use as the Founding Fathers may have intended.

Check your understanding 1. Outline the two stages of the Article V amendment process and the possible methods for each. You could: use Table 3 above to structure your answer stage by stage, noting which route has actually been used in practice. 2. Explain two disadvantages of the formal amendment process, using named examples of amendments that failed to be ratified. You could: choose two examples from the disadvantages list above, such as the Equal Rights Amendment and the Flag Desecration Amendment, and explain what specifically stopped each one. 3. To what extent is the US Constitution harder to amend formally than the UK constitution? Compare the supermajority and state-ratification requirements of Article V with how the UK constitution can be changed. You should: note that most of the UK constitution can be changed by a simple Act of Parliament passed by a simple majority, then use this contrast to reach a judgement on which system better balances stability against the ability to reflect change.

  Extension activities

The tasks below go beyond what is required for the exam, but they are good preparation for the synoptic (drawing together several topics you have studied), comparative questions that appear in Section C of Paper 3.

Extension activity: separation of powers and checks and balances diagram Design a labelled diagram showing the three branches of federal government and the checks each one holds over the other two. Use at least three recent, real-world examples to illustrate the checks in action, rather than describing them only in the abstract. Recent event (2025-2026) Branches involved Check being exercised Trump v. Barbara (30 June 2026): the Supreme Court ruled Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship (the rule that anyone born on US soil automatically becomes a citizen) unconstitutional Judiciary vs Executive Judicial review of an executive order against the Fourteenth Amendment Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (20 February 2026): the Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not let the President impose tariffs (taxes on imported goods) Judiciary vs Executive, with Congress’s taxing and commerce powers also at stake Judicial review restraining a claimed executive power over trade policy Trump v. Slaughter (29 June 2026): the Supreme Court struck down legal protections for independent agency heads (officials who run regulatory bodies partly shielded from direct presidential control), letting the President remove the head of the Federal Trade Commission Judiciary and Executive vs Congress A check being loosened, showing the balance of power can shift in the executive’s favour as well as against it   Add a fourth example of your own from your independent reading, and try to include at least one instance where a check failed or was weakened, not just one where it succeeded. Further reading: Trump v. Barbara, official Supreme Court opinion (supremecourt.gov)

Extension activity: comparing the US and UK constitutions The nature of the UK constitution is covered in detail elsewhere in this course, but it is worth starting to compare the two systems now, since Section C of Paper 3 regularly asks synoptic, comparative questions. Codification: the US Constitution is codified; the UK constitution is uncodified, drawn from statute, common law, convention and authoritative works.Entrenchment: Article V entrenches the US Constitution; the UK constitution has no equivalent single entrenching mechanism, since Parliament can, in theory, change any part of it by a simple majority.Source of authority: the US Constitution derives its authority from popular ratification by the states in 1787 and 1788; the UK constitution rests on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. A note on wording: earlier in this document, “convention” meant a formal assembly (as in a ratifying convention). In UK politics, “convention” usually means something different: an unwritten constitutional rule that is followed by tradition rather than law. Keep the two meanings separate when you compare the two systems. Using the three prompts above as a starting point, produce your own two-column comparison table of the nature of the US and UK constitutions. Add a short paragraph reaching a judgement on which is more effective at balancing stability with the ability to adapt. Further reading: House of Commons Library briefing, Parliamentary sovereignty (commonslibrary.parliament.uk)

Extension activity: profiling a failed amendment Below is a worked example profiling one amendment that passed Congress but failed to be ratified: the Flag Desecration Amendment. Use the same format to profile either the Equal Rights Amendment or the Balanced Budget Amendment as your own extension task. Year Event 1989 In Texas v Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that burning the US flag as a form of political protest is protected speech under the First Amendment. 1989 Congress responded with the Flag Protection Act, an ordinary statute attempting to ban flag burning. 1990 In United States v Eichman, the Supreme Court struck down the Flag Protection Act on the same First Amendment grounds, confirming that only a constitutional amendment could override the ruling. 1995-2005 Versions of a Flag Desecration Amendment passed the House of Representatives several times, but repeatedly failed to reach the two-thirds threshold in the Senate. 2006 The Senate voted 66 to 34 on the amendment, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send it to the states.   Research the key legal or political turning points, the congressional votes, and any recent developments for either the Equal Rights Amendment or the Balanced Budget Amendment, and present them in the same Year / Event format. Then write a short paragraph explaining what your chosen amendment’s failure reveals about the advantages and disadvantages of the Article V process discussed earlier in this document. Further reading: Congress.gov record of S.J.Res.12, the Flag Desecration Amendment, 109th Congress (congress.gov)

  Reaching a judgement: how effective is the constitutional framework of the USA?

Madison’s warning in Federalist No. 37, that no language could ever be precise enough to remove all doubt, has proved remarkably accurate. Vagueness, far from weakening the Constitution, has arguably been one of the main reasons it has lasted since 1789 without a full rewrite.

The case for the current constitutional framework

• The combination of codification, entrenchment and controlled vagueness has produced one of the most stable and enduring constitutions in the world, with only 27 amendments in well over two centuries.
• The framework of enumerated and implied powers has allowed the federal government to adapt to challenges the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen, from a national banking system to responses to public health emergencies. This has happened without needing constant formal amendment.
• Judicial review, though not written into the original text, gives the Constitution a mechanism for updating its meaning that does not depend on the difficult Article V process.

The case against the current constitutional framework

• The same vagueness that gives flexibility also produces uncertainty. Supreme Court justices frequently disagree, often along ideological lines, about what the same words require, as seen in the 2025 to 2026 rulings on birthright citizenship and tariff powers.
• The formal amendment process is now so difficult that popular reforms such as the Equal Rights Amendment and the Flag Desecration Amendment have failed despite significant public and congressional support.
• So much real change now happens through implied powers and judicial interpretation rather than the text itself. Critics associated with originalism (the view that judges should interpret the Constitution according to its original eighteenth-century meaning) disagree with this trend. They argue that it lets unelected judges, rather than voters or their elected representatives, decide what the Constitution means.

Reaching a judgement

Analysis	Evaluation
Vagueness, codification and entrenchment do not all pull in the same direction.Codification and entrenchment fix the Constitution’s core structure in place, while vagueness quietly lets its meaning evolve underneath that fixed structure, mainly through the Supreme Court rather than through Article V.	On balance, this combination has given the United States one of the most durable constitutional frameworks in the world.However, durability has come at the cost of formal responsiveness.When society has wanted rapid, clearly-mandated change, such as guaranteeing equal rights for women, the formal process set out in Article V has consistently proved too difficult to use.

Check your understanding 1. Summarise, in no more than five bullet points, the key features that give the US Constitution its distinctive nature. You could: draw one bullet point from each of the three main sections of this document: vagueness/codification/entrenchment, the framework of powers, and the amendment process. 2. Evaluate the claim that vagueness is more important than codification in explaining why the US Constitution has survived for so long. You should: define both terms briefly, present evidence for and against the claim from this document, and reach a clear judgement rather than presenting both sides with no conclusion. 3. ‘The US Constitution’s amendment process is its greatest weakness.’ To what extent do you agree, when compared with the flexibility of the UK constitution to adapt to changing circumstances? You should: weigh the advantages and disadvantages of Article V covered above against the ease with which the UK constitution can be changed by Parliament, then reach an explicit judgement rather than simply listing similarities and differences.

  Sources

Primary sources

US Constitution, Articles I, II, III, V and VI, and Amendments I, VIII, XIV, XIX, XXI, XXVI and XXVII.

James Madison, Federalist No. 37 (1788).

Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

McCulloch v Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819).

Wickard v Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

Roper v Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

Texas v Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

United States v Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 (US Supreme Court, decided 30 June 2026, US Reports citation not yet assigned).

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 (US Supreme Court, decided 20 February 2026, US Reports citation not yet assigned).

Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332 (US Supreme Court, decided 29 June 2026, US Reports citation not yet assigned).

Secondary sources

Pearson Edexcel, Specification: A level Politics (9PL0).

Congressional Research Service via Congress.gov, Proposals to Amend the U.S. Constitution: Fact Sheet (R47959).

Congress.gov, S.J.Res.12, 109th Congress (2005-2006).

US National Archives, Statement on the Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Process (2025).

NPR, Biden says the Equal Rights Amendment is law. What happens next is unclear (17 January 2025).

NPR, Flag burning amendment comes up short in Senate (28 June 2006).

The Washington Post, Budget Amendment Barely Loses in Senate (5 March 1997).

SCOTUSblog, Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship (30 June 2026).

US Supreme Court, official opinions (supremecourt.gov), Trump v. Barbara, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and Trump v. Slaughter.

House of Commons Library, Parliamentary sovereignty, research briefing CBP-10377.

National Constitution Center, Article V interpretation resources.

Debates on further reform

Previous pages examined how the UK constitution has changed since 1997.

Under Labour (1997-2010), this included House of Lords reform, a wider Human Rights Act 1998, the creation of the Supreme Court under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and the devolution Acts for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Under the Coalition (2010-15), it included the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and further devolution to Wales. Since 2015, further devolution to Scotland has continued.

More recently, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act has been repealed and the remaining hereditary peers removed from the House of Lords.

This page explores three linked debates about further reform of the UK constitution.

The first is whether the individual reforms since 1997 should now be taken further. This covers devolution, the House of Lords, the voting system, and rights protection.

The second is how far devolution specifically should be extended within England.

The third is whether the constitution as a whole should be codified and entrenched, including through a new Bill of Rights.

Key terms West Lothian Question: the anomaly whereby MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can vote at Westminster on matters that are devolved in their own constituencies, such as English health or education policy. English MPs cannot vote on the equivalent devolved matters in those nations. English Votes for English Laws (EVEL): a set of House of Commons procedures used between 2015 and 2021. It gave English (or English and Welsh) MPs a veto over legislation certified as applying only to England, as an attempted answer to the West Lothian Question. Localism: the transfer of decision-making power to the lowest practical level, typically local councils, combined authorities or neighbourhood groups, rather than to a single regional or national body. Regionalism: the creation of elected government at the level of a whole region of England (for example the North East or South West), sitting between local councils and central government. Codification: the process of gathering the rules that make up a constitution, currently scattered across statutes, common law, convention and treaty, into a single authoritative document. Entrenchment: making a law or constitutional provision difficult to amend or repeal, usually by requiring a special procedure such as a referendum or a supermajority, rather than a simple Act of Parliament. Bill of Rights: a document setting out citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms, usually given stronger legal protection than ordinary law. The Human Rights Act 1998 already performs part of this role in the UK, but as an ordinary Act of Parliament it can still be amended or repealed by a simple Commons majority. First-past-the-post (FPTP): the electoral system used for UK general elections, in which the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins, regardless of whether they win a majority of votes cast. Proportional representation (PR): a family of electoral systems in which the number of seats a party wins closely reflects its share of the vote. Used for the Scottish Parliament, Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly, but not for the House of Commons.

