The Scotland Act 1998 set up the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, in Edinburgh. It has 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs). 73 are elected for individual constituencies using First Past the Post, the same system used at Westminster. The other 56 are elected from eight larger regions using the Additional Member System, which is more proportional (this means the number of seats a party wins is closer to their share of the vote). Whoever can lead a government with the Parliament’s support becomes First Minister, heading the Scottish Government.

Scotland uses a reserved powers model. This means the Scottish Parliament can make laws on anything that is not specifically reserved for Westminster. Devolved areas include health, education, justice and policing, local government, farming, the environment, housing and most transport. Reserved areas include the constitution, defence, foreign policy, immigration, most benefits, and the civil service.

Year	Act	Key powers added
1998	Scotland Act 1998	Established the Scottish Parliament with primary legislative powers over all matters not reserved to Westminster, and a limited power to vary the basic rate of income tax by up to 3p (never used).
2012	Scotland Act 2012	Introduced the Scottish rate of income tax (a fixed reduction in the UK rate, with Holyrood setting a replacement rate) and new borrowing powers, implementing the Calman Commission’s recommendations.
2016	Scotland Act 2016	Gave the Scottish Parliament full control over income tax rates and bands (excluding the personal allowance) on non-savings, non-dividend income, further welfare powers, and assignment of a share of VAT revenue; also put the Parliament and the Sewel convention on a statutory footing, describing the Parliament as “permanent”.

^{Source: Scotland Act 1998; Scotland Act 2012; Scotland Act 2016; Scottish Parliament Information Centre.}

The 2026 Scottish Parliament election

In the election on 7 May 2026, the SNP stayed the largest party with 57 seats, but this was well short of the 65 seats needed for a majority. Labour and Reform UK tied for second place, each winning 17 seats, Scottish Labour’s worst result at Holyrood since devolution began. John Swinney, the SNP leader, was re-elected First Minister on 19 May 2026. He said he would lead a minority government, meaning he would need to win support from other parties, issue by issue, rather than forming a full coalition.

Analysis	The Scottish Parliament’s powers have grown in three clear steps: 1998, 2012 and 2016. Each step gave Holyrood more control over tax, while defence, foreign policy and most welfare stayed with Westminster. This has turned Holyrood from a body that simply spent money handed to it through the Barnett formula into one that also has to raise some of its own money.
Evaluation	This growth in tax powers matters because it makes the Scottish Government more accountable for its own decisions. This has become even more important since 2026, because a minority SNP government under John Swinney now must negotiate both tax and spending with a divided Parliament, rather than simply relying on a grant it did not have to justify.

Check your understanding 1. Outline the main powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament by the Scotland Act 2016. You could: cover both the income tax powers and the welfare or VAT provisions, and note what stayed reserved. 2. Explain why the outcome of the 2026 Scottish Parliament election makes the SNP’s position different from a majority government. You could: explain what a minority government has to do differently from a majority one, referencing the specific seat numbers.

---

next – the Welsh Senedd (Parliament) and Government

---

^{Edexcel A-level Politics: UK Government, component 1.3 — the role and powers of devolved bodies in the UK, and the impact of devolution on the UK}

“Devolution is a process, not an event.”

^{— Ron Davies, Secretary of State for Wales, 1997}

Ron Davies said this just before the 1997 devolution referendums, and it has turned out to be one of the most accurate predictions in British politics.

What began in 1997 to 1998 as three quite different settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, plus a patchwork of arrangements for England, has kept changing almost every year since.

In May 2026, Scotland and Wales both elected new governments under new voting rules.

Then, in July 2026, devolution reached the very top of UK government: Andy Burnham, who had been the UK’s first ever directly elected metro mayor (in Greater Manchester, since 2017), became Prime Minister after Keir Starmer resigned.

Burnham has made devolution one of his top priorities in office, announcing plans in late July 2026 to let English mayors keep a share of the income tax raised in their own areas. Section 5 explains this in more detail.

