Devolution is the statutory granting of powers
from the central government of a Sovereign state to government at a
subnational level, such as a
regional, local,
or state level. It differs from
federalism in that the powers devolved may be
temporary and ultimately reside in central government, thus the
state remains,
de jure,
unitary.
Any devolved parliaments or assemblies can be
repealed by central government in the same way an
ordinary statute can be. Federal systems, or
federacies, differ in that state or provincial
government is guaranteed in the
constitution. Australia, Canada and the United
States have federal systems, and have constitutions (as do some of
their constituent states or provinces). They also have Territories,
with less power and authority than a state or province.
The devolution can be mainly financial, e.g. giving areas a budget
which was formerly administered by central government. However, the
power to make
legislation relevant to
the area may also be granted.
United Kingdom
In the
United Kingdom, devolved government was created following simple majority referenda in Wales
and Scotland
in September 1997. In 1998, the Scottish Parliament
, National
Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly were
established by law. The move came eighteen years after
similar proposals were defeated in
qualified majority referendums in
Wales and
Scotland in March 1979, though in
Scotland's case a slim majority of those voting had backed the
proposal.
The issue
of Irish home rule was the dominant political question of British
politics at the end of the 19th and beginning of
the 20th century.
The home rule demands of the late 19th and early 20th century
differed from earlier demands for
Repeal by
Daniel
O'Connell in the first half of the nineteenth century. Repeal
meant the repeal of the
Act of Union
1800 and the creation of a separate parliament not subservient
to the British parliament and only sharing a head of state or crown
between Great Britain and Irelandwhereas home rule meant the
creation of autonomous region with its own parliament within the
United Kingdom. The home rule parliament would be subservient to
the British parliament.
From the late 19th century, leaders of the
Irish Parliamentary Party under
Isaac Butt,
William Shaw and
Charles Stewart Parnell had demanded
a form of home rule, with the creation of a subsidiary Irish
parliament
within the United Kingdom (replacing the Irish
parliament that existed up to the Act of Union in 1800). This
demand led to the eventual introduction of four
Irish Home Rule Bills, of which only
the last two were approved by the British Parliament, the third
Government of Ireland Act
1914 after a prolonged parliamentary struggle, receiving Royal
Assent then suspended with the outbreak of
World War I. Only the final one was subsequently
enacted: the
Government
of Ireland Act 1920.
The third Act was opposed particularly by
Ulster Unionists who raised the
Ulster Volunteer Force and signed the
Ulster Covenant to oppose the bill,
thereby raising the spectre of civil war,
Irish Nationalists not being prepared to
grant any concessions or guarantees to alleviate Protestant
minority fears.
The fourth Act, dictated by Ulster, created
the six county parliament of Northern Ireland
and the twenty-six county parliament of Southern Ireland — although the latter did
not in reality function and became the Irish Free State in 1922 after the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which in turn became
the Republic of
Ireland
that exists today.
Northern Ireland
Home Rule
came into effect for Northern Ireland in 1921 under the Fourth Home Rule Act, an
after-life of its legacies surviving there; however, it was
dissolved in 1973. A
devolved Assembly was created as a
result of the 1998
Belfast
Agreement. The Assembly was intended to bring together the
different communities to govern Northern Ireland together.
From October 2002, it was not operational, due to a breakdown in
the
Northern Ireland
peace process but, on 13 October 2006, British and Irish
governments announced a "road map" to restore devolution to
Northern Ireland.
On 26
March 2007, Democratic
Unionist Party (DUP) leader Ian
Paisley met Sinn Féin leader
Gerry Adams for the first time and
together announced that a devolved government would be returning to
Northern
Ireland. Power-sharing began on 8 May 2007.
Scotland
Ever since the
Parliament of
Scotland closed down in 1707 as a consequence of the
Acts of Union, individuals and organisations
have advocated the return of a Scottish Parliament. The drive for
home rule first took concrete shape in the 19th century, as demands
for it in Ireland were met with similar (although not as
widespread) demands in Scotland. The
National
Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights was
established in 1853, a body close to the
Tories and motivated by a desire
to secure more focus on Scottish problems in response to what they
felt was undue attention being focused on Ireland by the then
Liberal government.