Part 1: Should the post-1997 reforms go further?

Elsewhere, a wide range of reforms since 1997 have been discussed: devolution, House of Lords reform, the Human Rights Act 1998 and Supreme Court, and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. This page reviews whether each should now go further, starting with devolution.

The devolution settlements

The table below summarises the main limitation of each settlement as it stood in 1997-2006, the extensions already made since then, and the live debates that remain.

Nation	Limitation of the 1997-2006 settlement	Extension already made	Live debate
Scotland	The original Scotland Act 1998 devolved policy areas but kept almost all tax-raising and borrowing powers at Westminster, limiting the Scottish Parliament’s fiscal accountability.	The Scotland Act 2012 and Scotland Act 2016 devolved significant powers over income tax rates and bands, and some welfare and borrowing powers, following the 2014 independence referendum.	Whether Scotland should move to full fiscal autonomy or independence remains contested. At the 2026 Scottish Parliament election, the SNP won a fifth consecutive term with 57 seats, seven short of a majority. Labour and Reform UK tied on 17 seats each.
Wales	The Government of Wales Act 1998 created only an executive body with no primary law-making power, so Wales lagged behind Scotland throughout the 2000s.	The Government of Wales Act 2006 introduced primary law-making powers. The Wales Act 2014 and Wales Act 2017 then devolved further tax and ‘reserved powers’ competence. The Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act 2024 enlarged the Senedd from 60 to 96 members.	The enlarged Senedd was first used at the May 2026 election. Plaid Cymru became the largest party with 43 seats, and Reform UK became the second largest with 34. Labour fell to just 9 seats, raising fresh questions about how a fragmented Senedd will use its expanded powers.
Northern Ireland	Devolution under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 depends on power-sharing between unionist and nationalist parties. The Assembly has been suspended for extended periods, including 2017-2020 and 2022-2024, when that power-sharing broke down.	The New Decade, New Approach agreement (2020) restored the institutions and changed how the Assembly forms an executive.	Whether further reform is needed to make power-sharing more resilient to collapse, and how devolution interacts with Northern Ireland’s post-Brexit trading arrangements, remain live and sensitive questions.
England	England received no devolved legislature at all in the 1997-2006 wave of reform, only limited local government changes.	Combined authorities and directly elected mayors expanded steadily from 2017, then formalised and extended by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026.	Should England’s mayoral strategic authorities eventually be topped by a single English-wide body? This would reopen the regionalism or English Parliament options discussed in Part 2.

^{Sources: House of Commons Library briefings on the Scotland Acts, Wales Acts and Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act 2024; Scottish Parliament and Senedd election results, May 2026.}

Analysis:

Every nation’s settlement has been extended at least once since its original Act. This suggests devolution in the UK has operated as a continuing process, rather than a one-off event. This pattern is often described as devolution being ‘a process, not an event’, a phrase associated with the former Welsh Secretary Ron Davies.

Evaluation:

How far this process should still go is judged differently in each nation. Wales’s move to a much larger, more proportional Senedd in 2024-26 is a genuinely significant structural change. Northern Ireland’s extensions, by contrast, have been about stabilising existing institutions rather than granting new powers.

Check your understanding 1. Using the table above, identify one way in which the devolution settlement for Wales has been extended since 2006. You could: pick a single named Act, for example the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act 2024, and state precisely what it changed. 2. Compare the pressures for further devolution reform in Scotland and Northern Ireland. You could: identify that the Scottish debate centres on gaining new powers, such as fiscal autonomy or independence, while the Northern Ireland debate centres on stabilising powers the Assembly already has.

Compromise versus further extension

A recurring theme in these debates is the tension between the benefits of the gradual, compromise-based approach the UK has actually followed since 1997, and the case for pushing reform further and faster.

• Benefits of compromise: an incremental approach lets each settlement be tested and adjusted, rather than risking a single, irreversible change. The Scotland Act 2012 and Scotland Act 2016, which refined the original 1998 Act, are good examples.
• This approach has also kept the Union together, by accommodating demands for more self-government without granting full independence.
• It allows different parts of the UK to move at different speeds. Wales, for example, moved to primary law-making powers later and more slowly than Scotland.
• Disadvantages of further extension: repeated extension can look like a series of concessions extracted under pressure, rather than a coherent design. The 2014 ‘vow’ to Scotland, made during a referendum scare, is a clear example.
• Asymmetric devolution also leaves unresolved anomalies, such as the West Lothian Question.
• Further extension in one nation can generate demands for equivalent treatment elsewhere. England’s devolution debate has partly followed Scotland’s for this reason.

Analysis:

None of the UK’s devolution settlements since 1997 has been reversed. This stability suggests the gradual, compromise-based approach has accommodated nationalist and regionalist pressure without triggering the break-up of the Union.

Evaluation:

Against this, the same gradualism means difficult structural questions have never been decisively settled, most obviously England’s institutional gap and the unresolved West Lothian Question. Its long-term sustainability depends on whether future flashpoints, a further Scottish independence referendum being the clearest example, can continue to be absorbed in the same way.

Reforming Parliament: the Lords and the voting system

House of Lords reform since 1997 has removed most hereditary peers, but has never created a fully elected second chamber. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed all but 92 hereditary peers, as a transitional arrangement that was intended to be temporary.

A coalition government bill to create a largely elected House of Lords was introduced in 2012, but was dropped after Conservative backbenchers threatened to block it. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 finally removed the remaining 92 hereditary peers, but did not introduce elections.

The Brown Commission‘s 2022 report (examined in full in Part 3) recommended replacing the House of Lords with an elected ‘Assembly of the Nations and Regions’. Prime Minister Burnham has personally backed a similar idea since 2022, an elected ‘senate of the nations and regions’, and said in 2026 that he would not rule out an early change to the upper house.

A similar pattern applies to the electoral system used for the House of Commons. The UK held a referendum on replacing First-past-the-post (FPTP) with the Alternative Vote on 5 May 2011. Voters rejected the change by 67.9% to 32.1%, on a turnout of 42.0%.

Every general election since has continued to use FPTP, even though the Scottish Parliament, Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly all use forms of proportional representation (PR). Prime Minister Burnham has described himself as ‘a strong supporter of electoral reform’ and wants a commitment to PR in Labour’s next manifesto. More than 90 Labour MPs have backed calls for an independent commission on the voting system.

Analysis:

House of Lords and electoral reform show the same pattern as devolution: incremental change that stops short of the most radical option. The House of Lords Act 1999 and the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 both removed hereditary peers without creating an elected chamber. Likewise, the 2011 referendum rejected changing the Commons voting system, even though the devolved nations kept their own, different systems.

Evaluation:

Prime Minister Burnham‘s personal support for PR and an elected second chamber is unusually strong for a serving Prime Minister. Whether this converts into legislation depends on persuading his own party, given that the 2011 referendum result shows public and parliamentary appetite for changing Westminster’s voting system cannot be assumed.

Check your understanding 1. Explain what happened to the House of Lords in 1999 and in 2026. You could: identify what each Act removed, and note that neither created a fully elected chamber. 2. Outline the result of the 2011 referendum on the Alternative Vote, and explain why the devolved nations use a different electoral system from Westminster. You could: give the referendum result and turnout, then note which systems the Scottish Parliament, Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly use.

The Human Rights Act and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act

Two further reforms from 1997-2010 illustrate the same debate in different ways. The Human Rights Act 1998 is examined in full in Part 3, alongside the wider question of a Bill of Rights.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 set fixed five-year terms for Parliament and removed the Prime Minister’s power to request an early dissolution. It was repealed by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, which received royal assent on 24 March 2022 and restored the Prime Minister’s traditional power to call an election.

Analysis:

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is the only major post-1997 constitutional reform examined in this document to have been reversed outright, rather than extended. This makes it an exception to the general pattern of gradual extension identified elsewhere.

Evaluation:

Its repeal suggests that not every constitutional reform, once made, is treated as a one-way ratchet. Whether this makes the Fixed-term Parliaments Act episode a genuine exception, or simply a reform that was tried and found not to work, is a matter of judgement.

Part 2: Extending devolution within England

England is the only nation of the UK without its own devolved legislature. This part asks how far, and in what form, that gap should be closed.

The West Lothian Question

The West Lothian Question takes its name from Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP for West Lothian. He raised it during the 1977 debates on the (ultimately unsuccessful) Scotland and Wales devolution bills.

Dalyell asked how English MPs would tolerate Scottish MPs voting at Westminster on English domestic matters. He, as a Scottish MP, would no longer answer to his own constituents on the same matters once they were devolved.

The question sharpened once devolution began in 1999, and again after the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Further powers were then promised to the Scottish Parliament (the ‘vow’), and the UK government came under pressure to address the equivalent gap for England.

The Conservative government’s answer was English Votes for English Laws (EVEL), introduced in October 2015. The Speaker of the House of Commons could certify a bill, or parts of a bill, as relating only to England (or England and Wales). This triggered an extra Commons stage, in which only English (or English and Welsh) MPs approved the relevant provisions.

EVEL never gave English MPs an outright veto in the way a fully separate English Parliament would. It also added procedural complexity to an already complicated process. The government suspended the EVEL standing orders in April 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic, and rescinded them altogether on 13 July 2021.

Analysis:

The rise and fall of EVEL shows that the West Lothian Question is easier to identify than to solve. Westminster has not adopted a fully federal structure. EVEL addressed the symbolic unfairness of English MPs lacking a veto through a procedural fix, rather than through a genuinely separate English legislature.

Evaluation:

EVEL‘s abolition after only six years, without a replacement mechanism, suggests the West Lothian Question remains unresolved rather than settled. How much this matters in practice depends on how often England-only legislation has passed with votes from Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish MPs, which has been rare since 1999 because governments have usually held a UK-wide majority.

Check your understanding 1. Explain what is meant by the West Lothian Question. You could: focus on the asymmetry between what a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish MP can vote on at Westminster, and what an English MP cannot vote on in return. 2. Outline how English Votes for English Laws attempted to answer the West Lothian Question, and explain why it was abolished in 2021. You could: describe the certification process and the extra Commons stage first, then set out the practical and political reasons ministers gave for scrapping it.

Localism, regionalism, or an English Parliament?

Unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, England has never been given its own devolved legislature. Three broad options are usually discussed for closing this gap. Since 1997, the UK has in practice experimented mostly with the first of the three.