The pages in this section set out the powers of each devolved body, explains why the four nations were given different settlements, and evaluates what nearly three decades of devolution have done to the UK as a whole.

Key terms Devolution: the transfer of power from the central UK government to national or regional bodies, such as the Scottish Parliament, so they can make some decisions for themselves. Westminster still keeps the ultimate legal power to take this power back or overrule it. Unitary state: a state where supreme legal power belongs to one central government. This is different from a federal state (such as the USA), where power is shared out between the centre and regional governments by law. The UK stays a unitary state despite devolution, because Westminster could, in theory, abolish the devolved bodies. Quasi-federal: a term some experts use for the UK today. The UK is not a federal state in law, but some devolved powers now feel very hard to reverse in practice, especially since the Scotland Act 2016 called the Scottish Parliament “permanent”. This makes the UK behave a little like a federal state, even though it is not one in law. Reserved powers and devolved powers: under a reserved powers model, a devolved body can make laws on anything that has not specifically been kept back (“reserved”) for Westminster. Scotland has used this model since 1998, and Wales since 2017. Wales used a different, more confusing model from 1998 to 2017, the conferred powers model, where it could only make laws on subjects that had specifically been listed as devolved. Sewel convention: a rule, but not a law, that Westminster will normally ask a devolved body for its consent before changing its powers, or making law on a devolved matter. Because it is only a convention, not a law, Westminster can break it if it chooses to. Asymmetric devolution: the fact that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England have all been given different powers and different institutions, rather than one single system used everywhere.

---

next – why the four nations received different settlements

Returning to Bogdanor’s claim that the reforms since 1997 amount to a “quiet revolution” that has produced, in effect, a new constitution, the evidence gathered across the four periods above can be read two ways.

The case for “revolution”

• Devolution has reshaped territorial governance so thoroughly that abolishing the Scottish Parliament, which secured legitimacy from an 84.6% turnout in the 2014 referendum alone, is now politically unthinkable, even though it remains legally possible.
• The judiciary is markedly more independent and more assertive than before 1997, following the creation of the Supreme Court under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and the growth of rights-based judicial review under the Human Rights Act 1998.
• Reform has continued, not stalled: the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 and English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 show governments still actively reshaping the constitution three decades on.

The case against “revolution”

• Parliamentary sovereignty has never been formally limited: Westminster legislated over devolved competences during Brexit without the devolved administrations’ consent, precisely because the Sewel convention embedded in the Scotland Act 2016 is a political convention, not a legal restriction.
• No reform has been legally entrenched against a simple Act of Parliament, and some have already been reversed, most clearly the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 after only eleven years.
• The constitution remains uncodified in 2026, spread across statute, common law and convention exactly as it was in 1997, which is difficult to reconcile with the idea of a genuinely “new” constitution.
• Writing in The British Constitution (2007), Anthony King reached a sharply different conclusion from Bogdanor: he judged the post-1997 changes markedly less coherent than earlier reforms, largely invisible to people outside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and concluded that they had left the constitution in a “mess”, one he thought should be left alone rather than fixed through full codification, since a comprehensive rewrite risked making matters worse.

Reaching a judgement

Bogdanor’s “revolution” and King’s “mess” represent opposite ends of the same evidence, having analysed the same forty years of reform and reached almost opposite conclusions about what it adds up to. Evaluating the two positions means weighing legal continuity against political practice rather than picking a side outright.

Analysis:

In political practice, the constitution has clearly been transformed: it is difficult to imagine a future government abolishing the Scottish Parliament, which drew an 84.6% turnout to its founding referendum alone, ignoring the core protections of the Human Rights Act 1998, or restoring hereditary peers to the House of Lords. Yet in strict legal terms the constitution retains its pre-1997 character, because every one of these changes rests on an ordinary Act of Parliament that a later Parliament can, in principle, repeal, exactly as it did with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

Evaluation:

King is therefore right that no single coherent plan sits behind these changes, but wrong to conclude that this makes them insignificant. The reforms of 1997 to 2026 are best judged not as a single revolution but as a lengthening, uncoordinated set of conventions and precedents that behave like a codified constitution while remaining, formally, anything but.

