AO1: the source refers to ‘asymmetric devolution’. AO2: This is evidenced by the data, which shows clear evidence of under- representation in England and over-representation in Northern Ireland – this links with the West Lothian question asymmetric devolution, evidenced by the West Lothian question is seen as challenging the legitimacy of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs having a say in English affairs, and English devolution would reduce or remove this AO3: therefore this strengthens the case for only English MPs having a say in their own country’s affairs, as it would lead to a fairer system of government. AO1: devolution in general moves power to the people, giving them more ‘authority to propose local solutions’, this connects to the ideas discussed when studying democracy and participation, and liberalism the statistical part of the source demonstrates that devolution could correct the democratic deficit in England, where people are relatively under-represented AO3: thus it would seem that this supports a case for greater devolution and there is a clear evidence based on lack of representation in England. AO1: there is strong regional identity in various un-devolved parts of the UK such as Yorkshire or Cornwall, as well as some city regions such as Manchester and Birmingham the source is a report from a cross-party committee with a particular focus on constitutional reform, which arguably gives its views strong weight AO3: if, therefore, there is strong support from experts across parties then this would support the view that devolution could be extended and that it would be a successful move and gain parliamentary support. AO1: Wilson argues that giving greater power to English local authorities would be an effective way of achieving devolution in England. AO2: Wilson’s suggestion is a good compromise between allowing for more devolution whilst avoiding the problem of an English Parliament which would dominate the UK political system AO3: this is a more pragmatic and realistic way of achieving English devolution by using and evolving the existing political system in local government.

AO1: lack of demand, partly based on the relative weakness of regional identities in many areas of England shown in the ‘rejection’ of regional devolution, for example, in the North East contrary to the argument in the source, devolution was rejected due to the English not wanting devolution because they lack of regional identity AO3: this goes against the view that further devolution is needed and shows that it would not gain enough support and is, therefore, not worth undertaking. AO1: English devolution would inevitably exacerbate not reduce the asymmetry of devolved powers referred to in the source the potential dominance of England over the rest of the UK, if there is an English Parliament, particularly given the population imbalance highlighted in the statistical data, could threaten the existing consensus on devolution, which could, in turn, lead to the destabilising of the current system AO3: so therefore further devolution would be a negative thing to happen in terms of the current UK constitutional settlement and should not be taken forward by the government. AO1: there is a lack of agreement on what English devolution would look like in practice, which is implied by the different solutions discussed in the source the source’s view on why regional devolution in England failed could be seen as politically biased, since it is not universally accepted that it was due to a lack of power, as opposed to just lack of demand, but it was still a failure AO3: so therefore further devolution could not be seen as a sensible thing to undertake, as it is fundamentally flawed and lacks any basis for success. AO1: local councils are not equipped to handle extensive powers and the proposal could be seen as predominantly an exercise in cost cutting. the source does not give a clear justification for supporting one model of English devolution – to existing councils – over another and therefore is arguably not evidence based AO3: thus this lack of clarity supports the view that further devolution is problematic and should not be taken forward.