Devolved institutions risk (re-)creating new (real or perceived) gaps at lower territorial levels.
In summary, devolution not only shifted power from the centre of the British state to Scotland and Wales but also contributed to the creation and strengthening of new centres of power in Edinburgh and Cardiff. Therefore, while addressing or channelling tensions between Westminster and more ‘peripheral’ parts of the UK, devolved institutions risk (re-)creating new (real or perceived) gaps at lower territorial levels. A challenge for the political class of the two devolved nations is to bridge these gaps or, at the very least, to prevent them from expanding or being politicised. Failure to do so might strengthen calls for a reversal of the entire devolution process. Indeed, in Wales, there is still a sizable share of voters who think devolved institutions should be abolished altogether (one fifth of the respondents in the survey). My data suggest that, while only 2 percent of them see devolution as beneficial for their local communities, almost 40 percent perceive Cardiff as the primary beneficiary. These results are significant also in light of recent findings and recommendations published in the final report by the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales.
Correlation is not causation, but after the EU referendum, it became apparent that diffuse perceptions of being ‘left-behind’ or disadvantaged compared to other places may produce a backlash capable of subverting established institutional and constitutional equilibria. If a complex process like Brexit, which was unthinkable until a decade ago, could partly occur as a consequence of this, it is not unreasonable to think that devolution may be exposed to future challenges to its legitimacy and, possibly, its very existence.