Internal political future of the UK

[InkyScrolls]

There has been much discussion on this thread about the future of Scotland within (or outwith) the Union, and regarding the UK as a whole, and I thought a poll on the political future of the Union would turn up some interesting results.

Edit: Those suggesting dividing England into multiple 'states', how would you go out it - as in, where would you put the new borders?

 

[yorkie]

I voted for:

• Abolition of the monarchy
• Abolition of the House of Lords

For the first one, I amnot anti-Royal as such; I can understand the value in the monarchy for ceremonial purposes and for historic reasons, but that should be it.

For the second, I am not an expert on the subject but I can understand the need for a second chamber and I wouldn't suggest it should simply be abolished with no replacement, but the current set-up is not as democratic as it should be, and it needs to be replaced or reformed.

Those who want independence need to define what they really want and whether it is actually achieveable; some pro-independence types seem to lack even the most basic understanding of what is actually viable.

 

[brad465]

Irish Reunification, equal pop federalisation and abolishing the House of Lords from me. I've always wondered why those favouring Irish reunification in NI are "nationalists", when they don't want outright independence, they want to be part of an "alternative union".

 

[THC]

Irish reunification. So much economic and social damage has been caused over the last 100 years as a result of the forced partition and Brexit was the final straw. The planning for a new Ireland has begun and not a moment too soon. It'll be too late for my grandfather, a veteran of the War of Independence, and for my father, like me a committed republican (by peaceful means for the avoidance of any doubt), but I hope I live long enough to see it in reality. Erin go bragh!

THC

 

[gswindale]

I've voted for Irish Reunification and federalisation (4 nations as states) - slightly contradictory, but I don't see the need to break England up into multiple states based on population, however I do feel that Ireland would be better served either as a single state or at a push, 2 separate states - ROI and NI outside the UK ( NI becomes independent of the UK but keeps HM as Head of State).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've voted for Irish Reunification and federalisation (4 nations as states) - slightly contradictory, but I don't see the need to break England up into multiple states based on population, however I do feel that Ireland would be better served either as a single state or at a push, 2 separate states - ROI and NI outside the UK ( NI becomes independent of the UK but keeps HM as Head of State).

I see things similarly. The only breaking up of England I can accept is London as a city state capital of the Union, with England's capital being moved elsewhere e.g. Birmingham or Manchester.

 

[WAB]

I've voted for Irish Reunification and federalisation (4 nations as states) - slightly contradictory, but I don't see the need to break England up into multiple states based on population, however I do feel that Ireland would be better served either as a single state or at a push, 2 separate states - ROI and NI outside the UK ( NI becomes independent of the UK but keeps HM as Head of State).

I doubt NI would prosper on its own - far too much history. Reunification would give NI access to greater funding and would get rid of a somewhat unnatural border. But definitely, I do not see it as having a future in the UK. Most unionists are not progressive, and no-one seems to have a positive vision for NI as part of the UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I doubt NI would prosper on its own - far too much history. Reunification would give NI access to greater funding and would get rid of a somewhat unnatural border. But definitely, I do not see it as having a future in the UK. Most unionists are not progressive, and no-one seems to have a positive vision for NI as part of the UK.

It's also a thorn in the side of Westminster in a way Scotland isn't. I'd like to keep Scotland in a federal Union if at all possible, I think we are better together, though also recognise a right to self-determination. I don't really see NI as having a purpose within the Union at all, and public opinion there is shifting to becoming part of the RoI too. If it wasn't that Sturgeon would moan, I'd be planning for a referendum there with a supermajority, in agreement with the RoI, in about 5-10 years, and would expect it to pass with a significant margin.

 

[DelayRepay]

I voted for:

• Abolition of the monarchy

For the first one, I amnot anti-Royal as such; I can understand the value in the monarchy for ceremonial purposes and for historic reasons, but that should be it.

I'm not pro or anti-royalist. I would not object to abolition of the monarchy (subject to a sensible process to elect the Head of State, not the process by which we appoint Prime Ministers). But I have not voted in favour as I think it would cause a lot of upheaval and there are more important things to worry about.

We would also need to decide whether the new Head of State would be a political position, like in the US, or a largely ceremonial position as the King is now, with most power remaining with the Prime Minister.

• Abolition of the House of Lords

For the second, I am not an expert on the subject but I can understand the need for a second chamber and I wouldn't suggest it should simply be abolished with no replacement, but the current set-up is not as democratic as it should be, and it needs to be replaced or reformed.

I agree - I voted Abolition but I really want replacement with a more democratic institution.

In practice I would see reform of the House of Lords and abolition of the monarchy potentially going hand-in-hand, as the House of Lords replacement may well have a role in selecting the Head of State.

