Would federalism ever work in the UK

[Meerkat]

Indeed. All I'd really change is to fix that (changing London to a city state - defining "London" would be a challenge, but I suppose you've got two obvious ones - Zone 6 boundary or the M25).

Certainly not the M25 - too varied in distance out, and cuts places.
if it made a meaningful difference then there would be hell in drawing the boundary. I just don’t see the advantage, but do see a massive disadvantage.

 

[Domh245]

I suppose you've got two obvious ones - Zone 6 boundary or the M25).

You've missed the rather more obvious third choice of the current Greater London Authority boundary

 

[Journeyman]

You've missed the rather more obvious third choice of the current Greater London Authority boundary

Of course. Plus the fact that the GLA has certain devolved powers already, and to make London a proper devolved federal area, all you'd need to do is enhance them a bit.

 

[Meerkat]

Of course. Plus the fact that the GLA has certain devolved powers already, and to make London a proper devolved federal area, all you'd need to do is enhance them a bit.

To be a federal state you would have to enhance them a LOT!

 

[Chester1]

To be a federal state you would have to enhance them a LOT!

It has an Assembly already. There are elements of education and policing that are devolved.

 

[Meerkat]

It has an Assembly already. There are elements of education and policing that are devolved.

That’s still quite a bit less than federal - which is almost an independent country.

 

[Bevan Price]

Yes, can't think of any that held together long term though: Czechoslovakia was unitary for most of its existence. It became federal around 1970ish if memory serves me right. Yugoslavia was originally a unitary state too, though one which was comprised of multiple nationalities (not too different from the UKin that sense) and later became federal.

Incidentally, was Belgium once unitary?

For many practical purposes, Czechoslovakia - and many other countries in Eastern Europe were effectively colonies of USSR /Russia from 1945 until the late 1980s or early 1990s. Any attempt to deviate from USSR policy was suppressed, as happened in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968).

Ireland -- I think that a federation is the only way that a united Ireland might be made to work. Anything that forced "North" to adopt everything wanted by "South" would lead to trouble. They just need to start by agreeing over something like foreign policy, but leave internal policy to separate administrations -- at least until they learn to fully trust each other (and that might take 100+ years)

 

[Ian Cunningham]

I've long favoured some form of federal structure for the UK. The covid situation has shone a light on some of the problems with the current state of devolution where Scotland, Wales and NI each have devolved powers but England doesn't so the UK parliament and government are having to directly deal with purely English matters. We've had several briefings from the UK Prime Minister (and other ministers) that only apply to England and are irrelevant (and often misleading) to the rest of the UK.

I'm Scottish and my partner is English and I don't see a need to drive a border between our countries after all we have more in common within the nations than that which divides us. We can all retain a strong identity as nations but remove unnessary barriers- it's why I voted to remain in the EU.

I think a structure with Scottish and Welsh Parliaments (and NI too - unless a unified Ireland was their prefered choice) plus a suitable number of English regional Assemblies/parliaments with Westminster only dealing with international and major national policy (eg defence) would be a good thing for the country. It could be 5 regions (North, Middle, Bottom Left, Bottom Right and London) or something more nuanced (Borders, North, East & West Midlands, Anglia (ish), South East, South West(ish) and proper South West (Devon, Cornwall) - whatever was their choice

The way opinion here seems to be moving on Independence (the shambolic handling of Covid and Brexit by the Tories is seen by many as a pretty convincing argument for Indpendence) some form of federal stucture (or a properly balanced devolution arrangement) may be the only saving of the Union

 

[Meerkat]

What is the actual gain from federalisation?
It’s expensive, divisive, and do we really want more politicians? To be worthwhile they would have to take powers from lower levels of government, which has proved pretty unpopular during the various attempts at unitary authorities.

 

[JamesT]

I think we’re already seeing some of the issues with a federal/devolved structure with the Internal Market Bill going through parliament. As suggested by a couple of people above, you would normally have a setup where the components handled their internal matters but external dealings are done at the top level. Except you need to be able to present a unified view to the outside to be able to make treaties with third parties, they’re going to be rather fed up if you’ve agreed they can trade in certain goods but then the components say no.
So you put in rules about getting agreement from all the components first. Which makes your negotiations enormously complicated and long winded. There will be a lot more horse trading as components demand concessions before giving approval, even if the deal as proposed is favourable. E.g. the Walloons holding up the EU-Canada deal.
Or if the centre has the powers to make agreements itself, the components will complain that they’re being overridden in matters they have competence over.