Check your understanding: synoptic review 1. “The UK constitution has undergone a fundamental transformation since 1997.” To what extent do you agree? You should: draw on at least one reform from each of the four periods covered in this document, weigh legal continuity, parliamentary sovereignty, against political and practical change, and reach a substantiated judgement. 2. Using this document, identify the three constitutional reforms since 1997 you consider most significant, and justify your choices. You could: consider criteria such as scale of impact, permanence and public awareness to justify your selection.

^{A fuller comparison with the codified, entrenched US Constitution is developed elsewhere on histpology.co.uk.}

---

Keir Starmer’s government, elected in July 2024, resumed a reforming momentum, framing much of it as finishing “unfinished business” left over from 1997, most visibly in the House of Lords, alongside a renewed push on English devolution and the electoral franchise.

Year	Reform	What it did	Outcome
2026	House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 (royal assent 18 March 2026)	Repealed the exemption in the House of Lords Act 1999 that allowed 92 hereditary peers to remain, ending hereditary membership of the Lords entirely.	Completed a reform first promised in 1999. Passage required compromise with Conservative peers, who used delaying tactics, showing that Lords reform remains difficult even for a government with a large Commons majority.
2026	English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (royal assent 29 April 2026)	Extended and standardised devolution deals to combined authorities in England, devolving further powers over housing, transport, employment support and energy, as part of the government’s wider devolution agenda.	Intended to reduce the piecemeal, deal-by-deal inconsistency of English devolution since 2016, though it is too recent for its practical effects to be assessed yet.
2026	Representation of the People Bill 2026 (introduced 12 February 2026; remaining Commons stages due September 2026, not yet enacted)	Proposes to lower the voting age to 16 for UK Parliament and local elections in England and Northern Ireland, expand acceptable forms of voter ID and introduce automatic voter registration.	Supported by most parties but opposed by the Conservatives and the Democratic Unionist Party. Not yet law at the time of writing, so its final form and effect cannot yet be assessed with certainty.

• The pace and content of reform since 2024 supports Bogdanor’s original argument that constitutional change in the UK proceeds as a “quiet revolution”: rather than one codifying moment, each government adds another piece, Lords reform, devolution, the franchise, to a structure that remains, formally, unwritten and reversible.
• The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 shows both the possibilities and the limits of reform: it finally delivered a manifesto pledge from 1997, yet the compromise needed to pass it, and the absence of any move toward an elected second chamber, suggest the Lords will remain only partially reformed for the foreseeable future.
• If passed in its current form, the Representation of the People Bill 2026 would be the most significant extension of the franchise since the Representation of the People Act 1969, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, though as an uncompleted bill, students should treat its eventual content as provisional rather than settled.

Analysis:

the reforms of 2024-2026 look closer in pattern to Labour’s 1997-2010 programme than to the crisis-driven changes of 2015-2022: a governing party with a large Commons majority is again using it to complete a long-standing agenda, Lords reform, the franchise, rather than reacting to an external shock.

Evaluation:

whether these changes prove as durable as the 1997-2010 settlement or as reversible as the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is not yet answerable from within the timeframe of this document, and that inability to judge very recent change with confidence is itself an important evaluative caution for students to carry into the exam.

Check your understanding 1. Explain why the removal of hereditary peers in 2026 is sometimes described as “unfinished business” from 1999. You could: use the House of Lords Act 1999 and its Weatherill amendment compromise as your starting point. 2. To what extent has the pace of constitutional reform accelerated or slowed since 2015, compared with 1997-2010? You should: compare the density and significance of reforms across both periods using specific examples from the tables in this document, then reach a reasoned judgement rather than simply listing differences.

---

next – has the UK constitution undergone a revolution since 1997?

This period opens with the aftermath of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, is dominated in the middle years by the constitutional shock of Brexit, and closes with a series of more technical changes to elections, the judiciary and the executive.