Option	What it involves	Advantages	Disadvantages
Localism	Power passed down to individual local councils, combined authorities and elected mayors, with different areas able to negotiate different deals.	Decisions taken closer to the communities affected. Allows areas with different needs, for example transport in Greater Manchester versus rural Cumbria, to be treated differently.	Creates a patchwork of unequal powers across England, a ‘postcode lottery’ of devolution. Does not answer the West Lothian Question, since there is still no single English voice at Westminster.
Regionalism	Elected assemblies for whole regions of England, for example the North East, sitting between local government and Westminster.	A regional tier could rebalance power away from London and the South East, and give regions with distinct economic identities a stronger voice.	Rejected decisively by voters in the 2004 North East referendum (78% against, on a 48% turnout). England’s regions also lack the strong historic identity that Scotland and Wales have.
English Parliament	A single devolved legislature for the whole of England, mirroring the Scottish Parliament and Senedd, alongside a separate, smaller UK Parliament for reserved matters.	Would directly answer the West Lothian Question by giving England the same kind of institution as the other three nations.	England’s population, around 56 million out of a UK total of around 68 million, is far larger than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined. This raises practical questions about where sovereignty would then sit.

^{Sources: House of Commons Library research briefings on English devolution and the West Lothian Question; Electoral Commission results for the 2004 North East referendum.}

In practice, England has moved furthest and fastest down the localism route. The Localism Act 2011 gave local authorities a general power of competence, and made way for the combined authorities that later gained directly elected mayors, starting with Greater Manchester in 2017.

This approach was extended substantially by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, which passed in April 2026. The Act replaced the previous patchwork of mayoral combined authorities with a clearer tier of mayoral strategic authorities, some of which can apply for ‘established’ status and a single integrated funding settlement.

Greater Manchester and the West Midlands already hold established status. West Yorkshire, the North East, the Liverpool City Region and South Yorkshire were due to receive it for the 2026/27 financial year. A further six priority areas were due to hold their first mayoral elections in May 2026.

Analysis:

The pattern since 1997 has been gradual, asymmetric localism, rather than a single decisive answer for England. Successive governments have preferred negotiated deals with individual cities and city regions over the more radical, symmetrical options of a full regional tier or an English Parliament.

Evaluation:

This incremental approach has proved more durable than regionalism, which voters rejected outright in the 2004 North East referendum. But its patchwork nature means England still has no single body that can speak for it as a whole.

Check your understanding 1. Outline the difference between localism and regionalism as answers to England’s devolution gap. You could: use the table above and give a real example of each: a named mayoral strategic authority for localism, and the 2004 North East referendum for regionalism. 2. Explain why an English Parliament would answer the West Lothian Question more directly than either localism or regionalism. You could: link your answer back to the definition of the West Lothian Question, and to what each of the three options in the table actually gives England.

Is an English Parliament the answer?

The case for an English Parliament rests on symmetry and principle. The case against rests on scale and practicality.

• The case for: an English Parliament would directly answer the West Lothian Question, which EVEL‘s abolition in 2021 left unresolved.
• It would give England the same institutional voice that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already have.
• It would create a single, accountable body for English domestic policy, rather than the current patchwork of mayoral strategic authorities.
• The case against: England’s population, around 56 million of a UK total of around 68 million, is far larger than any other devolved body would serve. This risks creating a rival centre of power to Westminster.
• The 2004 North East referendum result suggests limited public appetite for new tiers of government in England.
• The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 shows government policy continuing to favour localism over a single English institution.

Analysis:

Every UK government since 1997, of both main parties, has chosen localism over an English Parliament whenever it has had the chance to legislate on England’s institutional gap. This runs from the Localism Act 2011 through to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026.

Evaluation:

An English Parliament remains the most logically consistent answer to the West Lothian Question. But its practical disadvantages, above all the risk of creating an institution large enough to rival Westminster, have so far outweighed that logic for every government that has considered it.

Part 3: Should the UK constitution be codified and entrenched?

A separate but related debate concerns the UK constitution as a whole, rather than devolution specifically. Its rules are currently spread across statutes, such as the Human Rights Act 1998 and Constitutional Reform Act 2005, as well as common law, convention and treaty.

Should these rules be gathered into a single codified document, potentially including a new Bill of Rights? And should that document be entrenched, so that it could not be changed by an ordinary Act of Parliament in the way most law can?

The Bill of Rights debate

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, and is sometimes treated as a de facto Bill of Rights. Because it is an ordinary Act of Parliament, however, it can be amended or repealed by a simple Commons majority.

Conservative governments proposed replacing the Human Rights Act with a new British Bill of Rights from 2015 onwards. The Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab, introduced the Bill of Rights Bill to the House of Commons on 22 June 2022.

The incoming Prime Minister, Liz Truss, halted the Bill’s progress in September 2022. Her successor’s government confirmed on 27 June 2023 that it would not proceed, leaving the Human Rights Act in place.

Analysis:

The Bill of Rights Bill shows that even a government committed to a Bill of Rights in principle can struggle to agree its content or find parliamentary time for it. The project did not survive a change of prime minister.

Evaluation:

The Bill’s abandonment left the underlying question unresolved rather than settled, much like EVEL‘s abolition in Part 2. Whether a future government revives the idea of a British Bill of Rights, or leaves the Human Rights Act as it stands, remains an open question.

Check your understanding 1. Explain the difference between the Human Rights Act 1998 and a fully entrenched Bill of Rights. You could: focus on how easily each could be amended or repealed by a simple Commons majority. 2. Outline what happened to the Bill of Rights Bill between June 2022 and June 2023. You could: set out the sequence of events in order, from its introduction, through the change of prime minister, to its abandonment.

Recent proposals for wider codification

In December 2022, the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown chaired a Labour Party commission on the UK’s future. Its report, A New Britain: Renewing our Democracy and Rebuilding our Economy, set out some of the most detailed proposals for constitutional reform put forward by a major UK party in a generation.

The Brown Commission‘s report recommended replacing the House of Lords with an elected second chamber, further devolution to the nations and regions, and new independent bodies to enforce standards in public life. It stopped short of proposing a single, fully codified constitution.

The debate gained a fresh, practical edge in 2026. Andy Burnham, previously Mayor of Greater Manchester, became Prime Minister in July 2026, after Sir Keir Starmer’s resignation. Prime Minister Burnham has argued that his own plans to devolve further power away from Westminster strengthen the case for a written constitution.

Analysis:

For the first time, a serving Prime Minister has personally linked further devolution to the case for codification, rather than treating them as separate debates. This connects Parts 1 and 2 of this document directly to Part 3.

Evaluation:

Whether this raises codification‘s political priority in practice is unclear. Commentators have noted that constitutional reform is unlikely to be a major vote-winner at the next general election. Any move towards codification would also need to be debated alongside wider questions, such as electoral reform and a regional second chamber.

The table below sets out the main arguments made for and against full codification and entrenchment.

Case for codification and entrenchment	Case against codification and entrenchment
Would make the constitution clear and accessible to citizens, rather than scattered across many sources that even specialists disagree on.	The UK’s uncodified constitution has proved highly flexible, allowing reforms such as the Scotland Act 1998, Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and, most recently, the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, to be passed relatively quickly by ordinary legislation.
Would protect fundamental rights and devolved powers from being altered or removed by a government with a simple parliamentary majority.	Entrenchment would reduce parliamentary sovereignty, a principle many regard as the core feature of the UK’s constitutional tradition. It would give courts the power to strike down Acts of Parliament that conflict with the entrenched document.
Would give the judiciary clear authority to enforce constitutional rules, rather than relying on political convention that governments can choose to disregard.	Deciding what should count as fundamental enough to entrench, and getting cross-party and public agreement on the content of a Bill of Rights, would likely prove highly contentious.

Support for full codification has remained narrow and largely academic. The Liberal Democrats have for decades been the main party to formally back a codified constitution and a Bill of Rights.

Labour and the Conservatives have generally preferred targeted, incremental reform instead. Examples include the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which created the Supreme Court.

A more recent example is the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, which removed the remaining hereditary peers without codifying the constitution more broadly.

Analysis:

The pattern of reform since 1997 shows a clear preference: devolution has been extended repeatedly, but the wider constitution has never been codified. This matches the incremental, negotiated style of change identified in Parts 1 and 2. Even the Brown Commission‘s 2022 report and Prime Minister Burnham‘s 2026 remarks stop short of proposing full codification.

Evaluation:

Only one of the UK’s major parties has consistently backed codification. Entrenchment would also require cross-party and public consensus on rights and institutions that has not existed even for narrower questions, such as an English Parliament. Full codification therefore still appears unlikely in the near term, whatever the current Prime Minister’s personal view.

Check your understanding 1. Define ‘entrenchment‘ and explain why it is often discussed alongside ‘codification‘ rather than treated as identical to it. You could: note that a constitution could in theory be codified, written down in one place, without being entrenched, protected from ordinary amendment, and vice versa. 2. Outline the strongest argument for codification and the strongest argument against it, using named examples from the table above. You could: pick one argument from each side of the table and support it with a named Act or event mentioned elsewhere in this document.

Reaching an overall judgement: how far should the constitution be reformed further?

This document has examined three linked debates: whether the individual reforms since 1997 should go further, England’s devolution gap, and the case for codifying the constitution as a whole.

• The case for further reform: an English Parliament would resolve the West Lothian Question that EVEL‘s abolition left open.
• Scotland and Wales both went into their 2026 elections with fragmented results, leaving the balance of opinion on further devolved powers finely split in each case.
• Prime Minister Burnham has personally linked further devolution, an elected House of Lords and proportional representation (PR) to the case for a written constitution. This gives all three debates in this document a prominence they have lacked since the Brown Commission‘s 2022 report.
• The case for continuity: every government since 1997 has chosen localism over an English Parliament, most recently through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026.
• The House of Lords Act 1999 and the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 both removed hereditary peers without creating an elected chamber, and the 2011 referendum kept First-past-the-post (FPTP) for Westminster.
• Support for full codification has remained narrow and largely academic, even after the Bill of Rights Bill and the Brown Commission‘s report.

Reaching a judgement

Analysis:

Across all three debates, the pattern since 1997 is the same. Governments have preferred incremental, negotiated change, whether through mayoral strategic authorities, successive Scotland and Wales Acts, or single-issue statutes like the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, over a single, decisive constitutional redesign.

Evaluation:

2026 is the first year in which a serving Prime Minister has personally connected devolution, House of Lords and voting-system reform, and the case for a written constitution. This may increase the political salience of all three debates, as Burnham himself has suggested. But the same obstacles identified throughout this document remain: England’s size, the 2011 referendum result, and the difficulty of getting cross-party support for entrenchment. Incremental change therefore remains far more likely than a single, decisive settlement in the near future.