 

[edwin_m]

I think it probably stretches to ceremonial Counties (most notably Lancashire and Yorkshire) but probably not beyond.

Why are people always trying to make up regions of England when there are perfectly fine regions of England (and the other countries) which have existed for hundreds of years?

Artificial regions will fail just like artificial sports teams usually fail, nothing substantial or culturally historic behind it.

The ceremonial county boundaries reflect the geography of the country several centuries ago and divide up many of the urban areas that appeared at the time of industrialisation, such as Tyne & Wear and the West Midlands. So they don't reflect the current distributions of population and travel-to-work areas - think of the problems with transport across the PTE boundaries and magnify it many times over.

So a logical regional structure would have to address those issues, and would end up with something very similar to the 1974 boundaries as that exercise was trying to solve exactly the same problem. At which point any regional identity would vanish amongst howls of rage from those who objected to change either general or specific.

There has been a proposal that I believe even went as far as some sort of referendum. It was rightly chucked out.

Dominic Cummings first came to prominence in opposing it. It might have had more chance of success if it had actually come from the region rather than being essentially imposed from the centre.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dominic Cummings first came to prominence in opposing it. It might have had more chance of success if it had actually come from the region rather than being essentially imposed from the centre.

I don't think it would, because people do not want to break England up, which all of these schemes do.

 

[telstarbox]

Please don't bring Middlesex back...

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think it would, because people do not want to break England up, which all of these schemes do.

I think if pitched correctly the idea of freeing the regions from control by London (or Westminster) might go down well. It's when it gets to the practical detail that the trouble really starts. Of course various factions in the UK have used the word "federalism" as an insult so a different term would have to be found, even though it is used in the USA too.

 

[Meerkat]

I think if pitched correctly the idea of freeing the regions from control by London (or Westminster) might go down well. It's when it gets to the practical detail that the trouble really starts. Of course various factions in the UK have used the word "federalism" as an insult so a different term would have to be found, even though it is used in the USA too.

Devolution can do that, without the expense and fuss of federalisation.
I really can’t see the gain from federalisation - it just seems to be a plan to break up England (in a way not supported by the people) to pander to Scotland and Wales. A lot of money, a lot of arguing, for no real gain.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Devolution can do that, without the expense and fuss of federalisation.
I really can’t see the gain from federalisation - it just seems to be a plan to break up England (in a way not supported by the people) to pander to Scotland and Wales. A lot of money, a lot of arguing, for no real gain.

As an English person I want an English Parliament and for Scottish and Welsh MPs to cease to have a vote on purely English matters, myself.

 

[Meerkat]

As an English person I want an English Parliament and for Scottish and Welsh MPs to cease to have a vote on purely English matters, myself.

I would prefer that to be by having English and English/Welsh only votes, but I can see how there would be complications if you had a government that only had a majority when the Scots are included.

 

[telstarbox]

As an English person I want an English Parliament and for Scottish and Welsh MPs to cease to have a vote on purely English matters, myself.

That has effectively been the case in Westminster since 2015 (English Votes for English Laws).

 

[HSTEd]

There is no local identity within England, and probably the same is true in the other countries, with the notable exception of Kernow (Cornwall ) and maybe Shetland in Scotland. I don't believe we have any allegiance to our County, only our Country, so an amalgam of Counties would not mean much to anyone.

Well you could carve out Yorkshire, probably carve out Historical Lancashire and a couple of others.

But most of the counties are entirely worthless as modern government units.

 

[Chester1]

Well you could carve out Yorkshire, probably carve out Historical Lancashire and a couple of others.

But most of the counties are entirely worthless as modern government units.

The 4 main Saxon Kingdoms (later Earldoms) of Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex and East Anglia would be a bit more useful if we are restoring history. Add in London and a few additions and boundary changes and they would make 6 English states. That would be the south, London, the midlands, East Anglia and the north.

