Talk:Unitary state

India

Why isn't India listed as a unitary state? While it may be a Union of states , the "Central" gevernment has much authority over the states, it appoints the governors, can split, merge or eradicate the states and change their status at will. Note the automatic inclusion of the princely states into the Union at Independence. Was this a foregone conclusion or a fait accompli? --68.80.223.233 22:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Spain

Spain is just like the United Kingdom, a unitary state but with self-government areas (decentralised country with an asymmetric federalism). This article should not be centered on the English speaking countries only. Spain has 17 Autonomous areas plus 2 autonomous cities located in North Africa, it acts de facto as a Federal State, called in Spanish Estado de las Autonomías. Contrary to Spain and UK, there are other unitary states with more centralised powers, like France. 178.109.153.131 (talk)

Montenegro

The map below the “Overview” section of European countries shows Montenegro as a federation, although it is unitary.

DK, NL

I am surprised to see Kingdom of the Netherlands and Kingdom of Denmark listed here, when each includes autonomous island territories. —Tamfang (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament

@Goodreg3, you reverted my edit stating that the UK Parliament can abolish the Scottish Parliament. Can you explain how the Scotland Act 2016 prevents this? Mcirwin (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This source from the UK Parliament clearly makes clear that:

• "The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements"

and

• "In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum"

Goodreg3 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

What prevents the UK Parliament from repealing that section of the 2016 Act? Mcirwin (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Why would it? It is law and received Royal Assent, so as it stands, the UK Government cannot abolish devolution without a legally binding referendum. To dispute otherwise is merely your personal opinion - you cannot argue what is set out in a piece of legislation which is currently law. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Your claim was that " UK Government can no longer just pass legislation which abolishes devolution as a result of the Scotland Act 2016 and Wales Act 2017". If nothing prevents that section of the 2016 Act being repealed, the UK Parliament can abolish devolution without a referendum. Mcirwin (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The article previously read as that the UK Parliament can abolish the devolved parliaments, which since the passing of respective acts in Scotland and Wales, is incorrect. Whatever I claimed in the edit summary is somewhat irrelevant as it does not take away the fact devolution cannot be abolished without the agreement of the electorate. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

In order for the UK Parliament to abolish the devolved parliaments, it would need to pass an act of parliament. This is true before and after the 2016 Act. The 2016 Act did not really alter this situation nor the power of the UK Parliament. That section of the act just put into writing a political commitment which doesn't have much force in law. If it is true that the UK Parliament are free to repeal that section, then I don't know how it can be said that: "devolution cannot be abolished without the agreement of the electorate". Mcirwin (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The UK Parliament cannot simply pass a piece of legislation which would ultimately dissolve devolution. It is law that in order to do so, there must be a referendum which a majority of the electorate agree to and vote in favour of in order for devolution to be abolished. Until such a time a piece of legislation is passed by both the House of Commons and House of Lords, and a referendum is held on the issue, the law stands, and the law makes the current legal constitutional agreement clear which is stated above. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You still haven't explained what prevents Parliament from repealing the section without a referendum. Mcirwin (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

If it were to do so then it would be in breach of their own piece of legislation and would undoubtedly endure a political and constitution crisis. With that in mind, you haven’t explained as to why they would repeal or dissolve devolution without a referendum being held? Until such a time that either scenario happens, the Scotland Act 2016 is a piece of legislation enshrined in law which makes clear the permanence of the devolved governments and parliaments within the constitution, therefore, it’s ridiculous to argue with what a piece of legislation states. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It isn't a breach of the law to repeal the law. I haven't claimed that Parliament would abolish the Scottish Parliament. Whether they would do so doesn't really have bearing in whether they can do so. Mcirwin (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m really struggling to understand your argument relating this. As it stands on the current legal basis, the UK Parliament cannot simply abolish devolution without a referendum being held. The article previously claimed that the UK Parliament could unilaterally abolish devolution on its own merits and choosing without consultation and that is factually incorrect since both acts were passed in Scotland and Wales. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