^{A fuller comparison between the UK’s devolved, asymmetric model and the codified federal systems used in the USA and elsewhere is developed separately on histpology.co.uk.}

Activities you could complete to consolidate your learning:

• Compile a pros and cons list for extending each of the four devolution settlements (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England) covered in Part 1. (Activity)
• Class debate: ‘This House believes the UK should adopt a codified, US-style constitution.’ Prepare speeches for both sides using the table in Part 3. (Activity)
• Research task: find out whether Prime Minister Burnham‘s government has taken any steps towards House of Lords or electoral reform since taking office, and compare its progress with his statements as a backbencher and mayor. (Extension)
• Research task: find the current positions of the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Reform UK parties on further constitutional reform (an English Parliament, codification, PR, or further Scottish or Welsh powers), and note where they agree and disagree. (Extension)
• Research task: find out what, if anything, Prime Minister Burnham‘s government has proposed since taking office on a written constitution, and compare it with the Brown Commission‘s 2022 proposals. (Extension)
• Assessment: write an essay answering one of the following: ‘Should there be an English Parliament?’; ‘Should the UK adopt a proportional representation (PR) system for general elections?’; or ‘Should the UK constitution be codified and entrenched?’ (Assessed task)

---

---

^{The 5-minute guide to Section A of Pearson Edexcel A Level Politics, Papers 1 and 2 (9PL0/01 and 9PL0/02)}

This is the short version of the full skills guide to the 30-mark source question that opens Section A of both papers. You will meet it as question 1(a) or 1(b), and you choose one of the two. It is marked against three assessment objectives (AOs): AO1 (knowledge and understanding), AO2 (analysis) and AO3 (evaluation), worth 10 marks each.

This guide gives you the core technique in five minutes. The full guide adds a complete worked example, on the UK constitution, and every supporting quotation in full.

1. How your 30 marks split

The 30 marks are not one lump sum for a good essay. They are three separate pots of 10 marks each, for AO1, AO2 and AO3.

AO	Marks	What you must do
AO1	10	Show accurate knowledge, both from the source and your own wider learning.
AO2	10	Compare the opinions in the source and explain why they differ.
AO3	10	Judge which arguments are stronger and build towards a reasoned conclusion.

Examiners’ report says: “Marks for analysis (AO2) and evaluation (AO3) should only be awarded where they relate to information in the source. … In AO2 and AO3, political information means source.” Pearson Edexcel Mark Scheme (Results), Summer 2023, GCE Politics Paper 1 (9PL0/01)

This is the rule that catches out the most students. Own knowledge on its own, however impressive, only ever earns AO1 marks. To gain AO2 and AO3 marks, you must use that knowledge to develop, compare or judge a point that is actually in the source. An unbalanced answer that ignores one side is also capped at Level 2, a maximum of 12 out of 30.

2. Analysis and evaluation, in short

Analysis (AO2)

Analysis is not describing what a viewpoint is, that is AO1. It means explaining connections: why two views differ, or how one piece of evidence relates to another.

Weak, AO1 only: ‘The source argues devolution increased accountability.’ Strong, AO2: ‘This is because Holyrood decisions are made by politicians voters can remove locally, closing the gap between decision-makers and the people affected.’

Evaluation (AO3)

Examiners’ report says: “Very few candidates were convincing in their AO3 judgements; using the points on one side of the argument to critique the other side showing through their argument, that one side was stronger.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, June 2023, GCE Politics 9PL0/01

Evaluation means weighing one side against the other, not writing about side A, then side B, then declaring a winner at the end. Use one argument to directly challenge the other, so the reader can see you weighing them against each other.

3. The one technique: pairing

Examiners’ report says: “The most effective approach taken was to pair up naturally competing arguments from the source (AO1), develop each point with wider knowledge in order to analyse comparatively (AO2) the strength of the arguments to lead to substantiated conclusions throughout the essay (AO3).” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, Principal Examiner Feedback, Summer 2022, GCE Politics Paper 2 (9PL0/02)

Use this four-step chain for every paragraph you write.

1.     State a claim from one side of the source (AO1).

2.     State the competing claim from the other side of the source (AO1).

3.     Explain, using your own knowledge, why these views differ (AO2).

4.     Give an interim judgement: say which view is more convincing at this point, and why (AO3).

Interim judgements genuinely raise your mark, so long as they build towards your final conclusion rather than contradicting it.

4. Structuring your answer

• Introduction: define any key terms, set up the debate, and state the view you will argue. Do not summarise the whole source, examiners see this every year and it wastes time.
• Paragraphs: build each one around a paired argument, using the four-step chain in Section 3. Cover both sides of the source across your answer as a whole.
• Conclusion: this should hold no surprises. It confirms what your interim judgements have already shown, rather than introducing a new argument at the last minute.

5. Three mistakes that cap your mark

Treating the source as comprehension, not a springboard

Examiners’ report says: “… using the source more as a comprehension than as a springboard for discussion.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, June 2023, GCE Politics 9PL0/01

Add your own knowledge to what the source says, do not just restate it.

Interim judgements that repeat what you have already said

Examiners’ report says: “A high proportion of the interim judgements just repeat what has already been written therefore not adding any real value.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, June 2023, GCE Politics 9PL0/01

Every interim judgement must move your argument forward.

Own knowledge that is not linked to the source (Paper 2)

Examiners’ report says: “Arguments that were introduced into the debate that were not drawn from the source are only rewardable with AO1.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, Principal Examiner Feedback, Summer 2022, GCE Politics Paper 2 (9PL0/02)

Anchor every AO2 and AO3 point to a line the source actually contains.

6. Timing

You have 2 hours, 120 minutes, for 84 marks, which works out at roughly 1.4 minutes per mark. Reading and planning happen inside this time, they are not extra.

Question	Marks	Suggested time
Q1: the source question (this guide)	30	about 43 minutes
Q2: the non-source Evaluate question	30	about 43 minutes
Q3: core or non-core political ideas	24	about 34 minutes
Total	84	120 minutes (2 hours)

7. Before you hand it in

• Have you covered both sides of the source, not just the side you found easier to write about?
• Is every AO2 and AO3 point tied back to the source, not just your own knowledge sitting on its own?
• Does your conclusion follow from your interim judgements, rather than introducing a new argument for the first time?

8. Want the full guide?

This short version covers the core technique: how the marks split, what analysis and evaluation actually mean, pairing, structure, common mistakes and timing. The full guide adds a complete worked example on the UK constitution, with an original practice source, a model paragraph, a full worked answer table for all three pairs, and every supporting quotation in full.

^{This is a condensed companion to the full skills guide, Answering the 30-Mark Source Question (UK constitution edition), which contains the complete worked example and full source list.}

---

^{A skills guide to Section A of Pearson Edexcel A Level Politics, Papers 1 and 2 (9PL0/01 and 9PL0/02)}

This guide is about the 30-mark source question that opens Section A of both Paper 1 (UK Politics and Core Political Ideas, 9PL0/01) and Paper 2 (UK Government and Non-core Political Ideas, 9PL0/02).

You will meet it as either question 1(a) or 1(b) on each paper, and you must choose one of the two.

It is worth 30 of the 84 marks on the paper.

This guide is not about the content you need to know, you will have covered that in class. It is about technique: exactly how to turn what you know into the marks the mark scheme is designed to reward. Every piece of advice below is backed up by a direct quotation from a Pearson Edexcel specification, mark scheme or examiners’ report, so you can see exactly where the advice comes from.

1. What the source question actually is

The source will be a single written (text) source, or a single source that combines text with simple data, such as a pie chart, a table, or a bar chart. Pearson’s own specification describes it like this.

Examiners’ report says: “These sources will be a single written (text) source only or a single source that combines both text and data (pie chart, tables, simple graphs such as a bar chart), all related in some way to UK politics.” Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Politics, Specification, Issue 1, March 2017

You will also be given some context for the source, such as where it is from and when it was written. This context will not be marked separately, but it is there to help you understand what you are reading, so use it.

The command word for this question is Evaluate, the instruction word in the question itself. This matters because the command word tells you exactly how your marks are divided. There are three Assessment Objectives: AO1 (knowledge and understanding), AO2 (analysis) and AO3 (evaluation). Section 3 of this guide explains all three in detail.

2. How your 30 marks are actually split

You must understand this before you write a single word in the exam. The 30 marks for this question are not one lump sum for a good essay, they are three separate pots of 10 marks each, for AO1, AO2 and AO3. Pearson’s command word table sets this out precisely for the Evaluate command word used in this question.

AO	Marks	Pearson’s definition	What this means for you
AO1	10	Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of political institutions, processes, concepts, theories and issues.	Show accurate knowledge, both by using what is in the source and by bringing in your own wider learning.
AO2	10	Analyse aspects of politics and political information, including in relation to parallels, connections, similarities and differences.	Compare the different opinions in the source, and explain why they differ or what lies behind each view.
AO3	10	Evaluate aspects of politics and political information, including to construct arguments, make substantiated judgements and draw conclusions.	Judge which arguments are stronger, explain why, and build towards a reasoned overall conclusion.

^{Source: Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Politics, Specification (command word table) and Mark Scheme (Results), Summer 2023, 9PL0/01.}

There is one rule buried in the mark scheme that catches out more students than any other single mistake. Your AO2 and AO3 marks, worth 20 of the 30 marks available, can only be awarded for analysis and evaluation that is tied back to the source.

Examiners’ report says: “Marks for analysis (AO2) and evaluation (AO3) should only be awarded where they relate to information in the source. … In AO2 and AO3, political information means source.” Pearson Edexcel Mark Scheme (Results), Summer 2023, GCE Politics Paper 1 (9PL0/01)

In practice, this means own knowledge on its own, however impressive, can only ever earn you AO1 marks. To turn that knowledge into AO2 and AO3 marks, you must use it to develop, compare or judge a point that is actually in the source. This is the single most important idea in this guide, and it shapes everything that follows.

The mark scheme also sets a hard ceiling for answers that ignore one side of the debate.

Examiners’ report says: “Candidates who do not undertake any comparative analysis of the source and/or have not considered both views in a balanced way cannot achieve marks beyond Level 2.” Pearson Edexcel Mark Scheme (Results), Summer 2023, GCE Politics Paper 1 (9PL0/01)

Level 2 tops out at 12 marks out of 30. That means an unbalanced answer, however fluent, is capped at 40% before the examiner even considers your evaluation. You must deal with both sides of the source, properly, every time.

3. Understanding analysis and evaluation

AO2 and AO3 are worth 20 of your 30 marks between them, and they are also the two skills students misunderstand most often. This section explains, in detail, what each skill actually involves and how you apply it, sentence by sentence, inside your answer.

What analysis (AO2) actually means

Analysis is not describing what a viewpoint is, that is AO1. Analysis is explaining connections: why two views differ, what causes a particular outcome, or how one piece of evidence relates to another. The mark scheme is specific about this for the source question.