In terms of Northern Ireland, I did not vote. I think given the history, and the legal provisions of the Good Friday agreement, that is a matter to be decided entirely by the people who live in Northern Ireland (and obviously the Republic of Ireland, if the people of Northern Ireland wish to become part of the Republic). I fully expect to see reunification of Ireland within the next decade though. Things were moving in that direction long before Brexit.

Which brings me to dividing up England, and I'm not sure what I'd do here. I would like to see regional government, but dividing England into sensible regions is quite difficult. And you have the risk of creating too many layers of government, especially in the areas that already have regional mayors (so you'd need to work out where they fit into the picture).

What powers would people dissolve to the English Parliaments? Would they mirror the Scottish Parliament's current powers, or would you go further?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What powers would people dissolve to the English Parliaments? Would they mirror the Scottish Parliament's current powers, or would you go further?

I would suggest that all three/four federal states would have to have the same matters devolved to them - that is that a matter is either state or federal. What Scotland and Wales have (which are similar) is a start.

If two states want to come to agreement on other shared devolved matters, e.g. on TfW providing the train service in the border areas, then that would be for the two states to agree.

 

[Broucek]

I'd just settle for more competent government. Even as a natural Conservative voter, I despair of the current Westminster regime. Meanwhile, the SNP, after a good start 10-15 years ago, seems extremely poor at delivery. And Khan's key policy in London seem to be to tax the cars of poor people whilst given Tesla drivers a free pass...

 

[SteveM70]

Can we have a reform of the House of Lords option, rather than just abolition?

 

[Wynd]

Does anyone in England want it to become multiple states?

 

[DelayRepay]

Does anyone in England want it to become multiple states?

I wouldn't object to the idea, but it seems quite complicated in practice. You'd have to define boundaries, and whilst there are some obvious 'states' like Yorkshire, it would be difficult to draw sensible boundaries covering the South, the Midlands, East Anglia etc. And if you make the areas too small, policy areas like transport become an issue (because trains will run between the areas, and through one area on their way between two others). And you'd end up with complications like how to tax people who live in one area but work in another (assuming the 'states' have the power to vary taxes).

On the other hand, a government that takes in everywhere from Central London to remote Cornwall, to the great cities of the North, to the wilds of Northumbria and the Lake District doesn't feel much more devolved than what we have at the moment.

One option that I think should have been included is a change to the Westminster First Past the Post system of elections.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can we have a reform of the House of Lords option, rather than just abolition?

I think we certainly need a second house. Only having one house would be dangerous by removing checks and balances. I think most of us would just like to see it less "hereditary peers", and there are lots of options - I'd favour one that isn't party political, i.e. is made up of normal citizens in some way rather than party members.

I could actually see an argument to handle it like jury duty in some way.

Does anyone in England want it to become multiple states?

There were some referenda on this and they delivered a resounding "no". I would put money on pretty much everyone who voted for this being people who have a motivation to want to destroy England's influence due to a grievance with it, or are European federalists who want to use this method to destroy *all* the classic nation states.

On the other hand, a government that takes in everywhere from Central London to remote Cornwall, to the great cities of the North, to the wilds of Northumbria and the Lake District doesn't feel much more devolved than what we have at the moment.

Perhaps not. But if you (even more so if you're not from the UK) ask almost anyone who lives in England where they're from, other than a very local one (e.g. you'll never get a Lancastrian claiming Yorkshire!) they'll say they're English. It's important.

 

[Wynd]

There were some referenda on this and they delivered a resounding "no". I would put money on pretty much everyone who voted for this being people who have a motivation to want to destroy England's influence due to a grievance with it, or are European federalists who want to use this method to destroy *all* the classic nation states.

Humour me, if you will.

If no one in England wants to be federated, and yet many in the Labour party and Lib Dems see this as the only way for a long-term United Kingdom, how would that circle be squared?

 

[DelayRepay]

I think we certainly need a second house. Only having one house would be dangerous by removing checks and balances. I think most of us would just like to see it less "hereditary peers", and there are lots of options - I'd favour one that isn't party political, i.e. is made up of normal citizens in some way rather than party members.

I could actually see an argument to handle it like jury duty in some way.

I can see the argument to appoint people at random like jury duty, although it would be more disruptive to citizens, who'd have to give up their jobs. If it wasn't a lifetime appointment this may cause bias towards those who are better off and financially more secure.

I think a second house should have space for politicians - I can see the value in having former Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and First Ministers as part of its membership - but they should be a small minority. However it's made up, its role should be to scrutinise and challenge - it should never have the ability to frustrate the will of either the United Kingdom Parliament or any of the National or English Regional Parliaments.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Humour me, if you will.