Year	Reform	What it did	Outcome
2014	Scottish independence referendum	Held under the Edinburgh Agreement, using a Section 30 order under the Scotland Act 1998, asking “Should Scotland be an independent country?”	No won by 55.3% to 44.7% on a record 84.6% turnout. The three main UK parties’ pre-vote pledge of further devolution (the “Vow”) led directly to the Smith Commission.
2016	Scotland Act 2016	Implemented the Smith Commission‘s recommendations: further tax, welfare and borrowing powers, and put the Scottish Parliament and the Sewel convention on a statutory footing, describing the Parliament as “permanent”.	Despite the “permanent” wording, Westminster retains legal sovereignty to override this, illustrated when it legislated on Brexit-related matters in devolved areas without Holyrood’s consent in 2020-21.
2016	Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016	Enabled devolution deals between central government and combined authorities in England, creating directly elected metro mayors, for example in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.	By 2024, more than a dozen mayoral combined authorities existed, though critics call English devolution piecemeal and unequal compared with the single Scotland Act 1998 settlement.
2016-18	EU referendum (2016) and European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018	The referendum, held under the European Union Referendum Act 2015, asked whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU; the Withdrawal Act ended the primacy of EU law in the UK and repatriated powers from Brussels.	Leave won 51.9% to 48.1%. Some repatriated powers in devolved areas, such as agriculture and fisheries, triggered disputes over whether they should pass to the devolved administrations or to Westminster, straining devolution.
2017	Wales Act 2017	Moved Wales to a reserved-powers model, like Scotland’s, rather than listing devolved powers, and devolved further tax powers.	Brought the Welsh settlement closer in principle to Scotland’s; the Assembly was renamed Senedd Cymru in 2020, though Wales still has narrower powers, for example over policing.
2022	Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022	Repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and revived the prerogative power allowing the Prime Minister to request dissolution from the monarch, making this decision non-justiciable.	Returned Westminster to pre-2011 practice, reversing a flagship Coalition reform within a decade.
2022	Elections Act 2022	Introduced mandatory photographic voter identification for in-person voting, changed mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections from the Supplementary Vote to First Past the Post, and gave ministers a new “strategy and policy statement” power over the Electoral Commission.	The Electoral Commission itself warned that voter ID risked deterring some lawful voters, and critics argued the new ministerial power undermined its independence.
2022	Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022	Introduced more flexible “suspended quashing orders” as a remedy in judicial review cases, and reversed the Supreme Court‘s Cart judgment, removing a route of judicial review for certain tribunal decisions.	Reflected a broader tension between the expanded judicial role established since 1997 and government attempts to limit judicial oversight of executive decisions.

• Although the union survived the 2014 referendum, the result arguably strengthened the case that devolution is now practically, if not legally, irreversible: no UK government has since seriously proposed abolishing the Scottish Parliament, and the Scotland Act 2016 tried, largely symbolically, to entrench this.
• Brexit exposed a tension left unresolved by the 1998 devolution settlements: because EU membership was a reserved matter, the devolved administrations, in a Scotland and Northern Ireland that had voted Remain, had no formal veto over withdrawal, fuelling nationalist arguments about a “democratic deficit”.
• Reform since 2015 has not moved in only one direction: the 2022 reversal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and the new constraints on the Electoral Commission under the Elections Act 2022 show that some post-1997 changes have since been reversed or diluted, even as devolution has continued to extend.
• English devolution to metro mayors has been genuinely significant in cities such as Manchester, but its patchwork, deal-by-deal nature, unlike the single Scotland Act 1998 settlement, left England without a coherent devolved structure, sometimes called the “English question”.

Analysis:

Unlike the steady, one-directional expansion of 1997-2010 or the Coalition’s near-total failure to deliver its plans, reform since 2015 has been driven less by a governing party’s own constitutional principles and more by external shocks, Brexit above all, that were not of the reformers’ own choosing.