Examiners’ report says: “Candidates should focus their comparison on analysing the different opinions in the source in terms of similarities and differences. They should look at the different approaches and views that arise from political information and show how these can form the basis for differing opinions.” Pearson Edexcel Mark Scheme (Results), Summer 2023, GCE Politics Paper 1 (9PL0/01)

The very best answers, according to the Level 5 descriptor, show perceptive comparative analysis with sustained, logical chains of reasoning. A chain of reasoning is exactly what it sounds like: a series of connected steps that link a claim to a conclusion, each step following from the last, rather than a jump straight from claim to conclusion. Compare these two versions of the same point.

• AO1, description only: The source argues that devolution has increased accountability in Scotland.
• AO2, analysis: This is because decisions on health and education are now taken by a Scottish Parliament that voters can remove at Holyrood elections, rather than by a UK government that many Scottish voters did not elect, which closes the gap between decision-makers and the people affected by their decisions.

The first version states a claim from the source. The second version explains the reasoning that makes the claim work, by identifying a mechanism (who can be removed, by whom) and a consequence (a closer gap between decision-makers and voters). That is the difference between AO1 and AO2 in practice. A useful habit is to ask yourself why, or so what, after every claim you take from the source. If you cannot answer that question in your next sentence, you have written AO1, not AO2.

What evaluation (AO3) actually means

Evaluation is not simply stating your opinion or repeating your view more forcefully in a conclusion. It means weighing arguments against each other and reaching a conclusion that is substantiated, meaning backed up with reasons and evidence, rather than just asserted. The mark scheme sets this out directly.

Examiners’ report says: “Candidates are expected to evaluate the information and arguments presented. They may rank the importance of the analysis. They should be able to make and form judgments based on the source and they should reach reasoned conclusion.” Pearson Edexcel Mark Scheme (Results), Summer 2023, GCE Politics Paper 1 (9PL0/01)

Ranking means explicitly saying that one factor matters more than another, and explaining why, for example arguing that an economic argument carries more weight than a constitutional one because of the specific evidence in front of you. Examiners have also identified exactly what separates a convincing judgement from a weak one.

Examiners’ report says: “Very few candidates were convincing in their AO3 judgements; using the points on one side of the argument to critique the other side showing through their argument, that one side was stronger.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, June 2023, GCE Politics 9PL0/01

This is the single clearest description of strong evaluation available. It does not mean writing about side A, then separately writing about side B, and declaring a winner at the end. It means using side A’s argument to directly challenge or weaken side B’s argument, so the reader can see you actively weighing the two against each other. Compare these two versions of a judgement on the same point.

• Weak, an assertion only: This shows that Labour did more to win than the Conservatives did to lose.
• Strong, substantiated and comparative: Although the Conservatives’ divisions over Europe damaged their reputation, this alone cannot explain a landslide of this scale, since opinion polls showed Labour ahead well before those divisions peaked. Labour’s disciplined campaign did more to convert that lead into actual votes, which suggests Labour did more to win than the Conservatives did to lose.

The strong version directly compares the weight of the two arguments and only reaches its judgement after doing so. The weak version simply announces a winner. As you will see in Section 4, the most reliable way to produce evaluation of this quality throughout your answer, rather than only in your conclusion, is to make an interim judgement at the end of every paragraph.

As a quick reference, keep these two questions in mind as you write. For AO2, ask yourself: why does this happen, or how do these two things connect? For AO3, ask yourself: which of these matters more, and what does that tell us overall?

4. The technique examiners praise every year: pairing

If there is one word to take from this guide, it is pairing. Pairing means taking one argument from the source and setting it directly against a competing argument from the other side, then analysing and judging them together, rather than working through the source point by point in isolation.

Examiners’ report says: “The most effective approach taken was to pair up naturally competing arguments from the source (AO1), develop each point with wider knowledge in order to analyse comparatively (AO2) the strength of the arguments to lead to substantiated conclusions throughout the essay (AO3). Given that the marks are split evenly between the three AOs, then this approach enabled students to access the higher mark bands.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, Principal Examiner Feedback, Summer 2022, GCE Politics Paper 2 (9PL0/02)

Examiners’ report says: “Regularly these arguments were well-paired, for example candidates would talk about the role of the media in both the government losing and the opposition winning. … Pairing points enhances AO2 and makes it easier to come to substantiated judgements (AO3).” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, June 2023, GCE Politics 9PL0/01

This tells you exactly how to build a paragraph. Use this four-step chain for every paragraph you write.

1.    State a claim from one side of the source (AO1).

2.    State the competing claim from the other side of the source (AO1).

3.    Explain, using your own knowledge, why these views differ, or what evidence supports or undermines each one (AO2).

4.    Judge which view is more convincing at this point in the debate, and say why. This is called an interim judgement, and it earns you AO3 marks as you go, rather than saving all your evaluation for the end.

The examiners’ reports confirm that interim judgements genuinely raise your mark, so long as they build towards, rather than contradict, your final conclusion.

Examiners’ report says: “You can make interim judgements as you go along. If these are in line with your overall argument and conclusion then this could help you to achieve more AO3 marks.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, June 2019, GCE Politics 9PL0/02

5. Structuring your answer, start to finish

Your introduction

Do not use your introduction to summarise the whole source. Examiners see this every year, and it wastes time you need for analysis and evaluation.

Examiners’ report says: “There are still some very lengthy introductions which paraphrase both sides of the source, this should be avoided.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, June 2023, GCE Politics 9PL0/01

Instead, keep your introduction short and purposeful. Define any key terms in the question, briefly set up the debate, and state the view you intend to argue.

Examiners’ report says: “Introductions that work best are punchy – detailing any key definitions, setting up the debate and indicating the view that will be argued – rather than overlong and trying to cover all the ideas from the source.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, Principal Examiner Feedback, Summer 2022, GCE Politics Paper 2 (9PL0/02)

Your paragraphs

Build each paragraph around one paired argument, using the four-step chain from Section 4. Cover both sides of the source across your answer as a whole, not just within a single paragraph, and make sure every side you discuss is genuinely developed with analysis and evaluation, not just restated.

Your conclusion

Your conclusion should not be the first place you offer a judgement. If you save all your evaluation for a single paragraph at the end, you are giving away marks that were available throughout the answer.

Examiners’ report says: “Conclusions that work best are also punchy and should be the natural conclusion from all the evaluation made throughout the essay rather than attempting to cram all the evaluation into one paragraph, given that AO3 is worth one-third of the marks.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, Principal Examiner Feedback, Summer 2022, GCE Politics Paper 2 (9PL0/02)

By the time an examiner reaches your conclusion, they should already know roughly what it will say, because your interim judgements have been building towards it all along.

6. Mistakes that cap your mark, in examiners’ own words

The mistakes below appear repeatedly in examiners’ reports across different years and both papers. Each one is capable of holding your answer down a whole level, regardless of how much you know.

Treating the source as comprehension, not a springboard

Examiners’ report says: “There were examples of candidates who provided very little additional knowledge and simply went through a series of statements from the source demonstrating the two different sides of the argument, using the source more as a comprehension than as a springboard for discussion. The task is to enhance the AO1 and displaying this will gain credit.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, June 2023, GCE Politics 9PL0/01

You must add your own knowledge to what the source says. Simply restating the source’s arguments, however accurately, will not take you into the higher levels.

Drifting away from the question, or from the source’s focus

Examiners’ report says: “Another issue was responses that moved their focus away from 1997 and tried to use the answer to talk about other elections such as 2010 and 2019. … There were only limited number of responses that ‘hijacked’ the source into a question about ‘First Past the Post’.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, June 2023, GCE Politics 9PL0/01

It is tempting to steer the answer towards a topic you have revised more thoroughly. Resist this. Stay with the exact question and the exact source in front of you.

Interim judgements that just repeat what you have already said

Examiners’ report says: “A high proportion of the interim judgements just repeat what has already been written therefore not adding any real value, the answers that gained higher levels for AO3 had judgements that added to what had already been said, to make clear judgements.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, June 2023, GCE Politics 9PL0/01

An interim judgement must move your argument forward. If it simply repeats your last sentence in different words, it is not doing its job.

Misreading key terms in the source

Examiners’ report says: “The reference to ‘minority votes’ in the source sometimes caused confusion and some candidates took it to mean a minority government. Some additionally thought that because constituency candidates only need a plurality of votes, a party only needs a plurality of seats to form a government.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, June 2023, GCE Politics 9PL0/01

Read the source slowly and check you understand every key term before you start planning. A misread term can undermine an argument you build a whole paragraph around.

Bringing in own knowledge that is not linked to the source (Paper 2, question 1)

Examiners’ report says: “It is important to note that arguments that were introduced into the debate that were not drawn from the source are only rewardable with AO1. A good example of this was debates around the effectiveness of private members bills, which were not in the source, and were often debated … rather than having a laser-like focus on the shaping of legislation.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, Principal Examiner Feedback, Summer 2022, GCE Politics Paper 2 (9PL0/02)

Own knowledge is valuable, but only once it is anchored to a point the source actually makes. Ask yourself, as you plan, which line of the source each paragraph is developing.

7. What separates a Level 3 answer from a Level 5 answer

The mark scheme uses five levels for this question, each covering a band of six marks. The table below sets out Pearson’s own wording for the bottom, middle and top levels, so you can see precisely what the examiner is looking for as your answer improves.

Level	Marks	AO1	AO2	AO3
Level 1	1–6	Superficial knowledge and understanding, with limited underpinning of analysis and evaluation.	Limited comparative analysis with partial, logical chains of reasoning, making simplistic connections between ideas.	Superficial evaluation, constructing simple arguments and judgements, many of which are descriptive and lead to limited unsubstantiated conclusions.
Level 3	13–18	Mostly accurate knowledge and understanding, many of which are selected appropriately to underpin analysis and evaluation.	Mostly focused comparative analysis with focused, logical chains of reasoning, making mostly relevant connections between ideas.	Generally relevant evaluation, constructing generally effective arguments and judgements, many of which are substantiated and lead to some focused conclusions that are sometimes justified.
Level 5	25–30	Thorough and in-depth knowledge and understanding, effectively selected to underpin analysis and evaluation.	Perceptive comparative analysis, with sustained, logical chains of reasoning, making cohesive and convincing connections between ideas.	Fully relevant evaluation, constructing fully effective arguments and judgements, which are consistently substantiated and lead to fully focused and justified conclusions.

^{Source: Pearson Edexcel Mark Scheme (Results), Summer 2023, GCE Politics Paper 1 (9PL0/01), Levels 1, 3 and 5 shown. Level 2 and Level 4 sit between these as you would expect.}

Read the three AO2 descriptions above in order: limited, mostly focused, perceptive. Then read the three AO3 descriptions: superficial, generally relevant, fully relevant and consistently substantiated. The words examiners choose are not decorative, they are the actual difference between a Level 3 and a Level 5 answer. A Level 5 answer is not simply a longer Level 3 answer. Every judgement is backed up, or substantiated. Every comparison is genuinely worked through, or sustained. The whole answer builds towards conclusions that follow logically from what has come before, which is what cohesive and convincing mean here.