I think the result of English disinterest will be the break up of the UK. I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (within a United Ireland) could have their european focus and England could focus its economic interests on rest of the world and hopefully stop getting involved in foreign conflicts.

 

[HSTEd]

The 4 main Saxon Kingdoms (later Earldoms) of Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex and East Anglia would be a bit more useful if we are restoring history. Add in London and a few additions and boundary changes and they would make 6 English states. That would be the south, London, the midlands, East Anglia and the north.

The problem is Mercia, Wessex and East Anglia are in no way reflective of the reality of modern living.
Only Yorkshire really has a modern separate identity.
Lancashire is borderline but Merseyside would never want to be in a unit they would perceive as being dominated by Manchester.

I think the result of English disinterest will be the break up of the UK.

The problem is devolution is just used to give nationalists more powers to destroy the union.
In order for federalism to be a stable form of government, the union must be recognised as being perpetual.
Otherwise Scottish politicians just use their powers to fan further Scottish nationalism, as tuition fees were used as a weapon to teach scottish young people to other the English.

(Wales pays the tuition fees above ~£3k for its students no matter where they go in the UK, whereas in Scotland they will not pay for you to leave Scotland).

 

[Journeyman]

(Wales pays the tuition fees above ~£3k for its students no matter where they go in the UK, whereas in Scotland they will not pay for you to leave Scotland).

...which is a disgusting politically motivated decision.

 

[MattA7]

That to me feels like setting fire to your house because there's a spider in the bath. I live in Scotland, but I'm English, and so I also care about what happens in England, and I don't want to lose my right to have a say in it.

From a purely personal perspective, the ability to regain EU citizenship is irrelevant, as I also have Irish citizenship.

exactly one of the main reasons I oppose Scottish independence is due to a large number of ties down south and the thought of being subject to immigration control to go to England seems awful.

The SNP claimed that Scottish persons who are UK citizens pre independence would keep their UK citizenship however that is by no means a certainty and you have to take what the SNP say with a huge grain of salt.

the SNP did announce that we could opt out off “Scottish citizenship” in a independent Scotland which I fully intended to do had there been a yes vote.

I don’t care about EU membership as I disagreed with most of the EUs laws and believed that they were too controlling and have no desire to live/work in continental Europe. I also find it rather ironic that independence supporters want freedom from westminister but happy to be dictated to by Brussels especially as a independent Scotland may not get the same exemptions that pre brexit UK got.

 

[LOL The Irony]

exactly one of the main reasons I oppose Scottish independence is due to a large number of ties down south and the thought of being subject to immigration control to go to England seems awful.

The SNP claimed that Scottish persons who are UK citizens pre independence would keep their UK citizenship however that is by no means a certainty and you have to take what the SNP say with a huge grain of salt.

the SNP did announce that we could opt out off “Scottish citizenship” in a independent Scotland which I fully intended to do had there been a yes vote.

I don’t care about EU membership as I disagreed with most of the EUs laws and believed that they were too controlling and have no desire to live/work in continental Europe. I also find it rather ironic that independence supporters want freedom from westminister but happy to be dictated to by Brussels especially as a independent Scotland may not get the same exemptions that pre brexit UK got.

This is what I've been thinking for a while! It's like everyone who supports the snp has this blind hatred for Westminster to the point of derangement. It's like they've been conditioned to think Stormont good, Westminster bad.

 

[Chester1]

exactly one of the main reasons I oppose Scottish independence is due to a large number of ties down south and the thought of being subject to immigration control to go to England seems awful.

The SNP claimed that Scottish persons who are UK citizens pre independence would keep their UK citizenship however that is by no means a certainty and you have to take what the SNP say with a huge grain of salt.

the SNP did announce that we could opt out off “Scottish citizenship” in a independent Scotland which I fully intended to do had there been a yes vote.

I don’t care about EU membership as I disagreed with most of the EUs laws and believed that they were too controlling and have no desire to live/work in continental Europe. I also find it rather ironic that independence supporters want freedom from westminister but happy to be dictated to by Brussels especially as a independent Scotland may not get the same exemptions that pre brexit UK got.

