here

Comment devolution

1

Is devolution really something that should be implemented or could it be negative for the affected regions?

First it should be mentioned that the regions would become more independent and could focus on solving their own problems. Moreover the regions have the same power as central authorities and it would be equal. There are also negative points, for example that the regions do not care about the others and make decisions that affect them in a bad way. Furthermore systems like the school system could change and it would be hard to change schools and to cope with it.

To sum up, devolution could be positive for smaller regions to focus on their own problems, but only if there is still an active exchange with the other regions to avoid conflicts.

13

I would like to comment on the question if devolution is a good thing for smaller countries or if it is a bad thing. There are some positive and negative points I have found. Let’s start with the positive points.

First is to mention that the people who are living in this countries are getting treated similar because they are exactly like other countries in the world. Additionally is to say that they have a better chance to do what they really want or need. Another point is that these countries are now able to focus on their own things. At least is to mention that concepts of law could be realize. Now I am going to list up the negative points which I have pointed out. One importante argument is that these countries can get overwhelmed by the situation because they have to deal with things by their own. It could also happen that the countries loose importante connections to other big countries for example England. Additionally is to mention that these countries have to solve their problems by their own. The importance point is that challenges like climate change become more difficult to deal with.

All in all is to say that countries together are even better than alone. Additionally they are stronger and they are able to reach more goals.

15

If devolution is something good or bad is a difficult question. There are pro and contra arguments. In the following I am going to comment on this question.

First devolution is the statutory delegation of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to govern at a subnational level, such as a regional or local level. It is a form of administrative decentralization. Meaning that the regions could be more independent and make their own choices. They could decide according to their own needs. They also could get more independent with what they do with their resources. Lastly the concepts of law are getting easier, bills could be realized/passed easier because they do not need the other countries’ agreement.

On the other side do these regions have to solve their problems/ conflicts on their own without support from the country. The challenges like the climate change become more difficult to deal with and the negotiation/ trade might become more complex. Another point is that the ministers might not be as experienced as those of the Uk.

All in all one can say that there are positive and negative aspects, so everyone should decide on heir own if devolution is a good or bad thing.

10

The devolution concern the countries Scotland, Northirland, Wales and England which currently take part in the United Kingdom. The issue that is touched upon here is if the devolution should be realized is difficult to comment on because there are several positive and negative aspects which have to be considered.

First of all, it is important to consider that along the devolution the concerned countries get more independant. That means they have to solve problems and conflicts on their own without support from London what could lead to the situation that the independant countries are politically more fragile because there would be no unity as a global power. Considering the fact that concerned countries get more independant is linked to the case that they more free to decide what they do with their ressources. Additionally, the devolution effects different social aspects like less unity, less solidarity and less feeling of holding belonging together if the boundary gets broken, which can have drastic effects on the collaboration especially with global problems like the climate change. Another important point is that the devolution provokes more bureaucracy in different domains. One of them is the politically sector because there must be make lots of decisions on who is going to decide what. In addition to that there is also the econimc domain which refers to negotiation and trade what could become more complex. Another sector includes social aspects like education because in the concerned countries ( Scotland, Northirland, Wales and England ) could develope different school regulations. You also have to take in consideration is that ministers in the recently independant countries might not be as experienced and skilled as those of the United Kingdom, because they have way much more experience and responsobility if they have worked in the House of Parliament.

In contrast to that you have to consider that the decentralization enables the local governments to get more independant by deciding according to their own needs. With reference to the UK the local needs and request get lost because the central government has to handle not only those request of the different countries but also the global problems like trade and other aspects as a world power. In that context you should scrutinize why the central government in London deserve so much power although the countries of the United Kingdom would be able to lead a local government that can focus on their own needs. In context to that it is way much easier to pass or realize concepts of law or bills because the local governments do not need the other countries agreement. Another aspect is that the different countries have a chance to revolunionate their country. Politicans in local institution are able to address people direct and to handle the general public´s concern.

To come to a final conclusion, I think that the devolution should be realized because if the UK does not try the government would never know how it would turn out if they do not try. So far it might be possible to outline a temporary decentralization to gain experience and to decide if that concept should be realized over long term. And in the case the concept does not work out as expected it is still possible to remove the old system.

6

Opinions are divided when it comes to implementing a devolution move, but what is right now? Is it a progress or rather a step backwards for a country?

First of all, I think that such a give off the distribution of laws makes sense, since a country has sole power over its own country. They would be independent and it spares annoying discussions due to differences of opinion between them and other regions. Thus, individual, small and family-like regions are formed, which do not have to adapt to other countries.

However, this leads to a strong separation of regions within the state. Besides, the exclusive power has the consequence that there is no clear unity in one country and cooperation can be difficult. So it can lead to problems, particularly with regard to mobility in the individual regions, so the people are no longer able to travel duty-free everywhere, for example.

All in all, I think that a devolution move is not a good process because it separates a country with consequences like clearance charge. I know that there are many advantages of a devolution move like the reduction of discussions and the sole power of the regions, but the risk is too high that a country gets too separated because of the isolation of the individual countries of state.

18

Devolution

The topic of devolution in the United Kingdom is rather controversial. Upon deciding whether it is a good or a bad thing, many different aspects need to be contemplated.

Firstly, it is important to realize that the devolution of Scotland, North Ireland and Wales may lead to a loss of unity in the United Kingdom due to differences between the countries resulting from the devolution. These differences are not only a potential threat to the unity between the countries of the United Kingdom, but they may also portray a challenge concerning one’s ability to move within the United Kingdom due to different educational expectations, for example, and may therefore impact one’s upward mobility negatively. Additionally, it would be much less complicated to keep everything the way it is.