My argument is that one Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. Any act of parliament which purports to tell a future Parliament how to exercise its power has no real legal effect in that regard. An act which directs that a future Parliament should hold a referendum before doing something doesn't effectively prevent that Parliament from doing that thing without a referendum. Mcirwin (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

But the legislation states very clearly that it will not do that, therefore, it’s somewhat ridiculous to suggest otherwise. If a future government was to abolish devolution without consulting the electorate through a referendum being held, it would be in breach of its own legislation and undoubtedly would be met with legal challenges from the devolved governments. To suggest otherwise is mythical and ludicrous. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

How could it be in breach of its own legislation if it repeals the legislation? There would be no legislation to be in breach of. Mcirwin (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m not going to continue engaging in this debate as I struggle to see what the points are you are trying to make. You are trying to speculate that successive governments in the future which breach its own legislation that states a referendum must be held in order to abolish devolution. Until such a time that happens, the law stands as it stands. Your statements you provided moments ago are somewhat irrelevant as it merely discusses the wording of the act. We are not engaging in dialogue here regarding the permanency of the devolved parliaments, but rather the processes in place in order to abolish them. Like it or not, it has been made explicitly clear in law that in order to do so, there must be a referendum, and it is pointless to argue that successive governments would try to abolish devolution in the future without doing so. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

As I stated earlier "I haven't claimed that Parliament would abolish the Scottish Parliament." You have said a few times that I have 'speculated' or 'argue[d]) that they would, this isn't true. Mcirwin (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Your entire argument is based on pure speculation. Until such a time a sitting UK Government repeals the legislation to abolish devolution without holding a referendum, as it stands, it cannot do so simply without holding a referendum, that has been made clear in law. Come back if, or when, a UK Government repeals the legislation to allow it to abolish devolution without a referendum and we will take it from there. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not see how it is speculative to claim that the UK Parliament has such a power. As the constitution is currently understood, that is the orthodox position. Mcirwin (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Would it not at least be more helpful to someone who does not have an understanding of the constitution to provide a caveat that, while that is what is written in the 2016 Act, the UK Parliament has the power to "make or unmake any law whatever", and so can unilaterally revoke such a guarantee? Mcirwin (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not surely why 'merely' discussing the wording of the act is irrelevant, it seems really quite relevant to me. Mcirwin (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the evidence given to this committee prior to the Scotland Bill being passed is useful.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldconst/145/14511.htm

Q9  Lord Cullen of Whitekirk: I turn to draft Clause 1, which states that, "A Scottish Parliament is recognised as a permanent part of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements". I am grateful to Dr Elliot for his paper on this subject. If those words have no legal effect, what is their purpose?

Dr Mark Elliott: To satisfy the drafters of the Smith agreement.

Lord Cullen of Whitekirk: What do you think they had in mind? I know that this is merely speculative, but is there some practical purpose to it?

Dr Mark Elliott: I think that our whole constitution to an extent is built on smoke and mirrors—that we have a set of constitutional laws that say one thing and a set of political practices and conventions that dictate that reality is different. The key difficulty that Clause 1 highlights is the problems that you encounter when you bring those two aspects of the constitution into relationship with each other. The law is that Parliament cannot make the Scottish Parliament permanent, and clearly this clause does not even attempt to do that. What it is doing, I think, is acknowledging that in political terms the Scottish Parliament is permanent. I think it has been permanent since it began to sit, over 10 years ago, and I do not think that it makes any difference in that sense. It is a statement in a statutory text of a political reality.

Lord Cullen of Whitekirk: One point intrigues me. The Scottish Parliament is, of course, a devolved parliament. If that devolved parliament is to be permanent—the word used in this clause—can the UK Parliament at some point in the future order a referendum that might remove devolution?

Dr Mark Elliott: Yes.

Lord Cullen of Whitekirk: Does that mean that there is a hole in the wording, because it can never be permanent in the absolute sense?

