Internal political future of the UK

[yorksrob]

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.

France is the other notable example of a country with a very dominant capital city. But France is France - it's non- divisible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

France is almost as Paris-centric as we are London-centric.

France is the other notable example of a country with a very dominant capital city. But France is France - it's non- divisible.

Great minds/fools

It'd not surprise me to see Wallonie join it at some point, though. Bruxelles could potentially become a city state EU capital and Flanders part of the Netherlands.

 

[yorksrob]

France is almost as Paris-centric as we are London-centric.



Great minds/fools

Indeed

 

[JamesT]

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.

It's not quite the same as the question you're asking, but https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_national_capitals_by_population has a list of countries with how big their capital is as a percentage of the whole population. London looks comparatively small, though that won't be including the wider South-East.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It'd not surprise me to see Wallonie join it at some point, though. Bruxelles could potentially become a city state EU capital and Flanders part of the Netherlands.

No chance. The Flemish are extremely proud of their non-Dutchness. Complete independence would be much more likely.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

Yeah, loads of countries. Probably every country is unique in the precise way the population is distributed, but lots of countries have the population (or the Government) concentrated in certain areas. Look up for example the term 'flyover states' in the US (refers to states in the middle of the USA which some people feel are neglected and only seen by the federal Government in the sense that they fly over them on their way between the East and West coasts). France is very Paris-centric. Other examples: Russia's population is very heavily concentrated around Moscow, with huge semi-deserted areas in the East. Or look at the resentment that people in parts of Northern and Eastern Spain feel towards the Madrid Government. Scotland - if it became independent - would have a similar problem with most of the population and therefore the likely political power living in the central belt, but with vast areas in both the Highlands and Islands to the North and the border areas to the South often having different political concerns.

 

[SargeNpton]

France is the other notable example of a country with a very dominant capital city. But France is France - it's non- divisible.

My experience of France is that each of the regions is very proud of its own local identity, especially those where there is a distinct local language.

They tend to be of their own region first and French second - and outside of the capital they all tend to dislike Parisians, perhaps in the same way that rich Londoners owning second homes are in England. Other than the Basques in the south-west (and a few in Brittany), there seems to be no real movement for independence.

 

[Thirteen]

I'm not convinced Federalisation would work in the UK but it would be an interesting experiment. It's more likely they'd split England into multiple states as one English Government would be a bit unwieldy.

 

[yorksrob]

My experience of France is that each of the regions is very proud of its own local identity, especially those where there is a distinct local language.

They tend to be of their own region first and French second - and outside of the capital they all tend to dislike Parisians, perhaps in the same way that rich Londoners owning second homes are in England. Oher than the Basques in the south-west (and a few in Brittany), there seems to be no real movement for independence.

Yes, there's definitely a recognition of the importance of region there.

 

[Scotrail12]

Going off-topic but from my travels, I'd say France is probably Paris-centric because the rest of the country is a bit of a mish-mash of different cultures. South west is Catalan/Basque influenced, Provence is very Italian, Alsace is very German, the North West is Celtic and the North East is a bit Flemish. There's really no consistency with it. I don't think the same really applies to the UK.

 

[Ediswan]

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.

I suspect Sark would still want to do things its own way. They only ended feudalism in 2006.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

I would largely agree with this, but would prefer to keep the Crown.

 

[gysev]

No chance. The Flemish are extremely proud of their non-Dutchness. Complete independence would be much more likely.

Indeed, having a common language is not the same as being the same people!

It'd not surprise me to see Wallonie join it at some point, though. Bruxelles could potentially become a city state EU capital and Flanders part of the Netherlands.

Wallonie will not join France at all because most people only like France to go on holiday.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I would largely agree with this, but would prefer to keep the Crown.

I'd keep it as well, as the President of the Federal Parliament wouldn't be the Head of State.

I'm not convinced Federalisation would work in the UK but it would be an interesting experiment. It's more likely they'd split England into multiple states as one English Government would be a bit unwieldy.

The thing with a federation is that each nation could decide on their internal affairs. So, Enlgland might decide on Spanish-style asymmetric devolution, while others might decide on a two tier layer of governance.

An English Government shouldn't have any real issues, except that perhaps the seat of the government and parliament should be in the North.

 

[adrock1976]

I'd keep it as well, as the President of the Federal Parliament wouldn't be the Head of State.



The thing with a federation is that each nation could decide on their internal affairs. So, Enlgland might decide on Spanish-style asymmetric devolution, while others might decide on a two tier layer of governance.

An English Government shouldn't have any real issues, except that perhaps the seat of the government and parliament should be in the North.

I would say the seat of an England parliament should ideally be in Birmingham, so as to make it accessible from all parts of the country.

 

[brad465]

Well it looks like Labour are indeed going for radical political change if elected:

Labour promise biggest ever transfer of powers

Sir Keir Starmer says sweeping constitutional change would free up £200m a year and restructure the economy.

www.bbc.co.uk

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is to promise "the biggest ever transfer of power from Westminster to the British people" if his party wins the next election.
He will launch a report in Leeds on Monday that proposes far-reaching reforms to the UK's political system.
The report will recommend abolishing the House of Lords, despite some peers warning against this.
Sir Keir told the Sunday Times the changes could take more than one term.
But Sir Keir told the newspaper the report - which he commissioned in 2020 and was overseen by former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown - was not "intended to sit on a shelf".
The Labour leader said it was "an important report" which "we will now consult about implementing".
He will set out the recommendations in the report, titled A New Britain, alongside Mr Brown on Monday.

The report will put forward 40 recommendations, including proposals for handing new economic powers to English mayors, local authorities and devolved governments.
The report argues the "continuing over-concentration of power in Westminster and Whitehall is undermining our ability to deliver growth and prosperity for the whole country", creating a "vicious circle".
One of its most eye-catching recommendations will be a proposal to scrap the House of Lords and replace it with an elected chamber.
The size and role of the House of Lords has come under scrutiny in recent years, amid warnings that unelected membership has grown excessive, with about 800 sitting members.
The Observer reported last month that Sir Keir told Labour peers part of the argument for reform was the public having "lost faith in the ability of politicians and politics to bring about change".

Speaking to Times Radio, Conservative peer Lord Norton argued the Lords should remain unelected and urged caution over "Big Bang reform".
He said the "detailed legislative scrutiny" done by the Lords "improves the law of this country".
But Labour sources insist the party remains committed to abolishing the Lords.
The party will consult on the report's proposals and the timeframe in which they can be delivered before deciding whether to put them in its next election manifesto.
One Labour source said "everything in our manifesto we will seek to deliver in a parliamentary term".
The report comes as Labour enjoys a handsome lead in the polls over the Conservatives, who lost a by-election in Chester by a large margin this week.
In his speech on Monday, Sir Keir is expected to promise "a wider spread of power and opportunity" to deliver "better economic growth that benefits everyone".
"People know Britain needs change," he will say. "But they are never going to get it from the Tories. I am determined that, with Labour, people will get the change they deserve."