8. Your method for the exam

How long should this take you?

The paper does not tell you exactly how many minutes to spend on each question, but it does tell you how to work it out yourself.

Examiners’ report says: “The marks for each question are shown in brackets – use this as a guide as to how much time to spend on each question.” Printed on the instructions page of every 9PL0 question paper, for example GCE Politics 9PL0/01, Summer 2022, and 9PL0/02, Autumn 2021

You have 2 hours, 120 minutes, for 84 marks, which works out at roughly 1.4 minutes per mark. Applied to this question, that gives you the following.

Section	Question	Marks	Suggested time
Section A	Question 1: the source question (this guide)	30	about 43 minutes
Section A	Question 2: the non-source Evaluate question	30	about 43 minutes
Section B	Question 3: core or non-core political ideas	24	about 34 minutes
Total		84	120 minutes (2 hours)

This is only a guide, not a rule an examiner enforces, but it is Pearson’s own advice, so treat it as a starting point rather than an afterthought. Reading the source and planning your pairs both happen inside your roughly 43 minutes. You are not given separate reading time, so build 4 or 5 minutes of reading and planning into that total rather than treating it as free extra time.

Timing is also one of the most consistent pieces of feedback in examiners’ reports, across very different exam series.

Examiners’ report says: “It is important that students plan their timing, and stick to it, so that they can achieve to their full potential.” Pearson Edexcel Examiners’ Report, Principal Examiner Feedback, Summer 2022, GCE Politics Paper 2 (9PL0/02)

Use this method every time you answer this question, whether in class, in a mock, or in the real exam.

1.    Read the source twice. On the first read, get an overview. On the second, underline or number the separate claims on each side of the debate.

2.    Identify three or four natural pairs of competing arguments from the source. These pairs will become your paragraphs.

3.    Decide your overall judgement before you start writing. You do not need to write it down yet, but you should know where your conclusion is heading.

4.    Write a short, focused introduction: define any key terms, set up the debate, and state the view you will argue.

5.    Write one paragraph per pair, following the four-step AO1, AO1, AO2, AO3 chain from Section 4.

6.    End each paragraph with an interim judgement that adds something new, not a repeat of what you have just said.

7.    Write a short conclusion that confirms what your paragraphs have already shown. It should contain no surprises for a reader who has followed your argument.

8.    In the last few minutes, check that you have covered both sides of the source in a genuinely balanced way, and that every analytical or evaluative point is tied back to something the source actually says.

Before you hand it in, check

• Have you covered both sides of the source, not just the side you found easier to write about?
• Is every AO2 and AO3 point tied back to something the source actually says, not just your own knowledge sitting on its own?
• Does your conclusion follow naturally from your interim judgements, rather than introducing a new argument for the first time?
• Have you avoided paraphrasing the whole source in your introduction?

9. Worked example: a full practice question on the UK constitution

The best way to see this method in action is to work through a full question. The practice question below is written in the same format as the real 9PL0/02 source question and covers the nature of the UK constitution, part of the constitution content area of UK Government. It is an original question written for this guide, not an official Pearson paper, but it follows the same structure: a source setting out two sides of a debate, followed by an Evaluate question.

The source

^{Context: the following source is an original practice extract, written for this guide, on whether the UK should adopt a codified constitution. It is written to roughly the same length, around 220 words, as a genuine Pearson source.}

Parliament’s power to reshape the constitution through an ordinary Act, most recently by ending hereditary peers’ right to sit in the House of Lords in 2026, is proof to some that no citizen’s right is ever truly secure. The Human Rights Act 1998 could, in principle, be repealed by the same simple majority that passed it, unlike the entrenched protections in the US Bill of Rights. Nor is the constitution easy to find. Rather than sitting in one document, it is scattered across statute, common law, convention and treaty, leaving ordinary citizens dependent on lawyers and officials to work out what actually applies.

Yet this flexibility has let the constitution adapt without a single rupture across eight centuries, from Magna Carta through devolution to Brexit. None of it required the drawn-out amendment procedure that has left the US Constitution largely unchanged since the eighteenth century. Even without codification, the rule of law has proved a real constraint. In Miller (No.1), the Supreme Court stopped the government triggering Article 50 by prerogative power alone, and judges have since treated statutes like the Human Rights Act as ‘constitutional’, deserving stronger protection than ordinary law. A codified constitution would hand unelected judges the American power to strike down Acts of Parliament altogether, trading a flexibility that has adapted for eight centuries for a rigidity nobody has actually agreed the content of.

The question

Evaluate the view that the UK should adopt a codified constitution.

Planning your answer

Before writing, identify your pairs. Notice that, unlike the tidy worked examples earlier in this guide, this source does not label its two sides for you, it argues its case in flowing prose, much like a genuine exam source. Reading it with a pencil, you should still be able to find three natural pairs of competing arguments, but finding them is itself part of the task.

• Pair 1: the constitution is scattered across several sources and hard for citizens to locate, against the flexibility that has let it adapt without rupture for eight centuries.
• Pair 2: the Human Rights Act 1998 could be repealed by an ordinary parliamentary majority because it is not entrenched, against Miller (No.1) showing the rule of law is a real constraint even without codification.
• Pair 3: Parliament’s power to alter constitutional arrangements through an ordinary Act, shown by the 2026 Act on hereditary peers, against codification handing unelected judges the power to strike down Acts of Parliament.

A model paragraph

Here is Pair 1 written out in full, using the four-step chain from Section 4. The AO labels are shown in brackets so you can see exactly where each mark is coming from, you would not include these labels in your own answer.

Model paragraph: “The source argues that the UK constitution is hard to find. It says that rather than sitting in one document, the constitution is scattered across statute, common law, convention and treaty, so ordinary citizens depend on lawyers and officials to work out what applies (AO1). Against this, the source points out that this same flexibility has let the constitution adapt without a single rupture across eight centuries, from Magna Carta through devolution to Brexit (AO1). These claims pull in different directions because what looks like disorder from one angle looks like adaptability from the other. The US Constitution, by contrast, has stayed largely unchanged since the eighteenth century precisely because entrenchment makes it hard to alter (AO2). Being difficult to locate is a real cost for an ordinary citizen trying to understand their rights, but it has not stopped the constitution responding to eight centuries of political change. On this pair, the case for codification looks weaker than the case for keeping things as they are (AO3, an interim judgement).” Model paragraph written for this guide, not an official Pearson exemplar

The complete answer, step by step

The paragraph above shows what Pair 1 looks like written out as continuous exam prose. The table below shows the complete answer, all three pairs, with the four steps from Section 4 broken out into their own columns so you can see exactly where every mark comes from.

Pair	AO1: source claim	AO1: competing claim	AO2: analysis	AO3: interim judgement
Pair 1	The constitution is scattered across statute, common law, convention and treaty, so ordinary citizens depend on lawyers to work out what applies.	This same flexibility has let the constitution adapt without a single rupture across eight centuries, from Magna Carta through devolution to Brexit.	What looks like disorder from one angle looks like adaptability from the other. The US Constitution has stayed largely unchanged since the eighteenth century precisely because entrenchment makes it hard to alter.	Being hard to locate is a real cost for an ordinary citizen, but it has not stopped the constitution responding to centuries of political change, so this pair favours keeping things as they are.
Pair 2	The Human Rights Act 1998 could, in principle, be repealed by the same simple majority that passed it, unlike the entrenched US Bill of Rights.	Even without codification, the rule of law has proved a real constraint: in Miller (No.1), the Supreme Court stopped the government triggering Article 50 by prerogative power alone.	Judges have also started treating statutes like the Human Rights Act as ‘constitutional’, deserving stronger protection than ordinary law. The absence of formal entrenchment has not meant an absence of any protection at all.	The Human Rights Act’s legal vulnerability is real, but Miller (No.1) shows courts have found ways to defend constitutional principles without codification, so this pair is more finely balanced than the first.
Pair 3	Parliament’s power to reshape the constitution through an ordinary Act, most recently ending hereditary peers’ right to sit in the House of Lords in 2026, shows that no arrangement is ever truly secure.	A codified constitution would hand unelected judges the American power to strike down Acts of Parliament altogether.	Trading Parliament’s flexibility for that kind of judicial power would shift political authority away from elected representatives and towards the courts. That is a democratic cost, not just a technical one.	Since nobody has actually agreed what a codified UK constitution would contain, this pair suggests codification would trade a known, if imperfect, flexibility for a rigidity whose content and consequences remain genuinely uncertain.

^{Table written for this guide, not an official Pearson exemplar. AO labels are shown here so you can see the method, real answers would not label them.}

A model introduction and conclusion

Keep the introduction short and purposeful, as Section 5 explains, and make sure the conclusion follows from what has come before rather than introducing anything new.

• Introduction: Whether the UK should adopt a codified constitution is one of the longest-running debates in Politics, and it remains unresolved for a reason. This answer will argue that the case against codification is stronger, because the flexibility and judicial checks the current arrangement already provides outweigh the accessibility and entrenchment problems codification would solve, even though those problems are real.
• Conclusion: The UK constitution is genuinely hard for ordinary citizens to locate, and rights such as those in the Human Rights Act remain legally vulnerable to a simple parliamentary majority. But the same flexibility has allowed the constitution to adapt for eight centuries without rupture, and cases such as Miller (No.1) show the rule of law can constrain government even without codification. On balance, therefore, the case against adopting a codified constitution is stronger than the case for it.

Together, the introduction, the three paragraphs set out in the table above and the conclusion make a complete answer of the kind a Level 5 response would follow.

---

Almost thirty years after the 1997 referendums, this is the biggest evaluative question about devolution in the UK, and experts disagree on the answer.

The case that devolution has strengthened the union

• The constitutional historian Vernon Bogdanor has argued that devolution, together with reforms such as the Human Rights Act 1998, forms part of a coherent new constitutional settlement. In his view, this settlement manages the UK’s internal differences without the country having to break apart.
• The 2014 Scottish independence referendum produced a clear No result, 55.3% to 44.7%. This shows devolution can hold strong nationalist feeling inside the union, rather than being a step on the way to the union breaking up.
• Devolved powers have kept expanding through negotiation, not crisis: the Scotland Act 2016, the Wales Act 2017, and the return of the Northern Ireland Executive in 2024 all show the settlements can adapt to new pressure and survive it.