Evaluation:

the net direction is still one of extension rather than retreat, since devolution continued to deepen even as some of Westminster’s own procedural reforms, most clearly the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, proved reversible. But the reversals matter: they show that no post-1997 change, however symbolically “permanent” the Scotland Act 2016 declares it, is safe from a government prepared to use its ordinary parliamentary majority.

Check your understanding 1. Explain the significance of the Smith Commission for the Scotland Act 2016. You could: explain what the “Vow” was and how it connects the 2014 referendum result to the later Act. 2. “The devolution settlements agreed since 1997 are now effectively irreversible.” Evaluate this view with reference to developments since 2015. You should: consider the legal position, that Westminster retains sovereignty, shown by Brexit-era legislation over devolved areas, against the political reality that no government has sought to abolish a devolved body, before reaching a judgement. 3. Compare the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 with its repeal in 2022. What does this reveal about the durability of constitutional reform in the UK? You could: use this comparison as a case study for a wider point about the lack of entrenchment in an uncodified constitution.

---

next – constitutional reform under Labour since 2024

The 2010 coalition agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats produced a further burst of reform, driven largely by the Liberal Democrats, who had long campaigned for electoral and Lords reform, in exchange for supporting a Conservative-led government.

Year	Reform	What it did	Outcome
2011	Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011	Removed the Prime Minister’s power to call an election at a time of their choosing; set five-year fixed terms, with early elections requiring a two-thirds Commons majority or a successful no-confidence vote.	Designed partly to bind the coalition together for a full term. Early elections in 2017 and 2019 were engineered through separate one-off Acts, exposing its weaknesses; it was repealed in 2022.
2011	Alternative Vote referendum	A UK-wide referendum on replacing First Past the Post with the Alternative Vote for Westminster elections, the coalition’s main concession to the Liberal Democrats.	Rejected by 67.9% to 32.1% on a 42% turnout, ending prospects of Westminster electoral reform for a generation.
2012	House of Lords Reform Bill	Would have created a mainly (80%) elected second chamber with members serving single long terms.	Abandoned after more than 90 Conservative backbenchers rebelled, showing how difficult Lords reform remains even with cross-party government backing.
2012	Scotland Act 2012	Devolved further tax and borrowing powers to the Scottish Parliament, including a Scottish rate of income tax.	Implemented the Calman Commission’s recommendations and fed directly into the debate ahead of the 2014 independence referendum.
2014	Wales Act 2014	Devolved limited tax-varying powers to the Welsh Assembly and provided for a referendum on income tax powers (later held to be unnecessary and dropped).	Part of a gradual, Scotland-then-Wales pattern of devolution that continued after 2015.

• The most consequential Coalition reform was arguably one that failed rather than one that succeeded: the collapse of the House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012 confirmed that Westminster’s own members, who benefit from the current system’s patronage, are structurally reluctant to reform it.
• The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 illustrates a wider theme: constitutional change driven by short-term political convenience (binding the coalition together) rather than settled principle is vulnerable to reversal once that convenience passes, as its 2022 repeal showed.
• The Alternative Vote referendum result suggests that UK-wide constitutional referendums face a high bar for change, especially once a campaign becomes entangled with the popularity of the government of the day; the No campaign successfully linked the Alternative Vote to the unpopularity of Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

Analysis:

Compared with Labour’s 1997-2010 programme, the Coalition attempted less and completed even less of what it attempted, because a two-party government without a single-party mandate found it harder to force through change that threatened its own members’ interests, most visibly in the House of Lords.

Evaluation:

Judged against its own ambitions, the Coalition’s constitutional record was one of failure more than achievement: only the Scotland Act 2012 and Wales Act 2014 were implemented broadly as planned, while both flagship projects, an elected Lords and a new voting system, collapsed. This suggests that constitutional reform in the UK depends heavily on Westminster’s own self-interest, which a government without a secure single-party majority struggles to overcome.

Check your understanding 1. Outline the terms of the Alternative Vote referendum of 2011. You could: give the date, the question being asked, the result and the turnout. 2. Evaluate the view that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was a failure. You should: weigh evidence of practical failure (the 2017 and 2019 elections, the 2022 repeal) against the argument that it achieved its central, short-term purpose of holding the coalition together, before reaching a judgement.