However, simply because the execution of the devolution may come with complications, that does not mean that it is wrong to pursue it. Devolution is a question of equality. Why should the main parliament of the United Kingdom be stationed in London? What makes London more deserving of that than the rest of the United Kingdom? It is only fair to divide the power equally. As a result, Scotland, North Ireland and Wales will gain more independence, which will enable them to focus on their own issues and provide them with more freedom.

In conclusion, it can be said that devolution should be pursued regardless of issues and complications that may arise as a result, as devolution strives for more freedom and independence. Whilst, it is important to take potential problems into account, these difficulties should not prevent the United Kingdom to ensure equality amongst the different countries of the United Kingdom.

23

Nowadays the devolution of Scotland, North Island, Wales and England is a big topic. This countries are a part of the United Kingdom, but they want to realize the idea of the devolution. In the following I comment on this topic with some points for and against it.

First of all, the devolution causes more independence that means that they have to solve their problems and conflicts on their own without the support from the central government in London and it is not easy to solve the problems because the ministers might not be as experienced and qualified as those of the United Kingdom. Moreover, if they have more independence they can also decide what they do with their resources. In addition to that the devolution leads to more bureaucracy because they have to make decisions on who I'd going to decide what. Another aspect is the social point that means less unity, less solidarity, less feeling of holding and belonging together. So they have to deal with challenges like climate change which might become difficult to deal with if there's less unity. Additionally, there is less mobility which can be caused by different school regulations. The last aspect is that the negotations and trade rights become more complex.

After that I present you the arguments for it. The first aspect is that the countries decide according to their own needs. So the central government in London gets less power. They are able to focus on their own which leads to the goal to gain more independence. Furthermore, all the states are like a "family" with unity and solidarity. Another aspect is that the concept of law bills can be realized or passed easier, because they do not need the other countries' agreement.

I come to the conclusion that the countries should try the devolution of this states, because they can make an experience and they can transfer some ministers from London that it is easier to solve problems and that they can get independent. And if the new system does not work for a certain period, they can get back to the old system.

4

The question if devolution is good or bad is a very difficult one because their are many positive and negative arguments for this topic. I want to comment in the following on that question.

The first positive thing is that the countries get more independence so that they can decide what is important for them and their population. It is also good that the countries can decide based on their own opinions and culture. If their is one central government that decides about anything these interests get lost. The countries can focus on their own problems which are not importatnt enough for a central government. Negative about devolution is that they get seperated from the other countries so that they don‘t work together. And if every country can decide on their own it will be harder to deal with central problems that belong to everyone like the climate change because every country has another opinion. It could also be harder for the countries to deal with problems because they are not as strong as before.

Finally you can say that there are many positive and many negative arguments. So you should find a compromise between a central power and a seperation of countries.

2

Should we support devolution or does a bundelt power bring more benefits?

There is a heated controversy between many states, which have an alliance. For example in the EU. Citizens as well as politicians discuss, if Brussel should have such emense decision-making power over individual EU states.

On the one hand a devolution enables states to make own decisions thus more people would be pleased, because politicians would pay more attention to personal needs. Furthermore, concepts of law could take effect faster without discussing between different states and their desires. Nevertheless, if it comes to devolution, there would be no longer one exrem power and politicians cannot make decisions about so many lives.

On the other hand, it causes many different decisions, actions and laws. In this way the unit get lost. Moreover, shared issues like climate change, would be more difficult to deal with. Additionally, our mobility would be limited and for example trade would be so much more complicated and expensive, because of differnt currencies and taxes between borders. In the worst case one consequence could be war, because of the many disagreements.

My personal point of view is, that a unit has so many advantages, which we not even notice, it effects for example our economy. But the main point is that a unit ensures to live in peace. To sum it up, we should all reconsider how good our lives are and how it would be without a unit.

17

Is devolution any good and should we support it?

Nowadays devolution is a big topic because of Scotland, North Island, Wales. These countries are a part of Great Britain and want to realize the devolution because they want to be a part of the EU. In this comment, I’m going to consider the benefits and disadvantages of devolution.

Countries of devolution have better chances to do what they want outside of any alliances with other countries. The regions can also decide what to do according to their own needs and what to to with their resources. Additionally, they can decide their laws.

The different side is that countries standing alone could be overwhelmed by critical situations, as diseases or the coronavirus, which is attacking humanity at the moment. Maybe they also could have problems governing the country without the help of others.

All in all it is to say that countries in alliances have more benefits as if they would stand alone. They are stronger together.

22

At the moment the topic of devolution is one of big concern. Considering how sensible the subject is there are many points to be evaluated before one can come to a conclusion.

Of course one must consider that through the devolution the involved countries might lose their unity due to the differences sparking up resulting in conflict. This may also lead to a separation of the countries different educational expectations that may impact the mobility negatively. Additionally, Britain's system has worked quite well over the past few years, why change it?

However, the question of why London has to be the leading force of Britain is a fair one. One country having more power in a union is simply not democratic. and that is what devolution is all about being a united yet independent force. Through that resulting independence, smaller countries like Wales and Scotland can resolve their issues at their own pace. Without having a bigger force have any influences on that. That way every country can develop their cultures at their own pace.

In conclusion, devolution is a plan resulting in more freedom for smaller nations in the long run despite the complications that might occur at the beginning.