Internal political future of the UK

[Bletchleyite]

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).

England (or Wales or Scotland or NI) is analogous to a US state or a German state. Not the English regions.

 

[Noddy]

England (or Wales or Scotland or NI) is analogous to a US state or a German state. Not the English regions.

I don’t agree. If the UK was to break up (I’m not saying it should) it would be absolutely no different.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t agree. If the UK was to break up (I’m not saying it should) it would be absolutely no different.

Do you see it as sensible that, for instance, because health is a devolved matter, the theoretical North West region would have to have its own entirely separate health system?

(To be fair I don't get why health is devolved, it seems to make more sense as a federal matter - we basically have 4 near-identical NHSs with all manner of duplication).

I can't see an issue with some matters being devolved to regions. Local transport provision for instance. But I just can't see the sense in them replacing England.

 

[Noddy]

Do you see it as sensible that, for instance, because health is a devolved matter, the theoretical North West region would have to have its own entirely separate health system?

(To be fair I don't get why health is devolved, it seems to make more sense as a federal matter - we basically have 4 near-identical NHSs with all manner of duplication).

There are pros and cons with all systems but I don’t have a problem with that in theory at all, especially as it would bring management of the health service closer to the people it serves.

 

[DelayRepay]

Do you see it as sensible that, for instance, because health is a devolved matter, the theoretical North West region would have to have its own entirely separate health system?

(To be fair I don't get why health is devolved, it seems to make more sense as a federal matter - we basically have 4 near-identical NHSs with all manner of duplication).

If you devolve health care, you then have to devolve tax raising powers. People in different regions may want different things from the NHS - nurses pay rises vs. industrial action, or waiting lists vs immediate appointments. It would be for the regional government to specify the level of service required, and fund it through an appropriate rate of taxation.

This doesn't mean the NHS cannot exist as an overarching body, providing services to the different regions. To an extent the NHS in England is already federalised in this way.

None of this would stop the UK Government mandating minimum standards and levels of care, none of it would stop a resident of any part of the UK receiving emergency care, specialist services could still be shared across regions, and regions would still provide mutual aid to each other in times of high demand.

Actually though, the bigger benefit would come from aligning Health and Social care to be managed at the same level. Regional governments may be a good compromise between having something managed at an England level and others devolved right down to borough councils.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are pros and cons with all systems but I don’t have a problem with that in theory at all, especially as it would bring management of the health service closer to the people it serves.

I think it's localisation vs. cost saving. While I'm left wing on public services, I don't think they should be made unnecessarily expensive just to give a local "feel", they should be operated at the most economic and practical level in order to get the best quality of service from the money spent.

If you devolve health care, you then have to devolve tax raising powers.

One thing I think should be in any constitutional settlement (which I think should give us a written constitution and bill of rights, by the way) would be an absolute constitutional ban on any political level interfering in the devolved tax-raising powers of any other political level. Thus, capping Councils would be illegal, for instance. The level of Council Tax is a matter for local democracy as it is a devolved tax.

 

[Broucek]

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.

But many of those countries have only BEEN countries for a relatively short time and that's reflected in the culture and how they are already run. Setting up something from scratch is far, far harder

 

[yorksrob]

England (or Wales or Scotland or NI) is analogous to a US state or a German state. Not the English regions.

England is too big and diverse to be equivalent to a German lander.

 

[Noddy]

England is too big and diverse to be equivalent to a German lander.

Indeed the largest is 17 million people and a couple are less than 1 million.

I think it's localisation vs. cost saving. While I'm left wing on public services, I don't think they should be made unnecessarily expensive just to give a local "feel", they should be operated at the most economic and practical level in order to get the best quality of service from the money spent.

I don’t disagree with the sentiment but some times things just get so big you loose the benefits of size cost saving and run into the problem of size inefficiency.

As I say there are pros and cons with all systems but I certainly don’t think the current system of UK governance is working and the German Federal systems seems like a model (including English ‘states’) which could at least be seriously looked at.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t disagree with the sentiment but some times things just get so big you loose the benefits of size cost saving and run into the problem of size inefficiency. As I say there are pros and cons with all systems but I certainly don’t think the current one is working and Germany certainly seems like a model which could at least be seriously looked at.

Germany's insurance based system with doctors fully independent and hospitals either charitable or owned by local Councils (not Laender, but more often Kreise which are basically borough Councils) makes sense in many ways, but I would put the actual insurer at the federal level, as the bigger an insurer is, the more viable it is, and the postcode lottery would be removed (health related rights could be included in a bill of rights).

