“A Motorway Without an Exit”: In conversation with Tom Chidwick on devolution, division and the future of British politics

Welcome to our Dods Research interview series. This is where we talk with leading academics in the UK about their area of expertise and what they can tell us about UK politics. As part of our Dods Research collaboration with Queen Mary University of London, our latest interview features Tom Chidwick, political historian and Manager of the Mile End Institute.

Introduction

In this wide-ranging conversation, Tom Chidwick, the political historian and Manager of the Mile End Institute, speaks with Josh Wells about the unfinished story of British devolution and the constitutional dilemmas shaping the United Kingdom today. From the lessons of 1970s Scotland to the moral fragility of Britain’s “good chaps” constitution, Chidwick reflects on the promises and pitfalls of devolution, the limits of reform, and the shifting soul of the Conservative Party. Along the way, he revisits the legacy of Edward Heath, considers the case for votes at sixteen, and asks what kind of political culture a modern Union really needs to survive.

What is devolution?

Joshua Wells:  Let’s start with a broad question — what exactly is devolution?

Tom Chidwick: Devolution is the process by which UK governments and the UK Parliament have transferred political, executive, and, in some cases, financial responsibilities to other centres of power across the country.

In Scotland and Wales, this has taken the form of national parliaments. Elsewhere — in cities like Liverpool or Manchester — there are pretty substantial local authorities and mayoral systems. London, for example, has the Greater London Authority which is made up of an elected Mayor and the 25-member London Assembly. So, thousands of people across the country are living under some form of devolved government, even if they still think of Westminster as the beating heart of our politics.

The origins of devolution

Joshua Wells:  Where does the idea of devolution come from? Has it always been around, or did it emerge at a particular point?

Tom Chidwick: Devolution has a long and complex history. My forthcoming book, Now or Never!, focuses on the period from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s, when both Labour and Conservative governments explored creating parliaments for Scotland and Wales.

But the roots go further back. In the late Victorian and Edwardian eras, ‘Home Rule’ was one of the great political questions of the day, which divided the dominant Liberal Party and toppled governments. There were several serious attempts to legislate for ‘Home Rule’ before the First World War, including the Government of Scotland Bill which passed its Second Reading in 1913 but failed to reach the Statute Book and would have established a Scottish parliament.

Devolution re-emerged in the 1960s, fuelled by rising nationalist sentiment. Plaid Cymru won the Carmarthen by-election in July 1966, and a year later Winnie Ewing, then a young lawyer, became the SNP’s second MP after she won the Hamilton by-election in November 1967.

Hamilton had been a safe Labour seat, and her victory was totemic. From then on, devolution became a political tool for successive UK governments to manage nationalist pressure in Scotland and Wales when financial resources were tight.

“It really pleased nobody”: the controversy at the heart of devolution

Joshua Wells:  You have described devolution as a controversial political tool, something offered in place of deeper reforms. What made it so controversial?

Tom Chidwick: In the period my book covers, devolution to Scotland and Wales is supported by all the main parties but divides their leaders, MPs and activists and really pleases nobody.

Within Labour, figures like Michael Foot, John Smith, Helen Liddell and Gordon Brown — who became the star of the 1979 referendum campaign — saw devolution as a way to give Scotland a greater stake in the Union and align Labour’s democratic socialism with a distinct and emerging Scottish political identity.

But others like Tam Dalyell, Robin Cook and the young Brian Wilson believed it was ‘the first step towards independence’. As Unionists, they feared it would tear the Kingdom apart and, as Labour MPs and activists, they also worried about losing Scotland’s central role in electing future Labour governments.

The Conservatives were split too. The ‘Heathites’ favoured giving Scotland a stronger say in the Union while the ‘Thatcherites’, by contrast, believed the problem lay not in where power was exercised from, but how it was used. During the first couple of years of her leadership, Margaret Thatcher turned the party from supporting a Scottish Assembly to fiercely opposing it, declaring that Conservatives believed in ‘true devolution away from government of every kind at every level and back to the citizen’. Even the SNP was divided: some saw devolution as a step towards independence; others thought it a sell-out of the nationalist cause.

Who was right?

Joshua Wells:  So, at its heart, the question was whether devolution would strengthen or weaken the Union. Looking back with several decades of hindsight — who was right?

Tom Chidwick: I’d say the current Scottish Parliament, which is quite different from the Assembly proposed in the 1970s, has, on balance, been a force for good. It’s given Scotland far more legislative time than it would have had at Westminster, and it’s introduced meaningful democratic reforms that wouldn’t have happened without it: lowering the voting age for Scottish elections and legislating around the rules of future referendums. Its strongest advocates believe that it has even reshaped how politics is conducted in Scotland as they think the Parliament’s semi-circular chamber encourages collaboration rather than confrontation.

That said, I sympathise with its fiercest critics who maintain that devolution was a “motorway without an exit” to independence as it has clearly fostered a distinct Scottish politics, in which Nationalist leaders like John Swinney can argue that Scotland has different values and priorities to its neighbour down south.  Yet there has been some interesting opinion polling which suggests that Scottish, English and Welsh voters tend to think similarly about most major issues. So, Unionists can take heart from the fact that while devolution has deepened Scotland’s political distinctiveness, there is still common cause across the border.

How long between referendums?

Joshua Wells:  Can we learn anything from the gap between Referendums in Scotland, about how long it should be before a similar constitutional question is revisited?

