{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016937191249117856, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009880028228652082, 'mean_word_length': 5.112068965517241, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Devolution and Rights

The law, as Stuart Scheingold argued, has both concrete and symbolic forms. This has implications for the politics of rights. Myths are an important element in the politics of law. Multi-level systems of government create difficulties when it comes to the provision of rights, normally understood to involve equal rights for all. Almost by definition, decentralized systems involve citizens receiving different rights in different parts of a state. Central governments have a role in ensuring equality of rights across the state as a whole. Decentralization is often thought to undermine rights. Devolution in the United Kingdom confirm diversity in the provision of rights but offer a different perspective on the unequal provision of rights assumed in much American debate. This paper draws on debates in UK central government in the 1960s/70s when devolution to Scotland was first seriously considered. It highlights the key ‘myths’ that informed these debates within Whitehall, especially the UK Treasury. The relevance of these debates to today’s concerns is explored. Much of the debate in the 1960s and 1970s was against a backdrop of economic difficulties and public expenditure cuts. It is argued that devolved government has involved not only the creation of concrete institutions, but also the institutionalization of potent myths with significance not least for public expectations.