Whether he meant to or not, Blair has created a disunited kingdom

What a disunited kingdom we are living in. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are becoming distinctive political countries, virtually unrecognisable from each other. To move from one to the next is almost as disorientating as leaping from Britain to France and on to Germany: a coalition here, a Green or two there, and in Northern Ireland no one at all. The days when the UK was governed by a simple two-party system are over.

Let us start with Scotland, a country that is beginning to resemble Germany in the variety of political parties performing on its national political stage. After last week's elections the new Scottish Parliament provides a platform for a larger number of Greens, Scottish Socialists and Independents to sit alongside the old, familiar parties. The Parliament comes close to realising, at least on one level, Tony Blair's early vision of a "progressive century".

In the mid-1990s Blair suggested that while the Conservatives had ruled the UK for much of the 20th century it would be the progressives' turn for the next 100 years. In Scotland, under a proportional voting system, progressives of various shades are flourishing, while the Tories are isolated. Whether the Prime Minister is pleased with the Scottish version of his early vision is another matter. He has lost all interest in the Liberal Democrats and has found more common ground recently with Iain Duncan Smith on Iraq, relations with Europe and reform of public services. But in Scotland, Labour's leaders have no choice in the matter: they are compelled to realise Blair's vision, whether he likes it or not. Without an overall majority, they must work with the Liberal Democrats and cannot entirely ignore the success of the Greens and the Socialists.

In Wales, an openly social democratic programme advocated confidently by the leader of the Welsh Assembly, Rhodri Morgan, has triumphed, sweeping away the ill-defined pretensions of Plaid Cymru. Morgan's re-election has been portrayed by some in the media as a victory for old Labour. What does that mean? The man and his policies are not quite so easy to stereotype as that. All I detect is a leader at ease with himself and his progressive views, not suffering from the fearful timidity that characterises New Labour's approach in England.

The powers of the Scottish Parliament are not great enough and in the Welsh Assembly they are puny, but the political culture of both countries has been transformed. This is not a claim that can be made about England. It is a country lacking a clear political voice, let alone a plurality of voices. The councils are largely powerless, told what to do by central government. Poor old England might get a regional assembly here and there, but these new bodies will probably be filled with mediocrities from existing councils. As a matter of some urgency, the Government needs to find a way of encouraging local talent and innovation in England as it has done to some extent in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

In England the political culture is largely determined by New Labour's defensiveness as outlined in a recent article by Blair in which he wrote: "We need to think through how our political and intellectual enemies will attempt to reposition themselves. That will enable us to define the next phase of progressive politics." No wonder Iain Duncan Smith has hopes of survival when a Prime Minister sitting on a second landslide pays such homage to the threat from the positioning of his party. New Labour is more of an English party, still fretting over the four election defeats before 1997. It was England that gave Margaret Thatcher her landslides. And it is that country's political culture and outlook that has been least changed by six years of a Labour government, and could most readily revert to its old habit of supporting the Conservatives.

Moving on to Northern Ireland, we inevitably make the biggest leap of all. In Belfast there is no national assembly, with elections postponed again until the autumn. Here, where Blair is freed from the contortions he feels the need to go through when dealing with policies relating to England, he has performed with astute courage. Until now he has allowed what he has called a "creative ambiguity" in order to let the peace process breathe. Now he seeks more clarity, especially from the IRA. His instincts have been proved right before and I suspect they will be again: that it would not have been feasible to hold elections now. But the success of devolution in Scotland and Wales at least holds out the hope that the political culture in Northern Ireland can change, too. Leading figures elected to the last assembly speak with some amusement about how their officials tended to take most of the policy decisions, unaware that elected politicians would wish to make a contribution. The province was not used to elected representatives deciding on policies related to schools or transport.

There must be more hope for the long-term future of an assembly when it is part of a broader pluralist framework. Under John Major, who began the peace process, the assembly would have been an embarrassing anomaly. He was a passionate opponent of devolution, except for Northern Ireland. Bizarrely, he got more worked up about this topic than any other, choosing to make it his theme on the last day of his disastrous 1997 election campaign, flying around the country warning about the break-up of the United Kingdom.

In a way he was right. The UK is not so united now. But the old arrangement imposed a false unity, suppressing political voices and new ideas. I am aware of all the problems associated with devolution. The turnouts in Scotland and Wales were low, the quality of the first parliament and assembly was poor, and some of the representatives of the smaller parties were the poorest of the lot. But few voters want to switch back to the previous centralised control. They want more powers devolved. I know, too, that policy-making is messy when more than one party is involved, but at Westminster the post- Thatcher fetish for "strong" leaders also has its problems, not least when leaders insist on appearing to be stronger than they really are.

How odd that the Prime Minister affects to be bold over matters such as foundation hospitals – an incremental reform – and his alliance with the United States – his least bold diplomatic option – when he has been genuinely radical in reshaping the political landscape and rarely gives it a mention.

The UK will never be the same again. Tony Blair, the presidential Prime Minister, will be remembered for giving power away, for giving voice to a range of radicals. In spite of himself he has been truly bold.