Tom Chidwick: One of the most interesting things about devolution in the 1970s is the political culture that surrounded it. During the referendum in March 1979, retired sheriffs walked the streets with sandwich boards, rectors of Scotland’s most prestigious schools tried to form an umbrella campaign, and poets, ministers, and musicians all took part in the campaign. And it was a time when Scotland was changing rapidly. A journalist at the time summed it up perfectly when he said that this was the period when ‘sons of miners no longer followed “faither doon the pit”, Spain replaced “doon the watter” as the holiday destination and housing estates replaced council schemes for the “upwardly mobile”’.

That atmosphere created a genuine national conversation about Scotland’s future. After the 1979 referendum, a widely supported Campaign for a Scottish Assembly was formed, which held rallies, organised petitions and helped lay the groundwork for the Scottish Constitutional Convention in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

So, it wasn’t just the time between referendum that changed minds, but the work done in between. By 1997, that groundwork had created overwhelming public support for devolution.

However, since 2014, we’ve been in a stalemate where the SNP governs in Edinburgh, but the main parties at Westminster remain firmly opposed to another independence referendum. As we saw at the end of Nicola Sturgeon’s premiership, there’s currently no mechanism for breaking that deadlock.

What about English devolution?

Joshua Wells:  Many people still aren’t quite sure what English devolution really means. Does the Scottish case help us understand what it might look like in England?

Tom Chidwick: Yes, I think it does. During the late 1970s, James Callaghan’s Labour government was also exploring devolution for England. There was a consensus that an English Parliament wouldn’t work, because England is so large that it would inevitably dominate the Union, so successive governments have experimented with empowering local authorities and creating elected mayors with substantial budgets and policy powers. I see English devolution as less about creating a new legislature, like the Scottish Parliament, and more akin to the 1970s reorganisation of Scottish local government, where smaller authorities were replaced by large regional councils handling transport, health, and public services.

The current model of English devolution, through metro mayors and combined authorities, follows that same principle: that if you create larger regional units with more control over key services, budgets, and tax powers, you bring decision-making closer to home.

The “Good Chaps” Constitution

Joshua Wells:  The UK has lived with an uncodified constitution for centuries. But as trust in government erodes, can that arrangement survive?

Tom Chidwick: Recent years have shown that the so-called “good chaps” theory of government (the idea that those in power can be trusted not to abuse it) clearly has its limits, but I’m not in favour of codifying the constitution. At a time when government already struggles to function, I’m sceptical about the idea that we should spend huge amounts of time, energy and political capital in trying to fold centuries of law, convention, and custom into a single document into an impossibly complex doctrine, which would further slow down decision-making.

I think, the real solution lies in higher standards in public life, stronger ethics oversight and greater transparency about public appointments. I also really like the idea of a prime ministerial oath, an undertaking to uphold the constitution on taking office, which would give Parliament a moral lever to pull if a PM ever refused to resign. And, as Peter Hennessy once said, it would prevent the constitution from falling out of the hands of ‘civil servants, journalists and historians’ and into the hands of ‘the lawyers’ …!

Votes at 16: A New Democratic Frontier?

Joshua Wells:  Scotland already allows 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, and Labour plans to extend that nationwide. What can we learn from the Scottish experience?

Tom Chidwick: It hasn’t been the disaster some predicted. But simply lowering the voting age isn’t enough, it must come with better civic and political education. Young people should learn not just how to vote, but why it matters: what parties stand for, how government works, and how to participate in the political process outside of elections.

As for partisan advantage, I doubt it’s a silver bullet for Labour as younger voters are also looking towards the Greens, SNP, and Reform. If Labour does legislate for votes at 16, expanding the franchise could, in fact, move Britain towards a genuine multi-party democracy.

Edward Heath and the Contemporary Conservative Party

Joshua Wells:  Finally, let’s talk about one of your great interests, Edward Heath. What would he make of today’s Conservative Party?

Tom Chidwick: He would probably be appalled, although that’s nothing new as he spent three decades after he left office lambasting his successors for abandoning ‘One Nation’ conservatism.

When Heath lost the leadership in 1975, there were really three Tory parties: the post-war, One Nation Conservatives led by Heath, the Thatcherites led by Mrs T, and the hard right led by Enoch Powell. Today, that internal turmoil continues, with the remnants of the Cameron–Osborne years, Kemi Badenoch’s supporters, and those who are drifting towards Reform. So, he might recognise the internal strife.

As many studies have noted, Heath was a pretty dreadful party manager, who had been brilliant as Chief Whip but was not a ‘people person’ as leader. There’s a famous story from his time in Downing Street when Douglas Hurd passed him a note at dinner, pleading with him to talk to the woman sitting next to him, who was married to a very active and supportive constituency chairman.  The message came back: “I already have.”

So, if Kemi Badenoch is looking for lessons in how to unite the Conservative Party, she could probably do better than the ‘Old Curmudgeon’!

Tom Chidwick’s first book, Now or Never! A History of the First Scottish Devolution Referendum, will be published by Bloomsbury Academic in 2026. It will be the first history of the 1 March 1979 referendum on the creation of a Scottish Assembly in over 40 years and charts how devolution and Scotland’s first referendum dominated British politics and public life in the 1970s.

Related Dods Research interviews

Looking for more Dods Research interviews? You can find our most recent entries below:

• Dods Research conversation with Dr Colm Murphy: one year of Labour, decline of the Conservative party, value of understanding political history
• Dods Research conversation with Elizabeth Simon: the Red Wall, electoral behaviour, and do universities make students woke?
• Dods Research conversation with Dr Sofia Collignon: local elections, political violence, and quantitative methods
• Dods Research conversation with Tim Bale: the Conservative party, local elections and the importance of polling

Our latest research