---

next – reform since 2015: the union under strain and further devolution

Tony Blair’s government was elected in 1997 having promised, in a 1994 conference speech, “the biggest programme of change to democracy ever proposed”.

Over the next thirteen years, Labour reformed almost every part of the constitution: the judiciary, the House of Lords, the electoral systems used outside Westminster, and the territorial governance of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Year	Reform	What it did	Outcome
1998	Human Rights Act 1998	Incorporated most articles of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, letting citizens enforce Convention rights in domestic courts rather than travelling to Strasbourg.	Courts gained the power to issue a declaration of incompatibility, not to strike down legislation, preserving parliamentary sovereignty in theory. More than 40 declarations have been made since 2000, most acted on by government.
1998	Scotland Act 1998 and Government of Wales Act 1998	Created the Scottish Parliament, with primary law-making and limited tax-varying powers, and the Welsh Assembly, initially with only secondary, executive powers.	The Scottish Parliament opened in 1999. The weaker initial Welsh powers reflected the narrower 1997 referendum result in Wales (50.3% Yes on a 50.1% turnout) compared with Scotland (74.3% Yes).
1998	Northern Ireland Act 1998 (implementing the Good Friday Agreement)	Established the Northern Ireland Assembly and a power-sharing executive between unionist and nationalist parties.	Repeatedly suspended, for example 2002-2007 and 2017-2020, showing that devolved power-sharing settlements can be fragile even when legally in place.
1999	House of Lords Act 1999	Removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit and vote, retaining 92 as a transitional compromise (the Weatherill amendment).	757 hereditary peers lost their seats and total membership fell from around 1,330 to about 669, but the promised second stage of a more democratic chamber went unfulfilled for over two decades.
2000	Freedom of Information Act 2000	Gave the public a legal right to request information held by public authorities.	Came into force in 2005; used to uncover the 2009 MPs’ expenses scandal, though it retains wide exemptions, for example for national security and policy formulation.
2005	Constitutional Reform Act 2005	Separated the judiciary from the legislature by creating a Supreme Court and removing serving judges (the Law Lords) from the House of Lords, and reformed the office of Lord Chancellor.	The Supreme Court opened in October 2009, strengthening the separation of powers between the judiciary and Parliament.
1997-2003	Electoral reform outside Westminster	Introduced proportional systems for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly (Additional Member System), the European Parliament (regional list) and the London Mayor (Supplementary Vote).	Westminster itself kept First Past the Post; a promised referendum on the Westminster voting system was never delivered by Labour.

• Labour’s programme was extensive in scope, touching almost every institution of government, but it was largely piecemeal and reactive rather than part of a single coherent blueprint, and it left the constitution uncodified.
• Devolution addressed long-standing demands for self-government in Scotland and Wales and helped underpin the Good Friday Agreement, but it also created new pressures on the union that would resurface after 2014.
• The Human Rights Act 1998 and Constitutional Reform Act 2005 significantly strengthened judicial power relative to the executive, illustrated by A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004), the “Belmarsh case”, in which the Law Lords declared the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects incompatible with the Convention.
• Reform of the House of Lords was left incomplete, an early example of a recurring pattern in this period: governments proving more willing to start constitutional reforms than to finish them.

Analysis:

The breadth of Labour’s reforms, spanning the judiciary, the Lords, human rights and all three devolved nations, reflects a government with a large majority and few institutional constraints turning manifesto pledges into law quickly, but without any single unifying document or plan behind them.

Evaluation:

On balance, this was the most extensive burst of constitutional reform in generations, but its piecemeal character left an unfinished agenda, above all House of Lords reform, that later governments would inherit rather than complete.