 

[Noddy]

Germany's insurance based system with doctors fully independent and hospitals either charitable or owned by local Councils (not Laender, but more often Kreise which are basically borough Councils) makes sense in many ways, but I would put the actual insurer at the federal level, as the bigger an insurer is, the more viable it is, and the postcode lottery would be removed (health related rights could be included in a bill of rights).

Sorry my previous comment was intended to be a more general point about following the German Federal model than the German Healthcare model. I have edited my previous post.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry my previous comment was intended to be a more general point about following the German Federal model than the German Healthcare model. I have edited my previous post.

I would still see a red line in the idea of Scotland and Wales remaining as countries/states but England being broken up. It may be emotional, but then so's the desire for Scottish independence or indeed Brexit!

 

[Noddy]

I would still see a red line in the idea of Scotland and Wales remaining as countries/states but England being broken up. It may be emotional, but then so's the desire for Scottish independence or indeed Brexit!

There isn’t an English Parliament that would be lost so I’m not sure how different it is from the current system? The federal government could even have a Secretary of State for England…

 

[yorksrob]

I would still see a red line in the idea of Scotland and Wales remaining as countries/states but England being broken up. It may be emotional, but then so's the desire for Scottish independence or indeed Brexit!

The difference being that the Westminster grip has shown not to be fit for purpose for the wider regions of England.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have considerably smaller populations than England and are well suited to devolved Government.

 

[InkyScrolls]

England is too big and diverse to be equivalent to a German lander.

Nitpicking, but the singular is land and the plural is länder.

'Reform the House of Lords' option has been added.

 

[yorksrob]

Nitpicking, but the singular is land and the plural is länder.

'Reform the House of Lords' option has been added.

Alas, I also don't know how to do an umlaut in RUK !

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nitpicking, but the singular is land and the plural is länder.

Or, if you don't have an Umlaut handy, you can always suffix the letter with an "e". And similarly if you want to write ß on an English keyboard you can write "ss". (Which is odd, as the Eszett originally represented "SZ", hence its name and what it looks like in old German script!)

So in this case, "Laender" is equally valid as the above.

'Reform the House of Lords' option has been added.

I shall change my vote, thanks.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Does anyone in England want it to become multiple states?

I suspect, very few. Personally, I do not want England to become multiple states, but I'm open to the possibility that multiple states might turn out to be the least bad option for how to govern a federated UK. I do think there are very good arguments for devolving powers to regions create something like the German (or US) structure, with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as 'regions' or 'states' if you prefer. And if you do that, you do have the problem that England is so much bigger than any of the other 'states', and so big that an English Government wouldn't really any closer to the communities it serves than Westminster Government current is.

I can also see an argument that there are cultural differences between London/the South-East and Northern England that might make separate regions workable. Not only that, but the West Country has enough of its own identity that having its own Government might work quite well, even though emotionally I'd much rather keep England as a unified region.

 

[adrock1976]

I have voted Irish reunification, Federalisation with the four nations as 'states', and abolition of the monarchy.

I am in favour of progressive federalism for Great Britain (with the remaining six of the nine counties of Ulster being returned to the Irish), with Scotland, Wales, and England being divided into regions (England can be based on the former European Parliament regional constituencies), with county and local councils each setting their own local tax rates.

Also, elected representatives should not have to pledge allegiance to the monarchy, but to their constituents instead. Furthermore, (maybe would warrant a new thread in its own right depending upon number of responses), a code of conduct for those seeking election would be having to have resided in the area for a minimum of five years, and while serving office any misconduct such as being caught with fingers in the till (Maria Miller in 2012), or disappearing during term time to jungles south of the Equator (Nadine Dorries and Matt Hancock) should face an automatic by-election to see if the constituents still want them to represent them.

 

[Bevan Price]

Whilst I voted for a united Ireland, I think the choice should be for the people of Northern Ireland, who should be offered a 3-option referendum:
1. Unite with Ireland.
2. Remain part of UK
3. Become an independent Ulster.
Any option would need a significant majority before implementation, possibly with a second vote to choose between the two options getting the most votes.

As for England, there should be more power to regions - with places allocated to regions according to wishes of local residents, rather than assigned to regions according to some map drawn in Whitehall. And Central Government would be required to fully fund all duties assigned to regions, so that it could not withdraw funding for "political" reasons.