In 1871, William Gladstone stated at a meeting held
in Aberdeen
that if Ireland was to be granted home rule, then
the same should apply to Scotland. A Scottish home rule
bill was presented to the Westminster
Parliament
in 1913 but the legislative process was interrupted
by the First World War.
The demands for political change in the way in which Scotland was
run changed dramatically in the 1920s when Scottish nationalists
started to form various organisations. The
Scots National League was formed in
1920 in favour of
Scottish
independence, and this movement was superseded in 1928 by the
formation of the
National
Party of Scotland, which became the
Scottish National Party (SNP) in
1934. At first the SNP sought only the establishment of a devolved
Scottish assembly, but in 1942 they changed this to support all-out
independence. This caused the resignation of
John MacCormick from the SNP and he formed
the
Scottish Covenant
Association. This body proved to be the biggest mover in favour
of the formation of a Scottish assembly, collecting over two
million signatures in the late 1940s and early 1950s and attracting
support from across the political spectrum. However, without formal
links to any of the political parties it withered, and devolution
and the establishment of an assembly were put on the political back
burner.
Support for the SNP reached 30% in the October, 1974 general
election, with 11 SNP MPs being elected. In 1978 the Labour
government passed the
Scotland Act
which legislated for the establishment of a Scottish Assembly,
provided the Scots voted for such in a plebiscite. However, the
Labour Party was bitterly divided on the subject of devolution.
Despite officially favouring it, considerable numbers of members
opposed the establishment of an assembly, and this division
contributed to only a narrow 'Yes' majority being obtained and the
failure to reach 40% of the electorate voting in favour of an
assembly as required by an amendment to the Scotland Act that had
been proposed by Labour MP
George
Cunningham who was shortly afterwards to defect to the newly
formed Social Democratic Party (SDP).
History took an
ironic twist when the Labour Government led by James Callaghan lost an SNP-inspired vote of
no confidence on the issue which ushered in 18 years of
Conservative government under Margaret
Thatcher and then John Major who both
strongly resisted any proposal for devolution for either Scotland
or Wales. The
1979 General Election also saw a collapse in the SNP's vote
returning only two MPs.
See also Royal
Commission on the Constitution,
Scotland referendum, 1979
In 1989
the Scottish
Constitutional Convention was formed encompassing the Labour
Party, Liberal Democrats and
the Scottish Green Party,
local authorities,
and sections of "civic Scotland" like Scottish Trades Union
Congress, the Small Business Federation and Church of
Scotland
and the other major churches in Scotland.
Its purpose was to devise a scheme for the formation of a
devolution settlement for Scotland. The SNP decided to withdraw as
they felt that independence would not be a constitutional option
countenanced by the convention. The convention produced its final
report in 1995.
In May 1997, the
Labour government
of
Tony Blair was elected with a promise
of creating devolved institutions in Scotland. In late 1997, a
referendum was held which resulted in a
"yes" vote.
The newly-created Scottish
Parliament (as a result of the Scotland Act 1998) had powers to make
primary legislation in certain
'devolved' areas of policy, in addition to some limited tax varying powers (which to date have not been
exercised). Other policy areas remained 'reserved' for the
UK Government and parliament.
Devolution for Scotland was justified on the basis that it would
make government more responsive to the wishes of the people of
Scotland. It was argued that the population of Scotland felt
detached from the
Westminster government (largely
because of the policies of the
Conservative governments led by
Margaret Thatcher and
John Major ) However, devolution for Scotland has
brought to the fore the
West
Lothian question which is a complaint that devolution for
Scotland and Wales but not England has created a situation where
MPs in the UK parliament, including Welsh and Scottish MPs, can
vote on matters affecting England alone but on those same matters
Scotland and Wales can make their own decisions.
Wales
The 1974 – 79 Labour Government proposed a Welsh Assembly in
parallel to its proposals for Scotland. These were rejected by
voters in the
Wales referendum,
1979 with 956,330 votes against, compared with 243,048
for.
