Asymmetric autonomy in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Asymmetric autonomy usually refers to an institutional arrangement in which different parts of a state enjoy different levels of autonomy. It arises in federations, when certain federal regions have more (or fewer) powers than others, or in unitary states, when some regions enjoy autonomy, including different levels of autonomy, while other regions are governed from the center. This is one of a number of kinds of asymmetry, as regions may also differ in their populations and resources, the representation that they have in the state's central or federal institutions, and in the design of their own internal (regional) institutions. Asymmetric autonomy arises for different reasons. China, a unitary state, has allowed Hong Kong more autonomy than is enjoyed by the rest of the state because it eased its reabsorption and brought clear economic benefits (see Chan, this volume). In most cases, however, asymmetry is a response to pressures for autonomy, or more autonomy, from mobilized national communities, or when an independent entity is granted special self-governing privileges in return for joining a state. Examples of asymmetric autonomy include the Aaland Islands, Southern Sudan, South Tyrol, and Zanzibar. Asymmetric autonomy is also mooted as a possible solution to several current conflicts and standoffs, including in Moldova (Transdniestria) Sri Lanka (Tamil Eelam), and Sudan (Darfur). The United Kingdom has one of the most complex examples of asymmetric autonomy. Before 1998, it was a tightly centralized state, although a "union" state rather than, as is often supposed, a strictly unitary state. Since 1998, it has granted different degrees of autonomy to its so-called "Celtic periphery" of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but continues to govern England, representing 85 percent of its population, from the center at Westminster. The United Kingdom's willingness to create asymmetric autonomous institutions is arguably related to its background as a union state. Its decision to do so was a response to several different challenges. In Great Britain, the UK government faced differential aspirations for self-government. The Scots wanted far-reaching autonomy, the Welsh were more ambivalent, while the English remained content to be governed from Westminster. In Northern Ireland, London faced demands from Irish nationalists, both militantly and constitutionally expressed, for closer linkages with the Republic of Ireland, and for recognition of the Irish people's right to self-determination. Any institutions for Northern Ireland also had to accommodate the region's internal divisions. These multiple challenges, and the UK government response, make its experience relevant to several of the other cases covered in this volume. Few of them combine the challenges faced in the UK, but most face some of them. This chapter discusses the appropriateness of the asymmetric UK arrangements for its particular (complex) situation. It discusses the background to the adoption of asymmetric autonomy and describes the new institutions. It argues that an asymmetry of institutional design across the regions is a fair response to asymmetric aspirations. The UK experience, it is argued, reveals the flexibility of asymmetric institutional design, which can cope not just with differential desires for autonomy but also with different levels of division within regions. The chapter then discusses criticisms of these arrangements, and concludes by drawing some comparative lessons from the UK experience with asymmetric autonomy. Copyright © 2010 University of Pennsylvania Press.