For the foresseable future, England, Scotland & Wales should remain united, but I would not object to some sensible kind of federal structure.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It's ironic that this thread contains so much discussion about changing how England in particular should be organised/administered. This idea should have been set in motion 30 years ago when the UK signed the Maastricht Treaty which included the principle of subsidiarity ie the devolution of public policy decision making to the most appropriate local level. Unfortunately under Major and all his successors that level has been deemed to be no lower than Westminster/Whitehall in most cases and even Scottish and Welsh devolution was only agreed to very reluctantly.

However IMO the most useful change we could make to the political process of this country is an "Other" in the poll, namely a significant reform of the House of Commons. Do we really need as many as 650 MPS? Surely 350-400 would be plenty. Proportional representation is an absolute must. And make Parliament more responsive to public opinion by having a quarter of MPs subject to re-election each year on a rotating basis with general elections only happening in the very specific case of a sitting government losing a motion of confidence. Ban MPs from owning shares or having financial interests outside of the UK with breaches punishable by a prison sentence and subsequent permanent ban from public office. End corporate and trade union political donations by only allowing donations to be made by individuals subject to an annual cap of say £5,000. And tighten up the rules on lobbying. Also retiring MPs would be prevented from taking on any directorships for 5 years.

High time in my view that MPs were made to be more closely attuned to the lives of the people of this country and not live their lives inside the Westminster bubble. I realise that there are some very good MPs who represent their constituents very effectively but it seems that there are very few of them on the front benches.

 

[Iskra]

I don't understand why so many English people are comfortable with espousing Irish Reunification. Irish reunification is an issue for the Irish only.

 

[450.emu]

Does anyone in England want it to become multiple states?

England to go it alone and rebrand as Greater Anglia

We've entered a political Neutral Section some time ago, they are too busy squabbling about nothing in particular, the two public schoolboys seem to enjoy the banter at Prime Ministers Questions, whilst the SNP bang on about Scottish Independence Cannot see things improving for some time...

 

[InkyScrolls]

I don't understand why so many English people are comfortable with espousing Irish Reunification. Irish reunification is an issue for the Irish only.

Not really; it is, after all, equally relevant to the United Kingdom, of which England is a part.

 

[Iskra]

Not really; it is, after all, equally relevant to the United Kingdom, of which England is a part.

So why didn’t England vote on Scottish independence then?

 

[GusB]

I've simply voted for Scottish independence. Whatever happens in the rest of the UK would no longer be any of my business.

 

[Yew]

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.

Not particularly, I just want effective local representation to help with local issues caused by deindustrialisation of my area, rather than pointing to the London financial sector and saying "why don't you go any pay a fortune to live in a shoebox 90 mins from a job there. I think that a few Wales-to-scotland sized chunks would achieve that, whilst still providing meaningful regional identities.

I would still see a red line in the idea of Scotland and Wales remaining as countries/states but England being broken up. It may be emotional, but then so's the desire for Scottish independence or indeed Brexit!

Isn't England already broken up into council districts, this would just be another option for representation at an administrative level.

 

[Iskra]

Not particularly, I just want effective local representation to help with local issues caused by deindustrialisation of my area, rather than pointing to the London financial sector and saying "why don't you go any pay a fortune to live in a shoebox 90 mins from a job there. I think that a few Wales-to-scotland sized chunks would achieve that, whilst still providing meaningful regional identities.


Isn't England already broken up into council districts, this would just be another option for representation at an administrative level.

Agree, and it would still be England, just with improved more powerful local regional governance. I don’t think the history of England would just be totally whitewashed and dispensed with.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Independence for all four home nations is my first option, with the Channel Islands forming a new country and the Isle of Man forming another.

Failing that, we need a proper federal arrangement. I'd go with something roughly like this:

The House of Lords would be abolished, and the current Westminster Parliament would be transformed into a 200 seat Federal Parliament. England would receive 100 seats in the new Federal Parliament, while each Overseas Territory / Crown Dependency would receive either 1, 2 or 3 seats depending on their population. Then, the remainder of the seats would be divided proportionally between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Federal President would be elected indirectly and would be responsible for forming the UK government. The devolved governments would have the maximum level of devolution possible, leaving very few things at UK level. Essentially, each nation or territory would have comparable levels of devolution to Bermuda or Gibraltar.

The Overseas Territories / Crown Dependencies would therefore be decolonised and would have an integral role in decision making, and they would no longer be outside the UK.

 

[uglymonkey]

I was wondering, is there any other country proportionate to its size, that has the equivalent of greater London and the South East in one corner of it- which must "skew" UK thinking somewhat. Most other countries have more than one "urban" centres to choose from. This means that political thinking is also "skewed" by London and the south east- especially in England - which really doesn't get a look in at all. There should be an English parliament as well and Westminster should just deal with the UK wide stuff.