In May
1997, the Labour government of
Tony Blair was elected with a promise of
creating a devolved assembly in Wales; the
Wales referendum, 1997
resulted in a "yes" vote. The
National Assembly for Wales, as
a consequence of the
Government of Wales Act 1998,
possesses the power to determine how the
government budget for Wales is spent and
administered.
Devolution for Wales was justified on the basis that it would aid
in bringing government closer to the people in the nation. The
population of Wales felt detached from the
Westminster government (largely
because of the policies of the
Conservative governments led by
Margaret Thatcher and
John Major ).
In Wales the referendum on devolution was
only narrowly passed, and most voters rejected devolution in all
the counties bordering England, as well as Cardiff
and Pembrokeshire
. However, all recent opinion polls indicate
an increasing level of support for further devolution, with support
for primary law-making powers now commanding a majority, and
diminishing support for abolition of the Assembly.
Critics of devolution believe that it will undermine the existence
of the United Kingdom, but an alternative view is that its is the
asymmetric nature of the current devolution settlement that
presents the greater threat to the Union.
England
England is the only country of the United Kingdom to not have a
devolved Parliament or Assembly though a movement for the
establishment of a single
devolved English Parliament, the
English Constitutional
Convention, is backed by the
English Democrats and
Campaign for an English
Parliament. Without its own devolved Parliament, England
continues to be governed and legislated for by the UK Government
and UK Parliament which gives rise to the
West Lothian question. The question
concerns the fact that, on devolved matters, Scottish MPs continue
to help make laws that apply to England alone though English MPs
can not help make laws on those same matters for Scotland. There is
evidence that the idea of an English Parliament has a significant
level of support.
Within
England, regional devolution has
only extended to London
where the
Greater London Authority
has greater powers than other local authority bodies.
Proposals for other
Regional Assemblies in
England have been indefinitely postponed following the
rejection in a
2004
referendum of proposals for the
North East.
Cornwall
There is
a movement that supports devolution in Cornwall
. Its strongest advocates in elections are
the
Mebyon Kernow party and the
Cornish Liberal Democrats who aim to establish a
regional
Cornish Assembly. A
proportion of Cornish devolution supporters such as the
Cornish Stannary
Parliament,
Cornwall 2000, the
Cornish Nationalist Party,
Cornish Solidarity and the
Cornish National
Liberation Army support further devolution for Cornwall to
become either a
constituent
country of the United Kingdom or even split from the UK
entirely.
Several Cornish Liberal Democrat MPs such as
Andrew George,
Matthew Taylor and
Dan Rogerson are strong supporters of
Cornish devolution.
On
Wednesday 12 December 2001, the Cornish Constitutional Convention
and Mebyon Kernow submitted a 50,000-strong petition supporting
devolution in Cornwall to 10 Downing Street
. In December 2007 Cornwall Council leader
David Whalley stated that “There is something inevitable about the
journey to a Cornish Assembly”.
Crown Dependencies
Crown dependencies are
possessions of the
British Crown, as
opposed to
overseas territories
or
colonies of the United Kingdom.
They
comprise the Channel Island bailiwicks of Jersey
and Guernsey
, and the Isle of Man
in the Irish Sea.
The dependencies do not form a part of the United Kingdom, being
separate jurisdictions. Each has its own parliament and Chief
Minister. However, as possessions of the Crown they are not
sovereign nations in their own right and the British Government has
historically retained a number of residual powers in relation to
the islands. To the extent that these powers have been little used
in recent years, there has been a de-facto measure of devolution.
In addition, the
States of Jersey Law 2005 established
that all Acts of the United Kingdom and
Orders in Council relating to Jersey are
to be referred to the Island's parliament, and gave greater freedom
of action to Jersey in international affairs.
United States
District of Columbia
In United
States, the District
of Columbia
offers an illustration of devolved
government. The District is separate from any state, and has
its own elected government; in many ways, on a day-to-day basis, it
operates much like another state, with its own laws, court system,
Department of Motor Vehicles, public university, and so on.