The case that devolution has weakened the union

• The political scientist Michael Keating has studied devolution in states made up of more than one nation. He has argued that giving a nation its own parliament does not usually satisfy demands for self-government, it tends to strengthen them instead, making devolution a step towards greater independence rather than a stable end point.
• In the 2026 elections, nationalist or regionalist parties finished first in both Scotland (the SNP) and Wales (Plaid Cymru) at the same time, for the first time ever, while Reform UK surged into second place in both nations and Welsh Labour collapsed to its worst ever result. This suggests devolved elections are now fought and won on questions that the UK-wide parties do not control.
• Northern Ireland’s Executive has had no government for roughly nine of the last twenty-eight years. Even its carefully designed power-sharing system has not produced stable government.

Reaching a judgement

Both sides of this argument are based on real evidence, not just opinion. Reaching a judgement means weighing the fact that the institutions themselves have lasted against the direction that politics inside them is moving.

Analysis

The devolved institutions have proved lasting. No devolved parliament has ever been abolished, and even Northern Ireland’s suspended Executive has always eventually come back. This supports Bogdanor’s view that devolution is a stable, settled part of the constitution, rather than a temporary stopping point.

Evaluation

But lasting institutions are not the same as a strengthened union. By 2026, the two most nationalist or anti-establishment parties available, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, are leading minority governments in Scotland and Wales at the same time, for the first time ever. This suggests Keating’s argument, that devolution is a step towards more autonomy, better fits the political trend in 2026 than Bogdanor’s argument does, even though the institutions Bogdanor described have not actually broken down.

This brings us back to where to where we began.

Ron Davies said devolution would be “a process, not an event”. The evidence gathered here, three further Scotland Acts, three further Wales Acts, a completely new Senedd voting system, a fourth breakdown and restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive, the rise and fall of EVEL, and a former metro mayor becoming Prime Minister and pushing for more devolution, all inside thirty years, shows that this process has not slowed down. If anything, 2026 has shown it more clearly than almost any year since 1999: devolution is still very much a process, and not yet, perhaps never, a finished event.

_{^{This document focuses on the UK’s own devolved settlements. For a comparison with genuinely federal systems, such as the United States or Germany, see the separate material on federalism on histpology.co.uk.}}

---

next –

Devolution has done more than just reorganise how the UK is governed. It has changed what people in different parts of the UK experience from government, and it has changed the relationship between the four nations and Westminster, sometimes in ways that were not fully expected back in 1997 and 1998.

Policy divergence

Because devolved bodies can make their own policy in devolved areas, government in the four nations has become noticeably different since 1999, especially in health and education.

Nation	Policy area	Divergence from England
Scotland	Higher education	Abolished tuition fees for Scottish and EU students studying in Scotland, funded instead through general taxation.
Scotland	Public health	Introduced a ban on smoking in enclosed public places in 2006, a year ahead of England’s equivalent ban in 2007.
Wales	Health	Abolished prescription charges in 2007, several years before any equivalent policy was considered in England.
Wales	Organ donation	Introduced a presumed consent (opt-out) system for organ donation in 2015, years ahead of England’s equivalent 2020 change.
Northern Ireland	Social policy	Retained more restrictive abortion law than the rest of the UK until Westminster legislated directly in 2019, while the Assembly was suspended.

^{Source: devolved government policy announcements; House of Commons Library briefings.}

Strains on the union

• Since EVEL was scrapped in 2021, the West Lothian Question has had no answer at Westminster. MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can still vote on England-only matters, but English MPs cannot vote on the same devolved matters elsewhere.
• The Barnett formula, which decides how each nation’s funding changes every year, has been criticised for not properly reflecting need. This is why Wales was given a special “funding floor” from 2015, guaranteeing that its spending would never fall below 115% of the same spending in England per person, an admission that the formula alone was treating Wales unfairly.
• Brexit put pressure on the Sewel convention. The UK Internal Market Act 2020 was meant to stop the four nations regulating goods and services differently after leaving the EU, but the Scottish and Welsh governments saw this as Westminster taking back powers that should have gone to them instead, and they refused to give their consent. Westminster passed the law anyway.
• Nationalist and regionalist parties have kept winning devolved elections. The SNP stayed the largest party at Holyrood in 2026, and Plaid Cymru won its first ever Senedd election the same year. This suggests devolved politics is increasingly fought over issues, such as independence or Wales’s constitutional future, that the UK-wide parties do not control.

Analysis	Devolution has caused two different but connected effects. One is policy divergence, where devolved bodies simply make different choices using powers they already have. The other is constitutional strain, where the boundary between devolved and reserved power is itself argued over, especially around Brexit and funding.
Evaluation	The first effect is a straightforward success for devolution: it lets different nations reflect different public preferences. The second is more worrying for the health of the union. Repeated arguments over the Sewel convention and the Barnett formula show that the basic rules of devolution are still being fought over, almost thirty years after 1998, rather than settled for good.

Check your understanding 1. Give two examples of policy divergence between Scotland or Wales and England, and explain what makes each possible. You could: use two different rows from the table above and explain which devolved power allows each policy. 2. Explain how Brexit created tension between the Sewel convention and the UK Internal Market Act 2020. You could: explain what the Sewel convention normally requires before covering why the devolved governments viewed the 2020 Act as breaching it.

---

next – has devolution strengthened or weakened the Union?

England is the only one of the four nations without its own devolved parliament or government. Instead, devolution in England has grown piece by piece, through city and regional deals agreed individually with central government, alongside separate reforms aimed at giving ordinary local councils more freedom.

The London Assembly and the Mayor of London

The Greater London Authority Act 1999 created the UK’s first directly elected mayor, and a 25-member London Assembly to scrutinise them (14 members elected for constituencies by First Past the Post, and 11 elected London-wide by the Additional Member System). The Mayor controls Transport for London, oversees the Metropolitan Police through the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and leads on planning and economic development, with a budget of more than £20 billion. The Elections Act 2022 changed how the Mayor is elected, from the Supplementary Vote to First Past the Post, starting in 2024 (the Assembly’s own voting system was not affected). Sadiq Khan, Labour, won a third term as Mayor in May 2024.

Directly elected mayors and combined authority devolution deals

The Local Government Act 2000 let individual councils choose to have a directly elected mayor for their own area. Separately, from 2014, groups of neighbouring councils have been able to join together as a combined authority. In exchange for having a directly elected “metro mayor”, a combined authority receives devolved powers over transport, skills, housing and economic development across a wider city region.

The first was Greater Manchester in 2017, whose first mayor was Andy Burnham. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 provided the legal framework for this model, and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, which became law on 29 April 2026, rebranded these bodies as strategic authority mayors and gave them further powers over housing, transport, employment support and energy.

By 2026 there were 14 mayoral combined or strategic authorities in England, including Greater Manchester, the West Midlands, West Yorkshire, the Liverpool City Region, South Yorkshire, Tees Valley, the Northeast, the East Midlands, York and North Yorkshire, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, the West of England, Hull and East Yorkshire, and Greater Lincolnshire, alongside London.

Andy Burnham: from metro mayor to Prime Minister

Devolution in England then took an unexpected turn. On 20 July 2026, Andy Burnham resigned as Mayor of Greater Manchester to become Prime Minister, after Keir Starmer stood down. This meant the country’s first ever metro mayor was now leading the whole of the UK government, and Burnham made devolution one of his first priorities in office.

On 30 July 2026, he announced that combined authority mayors would be allowed to keep a share of the income tax and business rates raised in their own areas, replacing part of the current system, where they simply receive a grant from central government. Burnham said this would help him “take power out of Westminster and carry it into every postcode in the country”. Full details, including exactly how much money each region would keep, were expected in the Autumn Budget 2026.

Localism

The Localism Act 2011 took a different approach: strengthening ordinary local councils, rather than creating new devolved regional bodies. It gave English councils a general power of competence, meaning they could do anything an individual could legally do, unless a law specifically stopped them. Before this, councils could only do things they had been specifically given permission to do (the ultra vires principle). The Act also introduced neighbourhood planning, letting local communities write their own binding planning rules, and gave communities the right to bid to take over local buildings and services, such as a pub or library, that were under threat of closing.

English Votes for English Laws (EVEL)

English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) was introduced by David Cameron’s government in 2015.

It was a partial answer to the West Lothian Question, a problem first pointed out by the Labour MP Tam Dalyell in a House of Commons debate in 1977. Dalyell asked why MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could vote on England-only issues, such as health or education in England, when English MPs could not vote on the same issues in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, because those had been devolved.

Under EVEL, the Speaker of the House of Commons decided whether a bill applied only to England (or England and Wales). If it did, MPs for the relevant nation had to approve it in a separate stage before the whole House of Commons voted on it.

EVEL was suspended in April 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Commons formally scrapped it in July 2021.

Since then, the West Lothian Question has had no procedural answer at all.

Mechanism	What it does	Example
London-wide devolution	A directly elected Mayor and Assembly with control over transport, policing oversight and planning across Greater London.	Greater London Authority Act 1999; Sadiq Khan, Mayor since 2016.
Combined authority mayors	Devolution deals giving a directly elected mayor control over transport, skills and housing across a city region.	Greater Manchester (2017); 14 mayoral authorities by 2026.
Localism	General powers and planning rights for ordinary councils and communities, not tied to a directly elected mayor.	General power of competence and neighbourhood planning, Localism Act 2011.
EVEL	A Commons procedure giving England-only legislation a separate consent stage among English MPs.	In force 2015 to 2020; standing orders rescinded 2021.

^{Source: Greater London Authority Act 1999; Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016; Localism Act 2011; House of Commons Library.}

Analysis

Devolution in England is different in kind, not just in size, from devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Instead of one settlement covering the whole nation, England has a single directly elected government only in London, a growing but incomplete patchwork of mayors in some city regions, and, since 2021, no procedure at all to deal with the West Lothian Question.

Evaluation

This makes England’s devolution the least finished part of the whole post-1997 settlement. Scrapping EVEL removed the only attempt to give English MPs a distinct voice at Westminster, without replacing it with anything else. Even the fact that a former metro mayor, Andy Burnham, is now Prime Minister and pushing for more powers for English mayors shows how unfinished this settlement still is, almost thirty years after Scotland and Wales got their own parliaments.

Check your understanding 1. Outline the powers of a combined authority mayor such as the Mayor of Greater Manchester. You could: name at least two policy areas from the table above. 2. Explain the West Lothian Question and why the abolition of EVEL in 2021 left it unanswered. You could: explain the original anomaly identified by Tam Dalyell before explaining what EVEL attempted to do and why removing it reopened the problem. 3. Explain why Andy Burnham becoming Prime Minister in July 2026 is significant for the study of devolution in England. You could: link his background as the UK’s first metro mayor to the devolution reforms he has since announced as Prime Minister. 4. “Devolution in England is fundamentally different from devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.” Evaluate this view. You should: compare the existence of a single national settlement in the other three nations with England’s patchwork of London, mayoral deals and localism, before reaching a judgement on whether this is a difference of degree or of kind.