The then Home Secretary Thersea May hinted this wouldn't happen and the SNP basically accused her of bullying Scots. When Scotland goes independent a United Ireland will follow (if it hasn't already happened). Why would England and Wales want 5.5 million Scots to have Citizenship of England and Wales? Ireland was different because they knew very few would chose British Subject passports and at that time the residents of both Dominions and colonies had British Subject Status. British Citizenship (along with Australian, Canadian, New Zeland Citizenship) were not created until the late 1940s. The idea that someone with no connection through residency or parentage will keep citizenship (and be able to pass it onto their kids) is bonkers and won't survive the first rewrite of nationality law.

I suspect the compromise would be copying the handover of Hong Kong were residents became Chinese Nationals but were able to apply for British National (Overseas) status which came with a passport but not right of abode in UK. The status cannot be inherited so the youngest "BNO" was born on 30th June 1997. The visa scheme to allow easy access starting in January is only a result of the Chinese clampdown. I think the government would be happy to replicate BNO status (minus the Overseas bit) as a token gesture. Residency rights for Scots would almost certainly be linked to English residency rights in Scotland (i.e. mirroring the arrangement with the Republic of Ireland).

Edit: I think its reasonable to assume that an Scot resident in England (or Wales) for 6 years prior to independence would be eligible for English or Anglo-Welsh Citizenship (matching time it takes an immigrant to naturalise). Scots with an English parent would qualify for Citizenship by descent if British nationality rules were copied. This cannot be passed on to children unless they were born while their parents were permanent residents.

Edit2: The relevance to the federalism debate is that even the weakest federal government would mean the continuation of British Citizenship. Its possible to even have separate passports for each constituent country as long as they were just different versions of British passports.

 

[Bevan Price]

As an English person I want an English Parliament and for Scottish and Welsh MPs to cease to have a vote on purely English matters, myself.

And permanent rule of England by tory governments?? Because that would be a likely consequence -- and eventually lead to resentment in several regions that thought that "London and South East" got "all the goodies".

 

[Chester1]

And permanent rule of England by tory governments?? Because that would be a likely consequence -- and eventually lead to resentment in several regions that thought that "London and South East" got "all the goodies".

If the system isn't changed soon then Scotland and Northern Ireland will leave. Even if Wales stays then the Tories would still be at a huge advantage.

 

[Meerkat]

And permanent rule of England by tory governments?? Because that would be a likely consequence -- and eventually lead to resentment in several regions that thought that "London and South East" got "all the goodies".

That kind of assumes none of the parties would change once they became English or English/Welsh only.
Obviously the rude answer is that you sound like the Remainers whose main reason for liking the EU was that the EU is less Tory than the governments the British people elect. Democracy is a bummer when the majority vote ‘wrong’!!

 

[edwin_m]

That kind of assumes none of the parties would change once they became English or English/Welsh only.
Obviously the rude answer is that you sound like the Remainers whose main reason for liking the EU was that the EU is less Tory than the governments the British people elect. Democracy is a bummer when the majority vote ‘wrong’!!

There is a lot of resentment between regions in England directed against government in London. The Tories are currently capitalizing on this having done the populist trick of re-directing that unhappiness against the EU, but now that scapegoat is no longer present that trick won't work any more and I suspect the incompetence of the Johnson government will see it unable to deliver its promises and the north-south political divide will return in 2024. Without devolution or a realistic independence option for the regions concerned, these tensions will remain unless some party comes up with a totally new approach.

 

[Starmill]

It only stretches to counties in an ”against the rest“ kind of way, not at all sure it would be the same if you tell Hull/Sheffield/York people they will be ruled from Leeds, or that York folks should sub Barnsley.

The regional Parliament building could be located in one of the less economically influential centres of each new English federal district. A 'Greater Yorkshire' district including Leeds, Sheffield, York and Hull could have its Parliament meet in Selby. It's common in the United States for the State House to be in a less significant, smaller city. Similarly 'Northumbria' could meet in Darlington, and Cheshire & Lancashire in Warrington.

Obviously the rude answer is that you sound like the Remainers whose main reason for liking the EU was that the EU is less Tory than the governments the British people elect.

For a start, I'm certain that that's not true. But also I've literally never heard anyone mention it, on either side, until right now, in four years of debate on this. So I'm pretty sure that you've just made that up.