However, the governments of the 50 states have a broad range of
powers reserved to them by the U.S. Constitution, and most of their
laws cannot be voided by any act of U.S. federal government. The
District of Columbia, by contrast, is constitutionally under the
sole control of the
United States
Congress, which created the current District government by
statute. Any law passed by the District legislature can be
nullified by Congressional action, and indeed the District
government could be significantly altered or eliminated entirely by
a simple majority vote in Congress.
United States
In the United States only the federal government and the state
governments are recognized by the United States Constitution, so
local governments are subdivisions of states. Theoretically, a
state could abolish all local governments within its borders.
Local governments such as
municipalities,
counties,
parishes,
boroughs,
school
districts, and other types of local government and
political subdivision entities are
devolved. They are established, regulated, and subject to
governance by the
constitutions or laws
of the state in which they reside. Many local governments are given
some degree of
home rule, depending on the
state.
U.S. state
legislatures, in most cases, have the power to change laws that
affect local government structures. In some states, the
governor may also have power over local government
affairs.
Territories of the United States
Puerto Rico, Guam
, the
U.S.
Virgin Islands, American
Samoa
and other territories are subject to their
governments being directly regulated by Congressional Acts.
Unlike state governments which have reserved powers according to
the U.S. Constitution, U.S. territorial governments can be
constitutionally created, modified, governed, or dissolved by the
U.S. Congress.
Indian Tribes
Native American
tribes have some rights devolved to them by United States
government. For example they are given a large amount of
autonomous rule over their tribal lands. However,
the tribal governments do not have independence from the federal
government. Indian tribes also do not have the equivalent rights of
the
U.S. States under the
U.S. Constitution. However, they are exempt
from jurisdiction of some state laws and regulations, such as
allowing gambling on their reservations, when similar activity may
be illegal outside tribal lands.
Australia
The
Australian
Capital Territory
or Canberra
refused self-government in a 1978 referendum, but
was given limited self-government by a House of Assembly
from 1979, and a Legislative Assembly
with wider powers in 1988.
The
Northern
Territory
of Australia refused statehood in 1998,
probably due to the proposed status in the Australian Senate with only two senators
instead of twelve like the existing states. The rejection
was a shock to both the Australian and Northern Territory
governments.
Canada
Although Canada is a federal state, a large portion of its land
mass in the North is under the legislative jurisdiction of the
federal government. This has been the case since 1870. In 1870, the
Rupert’s Land and North-Western Territory Order effected the
admission of Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory to
Canada, pursuant to section 146 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and
the Rupert’s Land Act, 1868.
The Manitoba
Act, 1870, which created Manitoba out of part of
Rupert’s Land, also designated the remaining territories the
Northwest Territories (NWT), over which Parliament was to exercise
full legislative authority under the Constitution Act,
1871.
Since the 1970s, the federal government has been transferring its
decision-making powers to northern governments. This means greater
local control and accountability by northerners for decisions
central to the future of the territories.
Yukon
Territory
was carved
from the Northwest Territories in 1898 but it remained a federal
territory. Subsequently, in 1905, the provinces of
Alberta and Saskatchewan
were created from the Northwest
Territories
. In 1999, the federal government created
Nunavut
Territory
pursuant to a land claim agreement reached with
Inuit, the indigenous people of Canada’s Eastern Arctic.
Since that time, the federal government has slowly devolved
legislative jurisdiction to the territories. Enabling the
territories to become more self-sufficient and prosperous and to
play a stronger role in the Canadian federation is considered a key
component to development in Canada’s North. Among the three
territories, devolution is most advanced in Yukon.
Northwest Territories
The
Northwest
Territories were governed from Ottawa
from 1870
until the 1970s. The Carruthers Commission was established
in April 1963 by the government of
Lester B. Pearson. The three-man membership was
appointed in 1965. It conducted surveys of opinion in the NWT in
1965 and 1966 and reported in 1966. Major recommendations included
that the seat of government of the territories should be located in
the territories. Yellowknife was selected as the territorial
capital as a result. Transfer of many responsibilities from the
federal government to that of the territories was recommended and
carried out. This included responsibility for education, small
business, public works, social services and local government. Since
the report, the transfer of the Government of Northwest Territories
has taken over responsibilities for several other programs and
services including the delivery of health care, administration of
airports and forestry management. The legislative jurisdiction of
the territorial legislature is set out in section 16 of the
Northwest Territories Act.