---

next – the impact of devolution in the UK

The Good Friday Agreement (also called the Belfast Agreement) was signed on 10 April 1998. It was a peace deal, and it was approved by referendums in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

It ended most of the violence of the Troubles.

The Northern Ireland Act 1998 turned this agreement into UK law.

It created the Northern Ireland Assembly, which today has 90 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs). They are elected from 18 constituencies using the Single Transferable Vote, a proportional system chosen specifically to make sure both unionist and nationalist communities would be properly represented.

Key terms Cross-community consent: a special voting rule used for the Assembly’s most important decisions. Instead of a simple majority, these decisions need either separate majorities among both unionist and nationalist Members, or a large majority (at least 60% of all Members, including at least 40% from each community). d’Hondt formula: a mathematical method used to share out ministerial jobs between parties, in proportion to how many Assembly seats each party won. This means the Executive (the Northern Ireland government) automatically includes ministers from rival unionist and nationalist parties, rather than one party choosing all the ministers itself. Transferred, reserved and excepted powers: Northern Ireland divides power into three categories, not just the two used in Scotland and Wales. Transferred (devolved) powers are the Assembly’s normal responsibility. Reserved powers stay with Westminster for now, but could be handed to the Assembly later if everyone agrees. Excepted powers stay with Westminster permanently.

The First Minister and deputy First Minister share equal power in a joint office, and each must come from one of the two largest political groups. Michelle O’Neill of Sinn Féin became First Minister, and Emma Little-Pengelly of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) became deputy First Minister, on 3 February 2024. This was the first time a nationalist had held the office of First Minister, and the first time a unionist had held the deputy role.

Category	Definition	Examples
Transferred (devolved)	The default competence of the Assembly and Executive: anything not reserved or excepted.	Health, education, agriculture, and, since 2010, justice and policing (following the Hillsborough Agreement).
Reserved	Held by Westminster for now, but could in future be transferred to the Assembly by agreement.	Some aspects of criminal justice, broadcasting regulation, financial services regulation.
Excepted	Permanently retained by Westminster; not open to future transfer.	The constitution, defence and national security, immigration, elections to the UK Parliament.

^{Source: Northern Ireland Act 1998, Schedules 2 and 3.}

Power-sharing in Northern Ireland has often broken down.

The Executive was suspended from 2002 to 2007, after allegations linked to paramilitary activity.

It was suspended again from 2017 to 2020, after a scandal over a mismanaged green energy scheme (the Renewable Heat Incentive) and a dispute over the Irish language.

It was suspended a third time from February 2022 to February 2024, when the DUP refused to nominate a First Minister in protest at post-Brexit trading rules for Northern Ireland (the Northern Ireland Protocol). It only returned after the UK and the EU agreed a new deal, the Windsor Framework, in 2023, and the UK government made further commitments in early 2024.

Analysis

Northern Ireland’s three categories of power, and its cross-community voting rules, exist for a reason. A simple majority system would let unionists, historically the larger community, outvote nationalists on every contested issue. So the Good Friday Agreement deliberately built in power-sharing rules, mandatory coalition through the d’Hondt formula and cross-community consent, that trade some efficiency for guaranteed inclusion of both communities.

Evaluation

This trade-off has a real cost. Because either the largest unionist party or the largest nationalist party can effectively block the Executive by refusing to take office, Stormont has had no working government for roughly nine of the twenty-eight years since the Good Friday Agreement, including a full two years from 2022 to 2024. This suggests the settlement guarantees inclusion, but at the price of frequent breakdowns.

Check your understanding 1. Explain the difference between reserved and excepted powers in Northern Ireland. You could: give one named example of each from the table above. 2. To what extent does the Northern Ireland Executive’s history of suspensions suggest that its power-sharing model is unworkable? You should: weigh the frequency and length of suspensions (give specific years) against the fact that the institutions have always eventually been restored, before reaching a judgement.

---

next – devolution in England

Welsh devolution started from a much weaker position than Scotland’s, and had to be built up in stages. The Government of Wales Act 1998 created a National Assembly for Wales but only gave it secondary powers. This meant it could apply and adapt laws that Westminster had already passed, but it could not make brand new laws of its own. The Government of Wales Act 2006 let the Assembly ask Westminster for specific new powers. Then, in a 2011 referendum, 63.5% of people voted yes to giving the Assembly full law-making power over the subjects it already controlled, without needing Westminster’s permission each time.

The Wales Act 2014 gave Wales some devolved taxes for the first time: business rates, a land transaction tax (replacing stamp duty), and landfill tax. It also offered a referendum on devolving income tax, but this was later dropped as unnecessary. The Wales Act 2017 then moved Wales onto the same reserved powers model used in Scotland, replacing the older, more confusing conferred powers model. Welsh rates of income tax began in April 2019, without a referendum after all. The Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 renamed the body Senedd Cymru, the Welsh Parliament.

The 2026 Senedd election: a new voting system, a new government

The Senedd grew from 60 to 96 members for the election on 7 May 2026. Members are now elected from 16 constituencies, each electing six members, using a closed list proportional system: parties rank their own candidates in advance, and the D’Hondt formula shares out seats to match each party’s share of the vote. This replaced the old system, the Additional Member System, used since 1999. Plaid Cymru won the most seats, 43, with Reform UK close behind in second place on 34. Welsh Labour, in power every year since devolution began in 1999, collapsed to just 9 seats, its worst ever result. The outgoing First Minister, Eluned Morgan, even lost her own seat, the first time this has happened to a serving head of a UK government. Rhun ap Iorwerth of Plaid Cymru was elected the new First Minister, leading a minority Plaid Cymru government.

Feature	Scotland	Wales
Legislative model	Reserved powers model since 1998	Conferred powers model 1998 to 2017; reserved powers model since the Wales Act 2017
Primary law-making	From 1998 (Scotland Act 1998)	From 2011, after a referendum; automatic since the Wales Act 2017
Income tax	Full control of rates and bands on non-savings, non-dividend income (Scotland Act 2016)	Welsh rates set on top of a UK rate reduced by 10p per band (Wales Act 2017), from 2019
Justice and policing	Devolved	Reserved to Westminster (a major remaining asymmetry with Scotland)
Legislature size and system	129 MSPs, Additional Member System	96 Members from 2026, closed list proportional representation

^{Source: Government of Wales Act 1998; Government of Wales Act 2006; Wales Act 2014; Wales Act 2017; Scotland Act 1998; Scotland Act 2016; Senedd Cymru.}

Analysis

Wales’s powers have followed the same path as Scotland’s, but roughly ten years behind at each stage: primary law-making came in 2011, compared with 1998 for Scotland, the reserved powers model came in 2017, compared with 1998, and Welsh income tax began in 2019, compared with 2016 for the Scottish rate. Over time, the two nations’ powers have moved closer together.

Evaluation

The gap has not fully closed. Justice and policing are still devolved in Scotland but reserved in Wales, probably the biggest remaining difference between them. The 2026 election result, the first ever Welsh Government not led by Labour, elected under a brand new voting system, shows that Welsh devolution can still change fundamentally, even after almost thirty years. This is exactly the kind of ongoing change that Ron Davies’s “process, not an event” describes.

Check your understanding 1. Compare the income tax powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. You could: use the comparison table above and be precise about what each body can and cannot vary. 2. “The Welsh devolution settlement has now caught up with Scotland’s.” Evaluate this view. You should: weigh the areas where Wales has converged with Scotland (primary law-making, the reserved powers model) against the areas where it has not (justice and policing), before reaching a judgement on how far “caught up” is accurate.

---

next – the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive

The 1997 to 1998 settlements were not designed from a single blueprint. Each one reflected the different history, legal system and political pressures of the nation concerned.

• Scotland has always had its own legal system, its own national church and its own education system, protected since the Acts of Union of 1706 to 1707. It also had a strong, long-running movement for self-government (the SNP had already been winning seats at Westminster since the 1970s). In the 1997 referendum, 74.3% of Scottish voters said yes to a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers. Because of this clear result, the Scotland Act 1998 gave the new Scottish Parliament full primary law-making powers right from the start.
• Wales does not have its own legal system, it shares one with England, and it had a much weaker tradition of nationalist politics. The 1997 referendum in Wales passed by only 50.3% to 49.7%, on a turnout of just 50.1%, a majority of fewer than 7,000 votes. Because the result was so close, the Government of Wales Act 1998 gave the new Welsh Assembly only secondary powers: it could put Westminster’s laws into practice, but it could not make brand new laws of its own. It took the Government of Wales Act 2006, a further referendum in 2011, and finally the Wales Act 2017 for Wales to catch up with Scotland’s level of powers.
• Northern Ireland’s devolution was not really about a referendum campaign at all. It was about ending the Troubles, a violent conflict that ran from 1968 to 1998 between mostly Protestant unionists, who wanted Northern Ireland to stay part of the UK, and mostly Catholic nationalists, who wanted a united Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 was a peace deal, and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 turned it into law. Because the aim was to keep both communities on board, the Act built in mandatory power-sharing between unionist and nationalist parties, rather than simply letting whichever party won the most seats govern alone, as happens in Scotland and Wales.
• England was not given a devolved government of its own. England’s population, over 55 million people, is far bigger than Scotland’s (about 5.5 million), Wales’s (about 3.1 million) and Northern Ireland’s (about 1.9 million) put together. It would be strange to have a separate English parliament sitting alongside a UK Parliament that is already dominated by English MPs. Because of this, devolution in England has instead grown city by city and region by region, rather than through one single settlement.

Analysis	The size of each settlement in 1998 depended on how strong the demand for self-government was, and how urgent the problem being solved was. Scotland’s clear national identity, and the need to end violence in Northern Ireland, both justified bigger changes than Wales’s narrow, less certain referendum result.
Evaluation	This explains why the four nations started with different amounts of power, but it also caused a problem. A settlement built to fit 1998, especially Wales’s uncertain, narrow result, has needed to be redesigned repeatedly, and Wales did not reach a reserved powers model like Scotland’s until 2017, almost twenty years later.

Check your understanding 1. Explain two reasons why Scotland was given a stronger devolution settlement than Wales in 1998. You could: point to the different 1997 referendum results and to Scotland’s separate legal system as two distinct, named reasons. 2. To what extent was Northern Ireland’s devolution settlement shaped by different considerations from Scotland’s and Wales’s? You should: structure your answer around the Good Friday Agreement and cross-community power-sharing as the distinctive feature, then reach a judgement on how far this makes Northern Ireland a genuinely different type of devolution rather than just a different amount of it.

---

next – the Scottish Parliament and Government