Reforging the Union: Devolution and Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom

Devolution to Scotland and Wales represents a major constitutionalchange in the United Kingdom. It responds to changes in Britishpolitics and in Europe, which have necessitated a renegotiationof the union that underpins the United Kingdom. The Scottishproposals are more radical than those for Wales, while Englishregional government change has been postponed for the time being.Possible areas of difficulty in the new arrangements includefinance, relations with Westminster, partisan conflict, andScotland's position in Europe. Devolution is likely to continuefor some years before a stable settlement is reached.     

A Changing UK in a Changing Europe: The UK State between European Union and Devolution

Two issues currently dominate the UK's constitutional landscape: the UK's membership of the European Union (EU) on the one hand; and the unsettled constitutional settlements between the UK and the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the other. This article considers these two issues in concert. It stresses the distinct relationships between the EU and the devolved territories within the UK—concerning both devolved and non‐devolved policy areas—highlighting the salience of a devolved perspective in any consideration of UK–EU relations. Despite its importance, sensitivity to this has been lacking. The article explores the implications of a ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’ outcome on the future of the internal territorial dynamics within the UK. While there are too many unknowns to be certain of anything, that there will be knock‐on effects is, however, beyond doubt.     

Regions and regionalism in the european community

Regionalism and European integration are two forces which are modifying the nation state. They are in contradictory in some respects but complementary in others. Their combined effects raise a number of policy and institutional issues. A new triangular relationship is emerging, among the Community, states and regions. Most links between regions and the Community pass through national governments but both regions and the Commission are seeking direct links. The Community's structural funds have become an object of contention among the three levels. Both regional development and European integration have ceased to be matters regulated at elite level in a technocratic manner and become highly politicised and contentious. In the new Europe, the differing capacities of regions to project themselves within states and the Community is likely to enhance the trend to a variable geometry Europe.     

Asymmetrical Government: Multinational States in an Integrating Europe

The premodern European state was asymmetrical and differentiated.From the nineteenth century, with the rise of democracy, thepenetration of the state into society and later the demand fordistributive equity, asymmetry was less acceptable. Nonetheless,asymmetrical elements remained, and territorial intermediationwas an important feature of the nation-state. In the late twentiethcentury, the reemergence of minority nationalism, the restructuringof territorial politics, and the weakening of the nation-statein the face of globalization and European integration have allfostered a new asymmetrical territorial politics. Europe itselfis developing asymmetrically and, within states, national minoritiesare seeking a new place in Europe. The United Kingdom, Spain,and Belgium illustrate these trends. There is no model of theasymmetrical state to replace the old paradigm, but there isa variety of experiences to support it. This process will bemanageable as long as Europe does not itself develop state-likefeatures or a nation-building project of its own. Instead, itshould, while providing a capacity for common policymaking anda common system of basic rights, remain an ambiguous realm ofauthority, allowing competing national projects to coexist.     

Mukulabhaṭṭa’s Defense of Lakṣaṇā: How We Use Words to Mean Something Else, But Not Everything Else

We frequently use single words or expressions to mean multiple things, depending upon context. I argue that a plausible model of this phenomenon, known as lak?a?ā by Indian philosophers, emerges in the work of ninth-century Kashmiri Mukulabha??a. His model of lak?a?ā is sensitive to the lexical and syntactic requirements for sentence meaning, the interpretive unity guiding a communicative act, and the nuances of creative language use found in poetry. After outlining his model of lak?a?ā, I show how arthāpatti, or presumption, forms the basis of both semantic and pragmatic processes in this approach. I employ a model from contemporary linguist James Pustejovsky as one way of reconstructing Mukulabha??a’s analysis. Finally, I argue that presumption is responsible for the wide range of interpretations in creative uses of language, and that our interpretations are constrained, through defeasible in a way that our decodings of literal meanings typically are not.