In the past 30 years, the transfer of responsibilities to the
Government of Northwest Territories has taken place for several
programs and services including the delivery of health care, social
services, education, administration of airports and forestry
management.
Now, the Government of Canada is negotiating the transfer of the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's remaining
provincial-type responsibilities in the NWT. These include the
legislative powers, programs and responsibilities for land and
resources associated with the department's Northern Affairs Program
(NAP) with respect to:
- powers to develop, conserve, manage and regulate of surface and
subsurface natural resources in the NWT for mining and minerals
(including oil and gas) administration, water management, land
management and environmental management;
- powers to control and administer public land with the right to
use, sell or otherwise dispose of such land; and
- powers to levy and collect resource royalties and other
revenues from natural resources.
The Government of the Northwest Territories, the Aboriginal Summit
and the Government of Canada have each appointed a Chief Negotiator
to work on devolution. A Framework Agreement which was concluded in
2004. The target date for the completion of devolution talks for
the NWT was March 2007. However, stumbling blocks associated with
the transfer of current federal employees to the territorial
government, and the unresolved issue of how much money the
Northwest Territories will receive for its resources has delayed
the conclusion of a devolution agreement for the NWT.
Nunavut
In 1966, the federal government established the Carrothers
Commission to look at the issue of government in the North. After
extensive study and consultation, the Commission concluded that
division of the NWT was probably both advisable and inevitable.
There was a recognition that Northerners wanted to run their own
affairs and must be given the opportunity to do so. At the same
time, however, it noted that governmental reform was required
before this could happen. It recommended the establishment of a new
system of representative government. As a result, in the late 1960s
and in the 1970s, the federal government gradually created
electoral constituencies and transferred many federally run
programs to the territorial government. Northerners took on more
and more responsibility for the day-to-day running of their own
affairs.In 1982, a plebiscite was held in the NWT asking the
question, "Do you think the NWT should be divided?" Fifty-three
percent of eligible voters participated in the plebiscite, with
56.4 percent of them voting "yes." Voter turnout and support for
division was particularly strong in the Eastern Arctic. The Inuit
population of the eastern section of the territory had become
increasingly receptive of the idea of self-government. It was
viewed as the best way to promote and protect their culture and
traditions and address their unique regional concerns.
Both the NWT Legislative Assembly and the federal government
accepted the idea of dividing the territory. The idea was viewed as
an important step towards enabling the
Inuit,
and other residents of the Eastern Arctic, to take charge of their
own destiny. There were some reservations, however. Before action
could be taken, certain practical considerations had to be
addressed. First of all, outstanding land claims had to be settled.
Second, all parties had to agree on a new boundary. Finally, all
parties had to agree on the division of powers between territorial,
regional and local levels of government. The various governments
and native groups worked closely together to realize these
goals.The
Nunavut Land
Claims Agreement was ratified by the Inuit in November 1992,
signed by the Prime Minister of Canada on May 25, 1993, and passed
by the Canadian Parliament in June of the same year. It was the
largest native land claim settlement in Canadian history. It gave
the Inuit title over 350,000 square kilometres of land. It also
gave the Inuit capital transfers from the federal government of
over $1.1 billion over the next 14 years. This money will be held
in trust with the interest to be used in a variety of different
projects, including financing for regional businesses and
scholarships for students. The Inuit also gained a share of
resource royalties, hunting rights and a greater role in managing
the land and protecting the environment. The land claims agreement
also committed the Government of Canada to recommend to Parliament
legislation to create a new territory in the eastern part of the
Northwest Territories.
