As the prospect of nationalist First Ministers across the UK’s devolved governments grows stronger, Alex Walker examines whether Labour’s promised ‘reset’ of intergovernmental relations can withstand rising territorial fragmentation and what choices lie ahead for the Starmer government.
Will 2026 see each of the UK’s devolved governments led, for the first time, by a First Minister that hopes to see the break-up of the United Kingdom (UK)? A lot can change in four months, but the Caerphilly by-election confirmed that support for Welsh Labour has collapsed, opening the door to a Plaid Cymru victory. And the unpopularity of the UK Labour government appears to have at least partially revived the fortunes of the SNP in Scotland. This outcome would represent uncharted territory for the devolved UK Union, and usher in a new period for UK intergovernmental relations. With elections in Scotland and Wales on the horizon, it is worth looking at the Starmer government’s approach to devolved relations so far and where things could go next.
Labour came to power promising a ‘reset’ of relationships with the devolved governments after an especially fractious period which saw trust plummet due to a number of disputes tied to Brexit. The party’s manifesto promised to ‘improve relationships and collaboration on policy’ and emphasised the need for partnership. Initial improvements in tone were noted, and there has been some substance too. The government established a new high-level intergovernmental body – the Council of the Nations and Regions – to bring together the Prime Minister, the heads of the devolved governments and the English regional mayors on a twice-yearly basis. This has so far met twice, and Starmer has also been showing up to summits of the British Irish Council – a low bar, perhaps, but a rarity among his predecessors.
This has run alongside a commitment to the substantial network of intergovernmental structures that was agreed in 2022. At the heart of this system is a suite of inter-ministerial groups covering various different policy areas. Two new groups have been established since 2024, and several have renewed their terms of reference and commitment to regular engagement. There are indications that some have become more productive sites of policy learning and closer collaboration. And on areas of common interest where there are shared objectives, such as energy and net zero, there are signs of fairly intensive intergovernmental working. A statutory review of the contentious Johnson-era UK internal market legislation was also brought forward with an expanded remit. While rejecting calls for the Act to be repealed, the UK government committed to intergovernmental common frameworks as the primary mechanism for managing regulatory divergence within the UK internal market.
But cracks have begun to emerge. While policy disagreements between administrations are inevitable, some flashpoints have come from poor handling by the UK government. At a summit in May, the UK reached an agreement with the European Union (EU) on closer cooperation. This included extending existing quota arrangements for fishing access for a further 12 years, in exchange for a deal that would make it easier to export agri-food products. The management of fisheries is largely devolved and fishing is a major Scottish industry. Yet the Scottish government reported being blindsided, with no input or consultation taking place via intergovernmental channels ahead of the decision. And in December, some of Welsh Labour’s Senedd members broke ranks to criticise the UK government’s use of controversial UK Internal Market Act powers, which allow it to spend directly in devolved areas, to administer its ‘pride in place’ neighbourhood regeneration scheme. While this intra-party dissent was criticised by many Welsh Labour colleagues, Labour First Minister Eluned Morgan’s disagreements with Starmer have become more public. The Welsh government is continuing to push for further devolution, including over justice, but is yet to make much progress.
Starmer has continued to maintain that he is a “big believer in devolution”, but the reality is more mixed. Centralising instincts lurk alongside the government’s commitment to moving power out of Whitehall and improving relations with the devolved governments. The co-existence within Labour of different visions of the Union, the role of the British state, and devolution is nothing new. Ambiguity and avoidance have often been the preferred means of managing this diversity. But the presence of three First Ministers with an interest in demonstrating that the devolved Union ultimately does not work may make this increasingly difficult to sustain. There are several directions the UK government could theoretically take.
Starmer could use this juncture as an opportunity for more substantive constitutional reform. The constitutional commission conducted by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown while the party was in opposition proposed a territorial second chamber – an Assembly of the Nations and Regions – to replace the House of Lords, and Labour’s manifesto pledged to explore the idea. Territorial second chambers can institutionalise substate influence over state-wide legislation, providing a mechanism for ‘shared rule’ (the German Bundesrat is one example). Additionally, the government could respond to the likely renewed focus on the question of independence with a Clarity Act, negotiating on the conditions that must be met to trigger a referendum and what would happen afterwards. However, the government’s time in office so far has given little indication that it is prepared to engage in difficult constitutional policy. On this front, it is primarily pursuing quick wins on discrete, defined issues, such as removing the hereditary peers and votes at 16. Wholesale Lords reform and a Clarity Act might provide greater stability for the territorial constitutional over the long-term, but would be heavily contested and require considerable deliberation and bandwidth.
Might the UK government revert to a more assertive centralist approach instead? There are longstanding Labour traditions that are sceptical of place-based differences on grounds of fairness, and that emphasise social solidarity or an encompassing understanding of the British nation instead. The government could seek (in a manner reminiscent of its predecessors) to demonstrate the benefits of the Union through a more visible UK government presence in the devolved nations. And this might involve using the levers at its disposal to push UK-wide approaches over devolved policy divergence. But while the current government has had its centralising moments, this too is improbable. A ‘Whitehall-knows-best’ strategy would further alienate the ‘indycurious’ and soft unionist voters in Scotland and Wales that Labour needs to retain at the next general election.
This leaves one possibility that is more plausible: an effort to embrace and enhance the existing intergovernmental governance architecture. This could involve imbuing the now quite substantial, but not always clearly defined, structures of intergovernmental relations with greater purpose. And this might mean using the machinery more routinely for substantive collaboration and devolved input on UK-wide decision-making in some areas, and enhancing the visibility and co-ownership of this system. Our recent report put forward some proposals for how this might work in relation to Labour’s Council of the Nations and Regions initiative. At the same time, it might involve promoting devolved policy experimentation and being more comfortable with place-based differences. Taken together, this could amount to a kind of informal quasi-federalism, with a greater acceptance of the multinational character of the UK.
While not always consistent or especially ambitious, the UK government can point to some modest improvements in the conduct of intergovernmental relations since it took office. But next year’s devolved elections may deliver greater territorial fragmentation and a more testing political environment. Serious thought about how to navigate this landscape should start now.
Image: Council of Nations and Regions, by Scottish Government, courtesy of Creative Commons.
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Bennett Institute for Public Policy.