Check your understanding 1. Explain two ways in which the Human Rights Act 1998 changed the relationship between citizens and the state. You could: point to the declaration of incompatibility mechanism and to a specific case, such as the Belmarsh case, to show how the Act works in practice. 2. To what extent did Labour’s constitutional reforms between 1997 and 2010 amount to a coherent programme? You should: structure your answer as a clear claim, evidence for both coherence and incoherence drawn from at least three reforms in the table above, and a reasoned judgement.

---

next – Constitutional reform under the Coalition, 2010-2015

Introduction

In 2005, the constitutional historian Vernon Bogdanor described the sequence of changes made to the UK constitution (the body of rules, some legal and some conventional, that governs how the country is run) since 1997 as a “quiet revolution”, arguing in a fuller study four years later that these reforms, taken together with the UK’s (now-ended) membership of the European Union, had transformed constitutional thinking so fundamentally that Britain now had, in effect, a new constitution.

This is a bold claim, given that the UK constitution remains uncodified (not gathered into a single authoritative document) and, in theory, no harder to change than an ordinary Act of Parliament.

These pages tests Bogdanor’s claim against the reforms made under Labour (1997-2010), the Coalition (2010-15), and the governments that have followed since 2015, up to the reforms passed and proposed in 2026.

Key terms Devolution: the transfer of power from central government to regional or national bodies (such as the Scottish Parliament), without the centre giving up its ultimate legal sovereignty over that power. Parliamentary sovereignty: the traditional principle that the UK Parliament is the supreme legal authority, able to make or unmake any law, and that no Parliament can bind its successors. Codification: gathering a constitution’s rules into a single authoritative document with higher legal status than ordinary law; the UK constitution has never been codified in this way. Entrenchment: giving a constitutional provision special legal protection so it is harder to change than ordinary legislation; UK constitutional statutes are not formally entrenched, though some, such as the Scotland Act 2016, use strong political language to suggest permanence. Judicial review: the process by which courts examine whether a public body, including the government, has acted lawfully; its scope and use have expanded considerably since 1997.

---

next – Constitutional reform under Labour, 1997-2010

Return to Tocqueville’s claim that because Parliament can modify the constitution at will, it “does not in reality exist.”

Almost two centuries on, the most recent entry in the historical table, the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, tests that claim rather precisely.

Parliament altered the composition of one of its own chambers through an ordinary Act, requiring nothing more than the simple majorities used to pass any other piece of legislation, exactly the kind of self-modification Tocqueville treated as proof that no fixed constitution existed. In that narrow legal sense, his judgement still holds: there remains no codified, entrenched document that Parliament cannot touch.

Yet the picture is not quite as stark in practice as Tocqueville’s formal test suggests.

Major constitutional changes, such as the devolution settlements or the 2016 EU referendum, have generally been put to a referendum before being enacted, even though this is a political convention rather than a legal requirement, and the courts have begun treating some statutes, including the Human Rights Act 1998, as ‘constitutional statutes’ deserving a stronger form of judicial interpretation, following Thoburn v Sunderland City Council (2002).

Neither development amounts to entrenchment in the codified, US sense, and Parliament could in theory sweep both away with an ordinary Act. On balance, then, Tocqueville was right about the letter of the constitution, which remains unentrenched and could be rewritten by a simple parliamentary majority, but he understated how far convention and judicial practice have since built informal, if not legal, restraints around that formal power.

Check your understanding 1. ‘The UK constitution is best understood not as a fixed restraint on Parliament, but as a set of practices Parliament chooses to follow.’ Evaluate this statement, using material from across this topic. You should: Use conventions and the unentrenched nature of the constitution as your main evidence for the statement, and parliamentary sovereignty/statute law as a counterpoint that some restraints go beyond mere practice, then give a reasoned final judgement. 2. Using at least two documents from the historical timeline and one source of the constitution, explain how the UK constitution has evolved without ever being formally codified. You should: Choose documents from different centuries to show the pattern is longstanding rather than recent, and be explicit about which of the five sources each document belongs to. 3. Do you agree with Tocqueville that an uncodified, unentrenched constitution effectively ‘does not… exist’? Justify your answer with reference to specific evidence from this topic. You could: Revisit the conclusion’s argument about convention and judicial practice softening the formal picture, and decide whether you find it convincing enough to disagree with Tocqueville’s strict view, or whether you side with him.