While negotiations on a land claims settlement progressed, work was
also taking place to determine potential jurisdictional boundaries
for a new Eastern Territory. A proposal was presented to all NWT
voters in a May 1992 plebiscite. Of those voting, 54 percent
supported the proposed boundary. The Government of the Northwest
Territories, the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut (the Inuit claims
organization) and the federal government formally adopted the
boundary for division in the Nunavut Political Accord.The final
piece of the equation fit into place on June 10, 1993, when the
Nunavut Act received Royal Assent. It officially established the
territory of Nunavut and provided a legal framework for its
government. It fixed April 1, 1999, as the day on which the new
territory would come into existence.
The Government of Nunavut is currently negotiating with the
Government of Canada on a devolution agreement.
Nunavut Tunngavik, the organization of
Inuit of Nunavut, is also a participant to negotiations to ensure
that Inuit interests are represented.
Devolution over natural resources to the
Government of Nunavut
moved forward with the appointment of a Ministerial
Representative for Nunavut Devolution. The Representative
has held meetings with interested parties including the Boards
established under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA),
territorial and federal government departments in order to
determine if devolution will occur and if so the future mandate of
devolution. The Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik have
appointed negotiators.
Yukon
In 1896
gold was discovered in the Yukon
beginning
of what is often considered the world's greatest gold rush which
saw the population of the Yukon grow rapidly. Indeed, by 1898,
Dawson
grew into the largest Canadian city west of
Winnipeg
, with a population of 40,000. In response,
the Canadian government officially established the Yukon Territory
in 1898.
The North West Mounted Police
were sent in to ensure Canadian jurisdiction and
The Yukon Act provided for a commissioner to administer the
territory. The 1898 statute granted the Commissioner in
Council “the same powers to make ordinances... as are possessed by
the Lieutenant Governor of the North-west Territories, acting by
and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly
thereof.” In 1908, amendments to the Yukon Act transformed the
Council into an elected body.
Over time the territorial government exercised expanded functions.
Relevant developments include the following:
By the mid-1960s, schools, public works, welfare and various other
matters of a local nature had come under territorial
administration.
Increased authority of elected Council members over the ensuing
period contributed to significant changes in the Yukon
Commissioner’s role. In 1979, instructions from the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Minister) directed the
Commissioner to allow elected members and the Executive Council to
make important policy decisions, specifying that his actions should
normally be based on the advice and taken with the consent of the
elected Executive Council.
Like in the Northwest Territories, federal responsibilities were
transferred to the Yukon government in the 1980s. In 1988, the
Minister and the Yukon Government Leader signed a
Memorandum of Understanding
committing the parties to smooth the progress of devolution of
remaining province-like responsibilities to the Yukon Government.
Responsibilities transferred since then include fisheries, mine
safety, intra-territorial roads, hospitals and community health
care, oil and gas and, most recently, natural resources.
Discussion to transfer land and resource management
responsibilities to the Yukon Government began in 1996, followed by
a formal federal devolution proposal to the Yukon Government in
January, 1997. In September 1998, a Devolution Protocol Accord to
guide devolution negotiations was signed. On August 28, 2001 a
final draft of the Devolution Transfer Agreement was completed for
consideration. The Yukon Devolution transfer Agreement was
concluded on October 29, 2001 with the Government of the Yukon
enabling the transfer of remaining province-like responsibilities
for land, water and resource management to the Government of the
Yukon on April 1, 2003.
Mexico
The Federal District
All constituent
states of
Mexico are fully autonomous and comprise a federation.
However,
the Federal District, originally integrated by Mexico City
and other municipalities, was created in 1824 to be
the capital of the federation. As such, it was governed
directly by the central or federal government and the
president of Mexico appointed its
governor or executive regent. Even though the municipalities within
the Federal District were autonomous, their powers were limited. In
1928, these municipalities were abolished and transformed into
non-autonomous
delegaciones
or boroughs and a "Central Department", later renamed as Mexico
City. In 1970 this department was split into four new
delegaciones, and Mexico City was constitutionally defined
to be synonymous and coterminus with the entire Federal District.
(As such, the
boroughs of the Federal
District are boroughs of Mexico City).