If no one in England wants to be federated, and yet many in the Labour party and Lib Dems see this as the only way for a long-term United Kingdom, how would that circle be squared?

I would rather see the United Kingdom be broken up than for England to be broken up, personally. I'm all up for a bit of regionalisation of those matters where they make sense, such as regional PTE-style transport authorities, but not for England being broken up to satisfy political whims. I'm English first, British second, European third and a citizen of the world fourth.

 

[DelayRepay]

Humour me, if you will.

If no one in England wants to be federated, and yet many in the Labour party and Lib Dems see this as the only way for a long-term United Kingdom, how would that circle be squared?

Through democracy. If the people of England do not support federation, then the Labour and Lib Dem parties will either have to change their position, or campaign to change public opinion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can see the argument to appoint people at random like jury duty, although it would be more disruptive to citizens, who'd have to give up their jobs.

Would they? Or need it not be a physical house, but more of an abstract thing, with papers shared to read, online explanatory sessions, online voting etc, thus taking no more out of someone's life than volunteering for something like Scouting?

Indeed, it could be made voluntary, based on putting yourself forward and some sort of semi-random selection based on things like locations and demographics to give a true representation of the makeup of the population of the UK?

Through democracy. If the people of England do not support federation, then the Labour and Lib Dem parties will either have to change their position, or campaign to change public opinion.

One of the very few things that would make me vote Conservative would be if both Labour and the Liberal Democrats made the breakup of England (other than the London city-state concept noted above) a key manifesto policy.

I am an English person. I was born in England and I live in England (OK, I'm a bit Welsh too, but hey ). Taking that away from me is about as acceptable as the rather more violent taking of the Ukrainians' country and identity.

 

[DelayRepay]

I would rather see the United Kingdom be broken up than for England to be broken up, personally. I'm all up for a bit of regionalisation of those matters where they make sense, such as regional PTE-style transport authorities, but not for England being broken up to satisfy political whims. I'm English first, British second, European third and a citizen of the world fourth.

That's interesting because I think you are, like me, a Northerner who's moved South.

Even though I have not lived there for 15 years, I see myself as a Yorkshireman first, a Northerner second and British third. I don't feel any more connection with the people of Dorset or Norfolk or even Buckinghamshire where I now live, than I do with the people of Scotland or Wales.

 

[WAB]

It's also a thorn in the side of Westminster in a way Scotland isn't.

Yes, it is politically-unstable, in an even worse state financially than rUK, requires considerable subsidy, has colonialist origins, lacks infrastructure, shares a land border with the EU and is generally just a PITA for a place where support for the Union is declining.

One of the very few things that would make me vote Conservative would be if both Labour and the Liberal Democrats made the breakup of England (other than the London city-state concept noted above) a key manifesto policy.

I don't see much wrong with giving the regions a bit more clout.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's interesting because I think you are, like me, a Northerner who's moved South.

I am indeed (and one who may well go back at some point, possibly in the not too distant future).

Even though I have not lived there for 15 years, I see myself as a Yorkshireman first, a Northerner second and British third. I don't feel any more connection with the people of Dorset or Norfolk or even Buckinghamshire where I now live, than I do with the people of Scotland or Wales.

The general feel I have from having bounced around England a bit is that London is somewhat different from the rest of England (and so why it might make a bit of sense to have it as a city state), but Brummies are like Scousers and Cumbrians are like the Cornish - the rest of England's attitude and approach is to me very similar to one another when you consider different demographics, with the odd few exceptions like Bristol starting to feel like London-in-the-Westcountry and Brighton London-on-Sea.

There are also other oddities, like North East Wales may as well (in a practical rather than identity sense) be seen as part of the North West. The First North Western TOC made a lot of sense in its shape, it served an area that largely practically acts as one.

I also suspect Yorkshire is a bigger part of identity than "the North West" is. I'm sort of Scouse, sort of Lancastrian, but I don't feel that strongly tied to either. And my accent is a proper mash-up which a lot of people think sounds a bit West Midlands even though I've never lived there.

 

[DelayRepay]

Would they? Or need it not be a physical house, but more of an abstract thing, with papers shared to read, online explanatory sessions, online voting etc, thus taking no more out of someone's life than volunteering for something like Scouting?

Indeed, it could be made voluntary, based on putting yourself forward and some sort of semi-random selection based on things like locations and demographics to give a true representation of the makeup of the population of the UK?

I guess that depends on the nature of the second house's tasks, the number of members, and the volume of scrutiny of government business required.

