Dictionary Definition
devolve
Verb
1 pass on or delegate to another; "The
representative devolved his duties to his aides while he was in the
hospital"
2 be inherited by; "The estate fell to my
sister"; "The land returned to the family"; "The estate devolved to
an heir that everybody had assumed to be dead" [syn: fall, return, pass]
3 grow worse; "Her condition deteriorated";
"Conditions in the slums degenerated"; "The discussion devolved
into a shouting match" [syn: deteriorate, drop, degenerate] [ant: recuperate]
User Contributed Dictionary
English
Verb
Related terms
Extensive Definition
Devolution is the statutory granting
of powers from the central government of a state to government at national, regional, or local 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repealed by central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 sub-state government is guaranteed in the constitution.
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 referendum in Wales and Scotland in September 1997. In 1999, the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly were established. 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.Irish home rule
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. Whereas
home rule meant a subsidiary parliament under
Westminster, repeal meant the repeal of the Act of
Union 1800 and the creation of an entirely independent Irish
state, separated from the United Kingdom, with only a shared
monarch joining them both.
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 parliaments 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.
- 1886: First Irish Home Rule Bill never made it through the British House of Commons.
- 1893: Second Irish Home Rule Bill defeated in the House of Lords
- 1912: Third Irish Home Rule Act passed under the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911 (as the Government of Ireland Act 1914) but never came into force, due to the intervention of World War I (1914 – 18) and of the Easter Rising in Dublin (1916).
- 1920: Fourth Irish Home Rule Act (Government of Ireland Act 1920)
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 October 13,
2006, British
and Irish governments announced a "roadmap" to restore devolution
to Northern Ireland, conceivably by March 2007
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 will be returning to Northern
Ireland. Power-sharing began on 8 May 2007.
Scotland
A devolved Scottish Assembly that would have some form of legislative powers in jurisdiction over Scotland had been a political priority for many individuals and organizations. 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.In 1853 the
National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights was
established. This body was close to the Tories
and was 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, the legislative process to pass it 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.
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, vast 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 a Labour MP. 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 in the nation. 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
so-called 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 can vote on matters affecting England
alone but on those same matters Scotland and Wales can make their
own decisions.
In 2007, the Scottish
National Party (SNP) won the
Scottish parliament elections and formed a minority
government. New First
Minister, Alex
Salmond, hopes to hold a referendum on Scottish
Independence before 2011, though the SNP may be unable to get a
Bill to hold such a referendum approved by the Scottish parliament
due to the minority position of the SNP government. If a referendum
is held, an opinion poll in late 2007 suggested the result could be
close as support for independence had reached 40% with just 44%
supporting retention of the Union. The response of the unionist
parties has been to call for the establishment of a Commission to
examine further devolution of powers,a position that has the
support of the (Scottish) Prime Minister.
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.
Critics of devolution believe that it will undermine the existence
of the United
Kingdom
England
The only form of central devolution currently in place in England is in London where the Greater London Authority has greater powers than other local authority bodies. Proposals for regional devolution to elected assemblies have been indefinitely postponed following their rejection in the only referendum held, in the North East, in 2004. See Northern English devolution referendums, 2004A 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. Such a parliament is seen
as one solution to the West
Lothian question.
Cornwall
and Constitutional status of 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 Union 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 the 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 the 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.U.S. States
In the United States only the federal government and the state governments are recognized by the United States Constitution. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution implies that local governments are regulated by the state or by the people.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 the 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.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.
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.
The 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 of 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 of 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.
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. In Northern Italy, there is a political movement led by the Lega Nord, for the homerule of "Padania".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.See also
Notes
External links
devolve in Catalan: Devolució de poders
devolve in Welsh: Datganoli
devolve in German: Home Rule
devolve in French: Dévolution du pouvoir
devolve in Italian: Devoluzione
devolve in Norwegian: Home rule
devolve in Polish: Decentralizacja
devolve in Russian: Гомруль
devolve in Serbian: Деволуција
devolve in Simple English: Devolution
devolve in Swedish: Home rule
devolve in Chinese: 權力下放