---

Key terms Statute law: law made directly by Act of Parliament, passed by the House of Commons and House of Lords and given royal assent. Common law: law developed by judges through decisions in individual court cases, based on precedent (the principle that earlier decisions of higher courts bind later, similar cases). Convention: an unwritten rule of political practice that is not legally enforceable but is generally followed because breaching it carries a serious political cost. Authoritative works: long-established legal and academic writings that explain or interpret uncertain areas of the constitution and are treated as persuasive, though not legally binding. Treaty: a formal agreement between states; under the UK’s dualist approach, a treaty does not automatically become part of domestic law until Parliament incorporates it by statute.

Because the UK constitution is uncodified, it is drawn from five different types of source, which do not carry equal legal weight. The table below sets out each source and its place in the hierarchy of constitutional authority.

Source	Definition	Status/authority	Example
Statute law	Law passed by Act of Parliament.	The highest source of the constitution today. Statute law supersedes all other sources, now that the special supremacy once held by EU law under the European Communities Act 1972 has ended.	Human Rights Act 1998; House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026
Common law	Law developed by judges through case decisions and precedent.	Cannot contradict existing statute law, but once established through a case carries equal authority to statute on that point, and supersedes authoritative works and conventions.	Miller (No.1) (2017), on the limits of prerogative power
Conventions	Unwritten rules of political practice, generally followed but not legally enforceable.	Not binding in court, but breaching one carries significant political cost, so conventions are treated as strong guidance on how the constitution should operate.	Sewel Convention; Salisbury Convention
Authoritative works	Established legal and academic writings that interpret uncertain areas of the constitution.	Not legally binding, but persuasive, and frequently consulted by judges, MPs and civil servants when the constitution is unclear.	A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885); Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice
Treaties	International agreements signed by the government and, in the UK’s dualist system, incorporated into domestic law only by statute.	Do not bind UK courts until incorporated by Parliament. EU law was the historical exception: while the European Communities Act 1972 was in force, EU law had direct effect and took precedence over UK statute law.	European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998

^{Sources: legislation.gov.uk; House of Commons Library; Institute for Government}.

The table shows that the five sources are not arranged in a single formal hierarchy laid down in one document, the way articles of a codified constitution are, but they nonetheless interact in a fairly consistent order.

• Statute law is now effectively the highest source, because the special status EU law once held ended when Parliament repealed the European Communities Act 1972 through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, with the UK’s exit from the EU taking effect on 31 January 2020.
• Common law shows that the constitution is partly judge-made: once a principle is settled by a case, it binds later courts through precedent and cannot be overturned except by a higher court or a new statute, though it can never contradict statute law already in force.
• Conventions and authoritative works are not legally binding, but they are far from irrelevant: conventions such as the Sewel Convention shape how devolution actually works in practice, and authoritative works such as Dicey‘s are still cited by judges and officials when the other sources leave a gap.
• Because there is no single fixed rulebook ranking the sources against one another, disputes about which source should prevail are ultimately resolved through political convention or judicial interpretation rather than a written formula, itself a further illustration of the uncodified nature of the constitution examined above.

Check your understanding 1. Rank the five sources of the UK constitution in order of legal authority and justify your ranking. You could: Use the ‘Status/authority’ column of the table above as your evidence base, and give a reason for each placement rather than just listing the order. 2. Explain why conventions remain an important source of the constitution despite not being legally enforceable. You should: Focus on the political, rather than legal, consequences of breaking a convention, using the Sewel Convention as your worked example. 3. Evaluate the extent to which Brexit changed the relative importance of the five sources of the UK constitution. You could: Centre your answer on the change in status of treaties/EU law before and after the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, then briefly consider whether the other four sources were affected at all before reaching a judgement.

---

next – does the UK Constitution ‘exist’?