To be truly representative, this House has to include someone who's a Lord of the Manor, and someone who used to be a bus driver (other occupations are available!) - so it's important that a mechanism is found that doesn't discriminate against the bus driver. Maybe it could be treated a bit like the Army Reserve where employers have to provide time off?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I guess that depends on the nature of the second house's tasks, the number of members, and the volume of scrutiny of government business required.

To be truly representative, this House has to include someone who's a Lord of the Manor, and someone who used to be a bus driver (other occupations are available!) - so it's important that a mechanism is found that doesn't discriminate against the bus driver. Maybe it could be treated a bit like the Army Reserve where employers have to provide time off?

There's lots of possibilities, I'm not fixated on one, but it's something I think should be seriously looked at. While letting the population make laws directly might head us the wrong way, using them as the same level of checks-and-balances the Lords has now (which does have value) I think would be quite a good thing.

Here's a really way-out one...many things are about our kids' futures - how about a second virtual "house" made up entirely of people aged from 16 to 18 inclusive, taken from various educational institutions?

 

[DelayRepay]

The general feel I have from having bounced around England a bit is that London is somewhat different from the rest of England (and so why it might make a bit of sense to have it as a city state), but Brummies are like Scousers and Cumbrians are like the Cornish - the rest of England's attitude and approach is to me very similar to one another when you consider different demographics, with the odd few exceptions like Bristol starting to feel like London-in-the-Westcountry and Brighton London-on-Sea.

Out of interest, where would you draw the boundaries of the London City State? Would it be the current Greater London boundary, or would you look to include some of the commuter towns close to London?

For example I briefly lived in Watford. According to some official bodies that meant I was in the East of England, along with Cambridge and Norwich. But I always felt like I was a Londoner - I didn't feel like I had much in common with other Hertfordsire towns like Stevenage, despite sharing a county council and police force. I felt I had even less in common with communities on the Norfolk coast where I might go for a holiday! But if you include towns like Watford, how far out do you go?

 

[GS250]

I voted for:

• Abolition of the monarchy
• Abolition of the House of Lords

For the first one, I amnot anti-Royal as such; I can understand the value in the monarchy for ceremonial purposes and for historic reasons, but that should be it.

For the second, I am not an expert on the subject but I can understand the need for a second chamber and I wouldn't suggest it should simply be abolished with no replacement, but the current set-up is not as democratic as it should be, and it needs to be replaced or reformed.

Those who want independence need to define what they really want and whether it is actually achieveable; some pro-independence types seem to lack even the most basic understanding of what is actually viable.

The positive of the Monarchy is that it doesn't really interfere with politics.

I could not think of anything worse than (even if democratically elected) a 3rd party weighing into debate, lecturing etc. We all know we'd end up with someone like Tony Blair, Gary Lineker or some other pithy candidate.

 

[yorksrob]

I voted for federalisation of the country, with the celtic nations autonomous, but with devolution to the English regions as well.

I also voted for the overseas territories to have the option of joining the country. The French do this quite well and it helps to undermine out-dated arguments about colonialism in those cases.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Out of interest, where would you draw the boundaries of the London City State? Would it be the current Greater London boundary, or would you look to include some of the commuter towns close to London?

For example I briefly lived in Watford. According to some official bodies that meant I was in the East of England, along with Cambridge and Norwich. But I always felt like I was a Londoner - I didn't feel like I had much in common with other Hertfordsire towns like Stevenage, despite sharing a county council and police force. I felt I had even less in common with communities on the Norfolk coast where I might go for a holiday! But if you include towns like Watford, how far out do you go?

That's a very good question.

Milton Keynes definitely doesn't feel like part of London (much as before I lived here I thought it was), nor does somewhere like Aylesbury or Tring or even Luton, but I would say Watford does, and it not being in Greater London is a bit of an anomaly, probably similar to the way Southport is in Merseyside/Liverpool City Region but Ormskirk and Burscough (where the predominant accent is soft Scouse) aren't.

I suspect you'd draw it roughly where the M25 is, and perhaps for places that are really borderline (the likes of Rickmansworth or Epping perhaps, plus both Staines and Egham probably need to go together as a contiguous built up area, thoughh I do think Staines feels like London, I worked there for a while) a local referendum? Going round the M25 and looking just inside I can't see many places that wouldn't consider themselves London, and outside of it there aren't many that would, so this might not be a complex exercise.

 

[Noddy]

With regards to breaking up England into States I personally see this as no different to other countries that have states (Germany, US, Brazil, India, etc etc). It doesn’t seem to detract from their nationalities if that’s what folk are worried about.

With regards to where do you draw the boundaries the regions of England would make an easy start with a few tweaks plus a London city state and Cornwall. Interestingly the middle to later Anglo-Saxon kingdoms broadly match the modern ‘regions’ fairly well.

Regions of England - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org