In the 1980s, the citizens of the Federal District, being the most
populated federal entity in Mexico, began to demand for home rule;
a devolution of autonomy in order to directly elect their head of
government and to set up a Legislative Assembly. In 1987, an
Assembly of Representatives was created, by constitutional decree,
whose members were elected by popular vote. The devolution of the
executive power was not granted until 1997 when the first
head government
was elected by popular vote. Finally, in 2000, power was devolved
to the
delegaciones, though limited: residents can now
elect their own "heads of borough government" (
jefes de
delegacionales, in Spanish), but the
delegaciones do
not have regulatory powers and are not constituted by a board of
trustees, like the
municipalities of the constituent
states.
The autonomy, or home rule, of the Federal District, was granted by
the federal government, which in principle, has the right to remove
it. The president of Mexico still holds the final word in some
decisions (e.g. he must approve some posts), and the
Congress of the Union reviews the budget
of the Federal District and sets the limit to its debt.
Some
left-wing groups and political parties have advocated, since the
1980s, for a full devolution of powers by transforming the Federal
District into the thirty-second constituent state of the Federation
(with the proposed name of "State of the Valley of Mexico", to be
distinguished from the state of México
. Another proposed name is "State of the
Anahuac").
Indigenous peoples
In a recent amendment to the
Constitution of Mexico, the country
was defined as a "pluricultural nation" originally founded upon the
"indigenous peoples". They are granted "free-determination" to
choose the social, economical, cultural and political organization
for which they are to elect representatives democratically in
whatever manner they see fit, traditionally or otherwise, as long
as women have the same opportunities to participate in their social
and political life. There are, however, no prescribed limits to
their territories, and they are still under the jurisdiction of the
municipalities and states in which they are located; the indigenous
peoples can elect representatives before the municipal councils. In
practice, they are allowed to have an autonomous form of
self-government, but they are still subject to the rights and
responsibilities set forth by the federal constitution and the
constitution of the states in which they are located.
Movements calling for devolution
Movements
calling for devolution also exist, to a more limited degree, in
England, particularly with regards to Cornwall as well as some unofficial or historic English
Regions such as Wessex
and
Mercia
. In
Northern Italy, there is a political
movement led by the
Lega Nord, for the
homerule of
Padania.
In France, there are
groups calling for devolution or full independence for Occitania, the Basque
Country
, Alsace
, and
Brittany.
List of unitary states with devolution
Other meanings of the term devolution
In some hierarchical churches, especially Anglican churches
including the
Church of England,
devolution is a
bishop's
appointment of a person to a
benefice (e.g.
a
parish) when the ordinary patron or
collator (i.e. the person or body with the right to appoint) has
failed to do so, either because an improper candidate has been
nominated or because no candidate could be found
Cardinal
Albino Luciani, also known
as Pope John Paul I, was the author of initiatives such as the
devolution of one per cent of each church's entries for the poor
churches in the Third World.
Under United States estate tax provision, "devolution" may occur
when a deceased obtains "incidents of ownership" under the Estate
Tax Regulation 20.2042-1(c)2 in a fiduciary capacity from an
independent transaction creating a trust for benefit of another
party. See IRC 2042 & Revenue Ruling 84-179 example.
See also
Notes
- Alvin Jackson, Home Rule, an Irish History 1800 –
2000, (2003), ISBN 0-7538-1767-5
- March target date for devolution, BBC News Online, 13
October 2006
- Mori Poll - Views on English Devolution - 41% support
English Parliament
- You-Gov opinion Polls on English Parliament
commissioned by English Democrats
- Andrew George MP, Press release regarding Cornish
devolution October 2007
- The
Cornish Constitutional Convention
- BBC News 11th December 2001- Government gets
Cornish assembly call
- Cornwall Council leader supports Cornish
devolution
- Article 44, Political Constitution of the United
Mexican States, Second Title, Second Chapter, 44rd article
- Código Financiero del Distrito Federal
- Second Article of the Political Constitution of the
United Mexican States
External links
.
(1916).
Wikis
Quiz
Facts
Map
Search