Dr Mark Elliott: I entirely agree. As a matter of orthodox UK constitutional law, no Act of this Parliament can make any other institution like the Scottish Parliament permanent. It can say that it is permanent, or it can say more diluted things, such as that it recognises its permanence, but that will not make it so. Mcirwin (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, I think you are misconstruing what I am saying. The UK Parliament cannot simply abolish devolution without a referendum being held. A referendum does not need to be held in order for the UK Parliament to pass legislation in regards for the UK Parliament to legislate for such a referendum. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Further from Scotland Act 2016

• Section 1 interests a new Part, Part 2A, with new section 63A into the Scotland Act 1998 after Part 2 (the Scottish Administration). Section 63A provides that the Scottish Parliament and Government are permanent parts of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements, and that those institutions cannot be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland in a referendum.
• Subsection (1) of section 63A provides that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are permanent parts of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
• Subsection (2) of section 63A sets out that the purpose of this section is to signify the commitment of the UK Parliament and UK Government to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government.
• Subsection (3) of section 63A provides that, in view of that commitment, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland in a referendum.

Goodreg3 (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Eight countries are missing on the map

The following eight countries are missing on the map:

1. Andorra – shown as grey colour
2. Bahrain – not shown on the map
3. Palestine – shown as grey colour
4. Sahrawi Republic (Western Sahara) – shown as grey colour
5. Somaliland – shown as a part of Somalia
6. Cook Islands – not shown on the map
7. Niue – not shown on the map
8. The Bahamas – shown as grey colour

All of them are unitary states. ~2026-47210-02 (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Abkhazia should not be presented as an ordinary “current unitary sovereign state”

@Materialscientist and Dolphinian6:

I am raising a serious neutrality and accuracy concern regarding the inclusion of Abkhazia under the heading “List of current unitary sovereign states” → “Unitary republics.”

As currently structured, the article places Abkhazia alongside internationally recognized sovereign states such as Albania, Armenia, France and Georgia itself. Merely italicizing Abkhazia and adding a general note that italics denote “states with limited recognition” does not adequately communicate the exceptionally disputed legal status of the territory. More importantly, the wording of the section itself — “current unitary sovereign states” — presents sovereignty as the basic category into which Abkhazia has already been placed.

This is particularly problematic because Wikipedia's own article Abkhazia explicitly describes it as a de facto state with limited recognition, internationally recognised as Georgian territory. The overwhelming majority of the international community does not recognize Abkhazia as an independent sovereign state.

This is not a minor terminological issue.

The European Union, as recently as September 2026, again referred to Abkhazia as an occupied breakaway region of Georgia and reaffirmed Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/vienna-international-organisations/eu-statement-marking-18-years-outbreak-war-between-russia-and-georgia-osce-permanent-council-no-1577_en

The United Nations has likewise repeatedly reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders, including in relation to Abkhazia. In June 2026, the President of the UN General Assembly again referred to “Abkhazia, Georgia” and reaffirmed Georgia's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity: https://www.un.org/pga/80/2026/06/04/pga-remarks-at-an-annual-meeting-on-guam-status-of-internally-displaced-persons-and-refugees-from-abkhazia-georgia-and-the-tskhinvali-region-south-ossetia-georgia/

There is also an obvious internal presentation problem: Georgia and Abkhazia are both listed separately in the same list of “sovereign states,” despite Abkhazia being internationally recognised by the overwhelming majority of states as part of Georgia.

This risks giving readers the misleading impression that Abkhazia's sovereignty is an established and generally accepted fact rather than the central subject of an international territorial-status dispute.

This should be corrected in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS.

At minimum, I propose one of the following:

1. Remove Abkhazia from the list of “current unitary sovereign states” and, if relevant to the subject, discuss it separately under a clearly labelled section for de facto or partially recognised entities; or
2. rename/restructure the section so that recognised sovereign states and disputed/de facto entities are not presented under the same unqualified heading, and explicitly state next to Abkhazia that it is internationally recognised as part of Georgia.

The present wording is not sufficiently precise for an encyclopaedia dealing with a highly disputed territorial and sovereignty question. Italics alone are not an adequate substitute for an explicit explanation of legal and diplomatic status.

I strongly request that this classification be reviewed and corrected rather than allowing a contested sovereignty claim to be presented through the article's structure as if it were settled fact.

შალვა მინდაძე 11 (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2026 (UTC)