LSWR Cavalier
Established Member
Without the hard work done many years ago in Barnsley and Merthyr, York and Caerdydd should not be enjoying their present prosperity
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Would federalism ever work in the UK
- Thread starter MattA7
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
A lot depends on the economic outcome of the pandemic. It does appear that a significant amount of office work is shifting out of London, mostly to the South East but it may help the levelling up agenda to (by accident).
Warrington would be fitting both as a practical mid point and because it was in Lancashire until 1974 when it was transferred to Cheshire County Council (then became a unitary authority in the ceremonial county of Cheshire).
The North would be an obvious place to start dividing England into states. The three European regions do largely reflect local identities (if you take Cumbria out of North West region and rename it Lancashire and Cheshire region). 14 million people in three states would be a good start. It doesn't need to be done in one go or to a central plan. The Combined Authorities are done on the basis of local councils deciding to group together to obtain extra powers and there are some that have multiple options. Warrington requested talks with Greater Manchester which where turned down and had negoiations with Liverpool city region (Merseyside + Halton) before deciding to form Cheshire Combined Authority. Halton could have joined Cheshire CA too but preferred to work with Merseyside.
I think the most realistic option for federalism is confederation and it would only delay the breakup of the UK not stop it. I can't see it lasting more than a generation. It effectively means making the countries almost independent but pooling the bare minimum to retain the existence of the UK. Its what the Eurozone needs to become in the long term (or be scrapped).
Confederation would be something like:
4 national parliaments and 1 single chamber UK parliament. Government of England would be very problematic to solve.
Controlled at national level:
- national debt divided between 4 nations. Fortunately 1/3rd of UK national debt is owned by Bank of England with quantitative easing money so it would not be a debt default to transfer less than half of that so 14% of national debt was owed by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. England would inherit all privately owned debt and remaining BofE owned debt to take 86% (equal to its share of population)
- all personal taxation devolved to 4 countries
- all public services including most transport policy
Controlled at confederal level:
- currency and banking union
- management of the "internal market" and taxes relating to it e.g. VAT and import duties
- foreign policy
- international development
- trade
- defence
- immigration, borders and citizenship
- transport policy that effects all of UK
Confederal level taxes would need to raise significantly more than the limited outgoings on defence etc. That would enable solidarity payments to be made to Wales and Northern Ireland. Anything left over could be redistributed using the Barnett formula.
Confederation would probably kill off immediate Scottish independence because its a clear stepping stone to it and would make it much easier to make the final step at a later date.
Where the building is doesn’t affect the demographic reality of where the power will be.
It must be true as there doesn’t really seem any other reason for people who otherwise don’t really support free trade capitalism to like the EU. But let’s agree to disagree as both know Brexit threads don’t achieve anything!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Dividing England is a non-starter, other than possibly London as a city state. It is an absolute red line for me.
But at the moment, 99% of the power over your life if you lived in, say, Hull is in Westminster. Why is it bad if a significant section of that is split off and shared within Yorkshire? Your claim that people in Yorkshire don't want to be "ruled from Leeds" implies they're happier to be ruled from London?
Whoever put that infographic together hasn't quite done their homework (Isle of Man and Channel Islands not being part of the UK).
Although the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not part of the UK interestingly people from those areas are full UK citizens as are people from Gibraltar, Bermuda etc.
Nothing like 99% with at least one level of local government already involved. What would a Yorkshire government get that wouldn’t be taken away from Hull unitary‘s current or possible future powers?
But the main answer to your question is change leads to better expectations - Westminster swapped for Leeds is no big improvement at significant cost and even more politicians.
English local government excluding Greater London has been very, very weak for a very long long time. That has very slowly begun to change with city deals, combined authorities and their new Metro Mayors etc. But in much of the country local government has little influence, and since the central government attempts to defund them since 2010, they have actually been having less and less power to act.
Well we could set the bar at income tax, and include that and broadly everything below it?
Why not? Why shouldn't Yorkshire be able to set its own policy direction in most areas of national life that fall within its boundaries? Why fundamentally do they need exactly the same ones that are right for Devon and Cornwall, and of necessity everywhere else in England?
Last edited:
Still responsible for a lot of stuff that affects our daily lives though
You want different income tax for each region? That’s a world of complication and extra expense!
What will actually move? Do you really want different health and education policies? Different social security?
I think you missed my point - if you want people to sign up to more expensive politics and more politicians then they have to see a real gain, an optimum solution. Moving a bit of power from Westminster to Leeds isn’t really that.
Yes, absolutely. As a minimum.
It would be the first step along the road to an entirely new constitutional settlement, not moving a bit of power to Leeds.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I couldn't possibly disagree more. Health (NHS) is something I would put at a federal level - I'd actually de-devolve it, and implement a system based on a written contract of entitlement (be that insurance based or not) to remove the postcode lottery.
And I remain of the view that breaking up England other than London as a city state is an absolute no. I would rather the Union broke up than that.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The failures of our Covid contact tracing system illustrates the problems of over-centralization. Where councils have run it, they are very much more aware of local circumstances and it has been far more effective.
Possibly a case of setting a national standard but delivering more locally?
The first is just the PR version of the latter.
Where is income tax charged, where i work or where I live? The latter makes for very complicated PAYE, the latter lets me get services where I’m not paying for them.
Split the health service up and people will live in low tax places then retire to the best health service areas.
i also don’t think the north have really thought it through. Liverpool could raise its income taxes but it’s tax base is small (its already a net ‘federal’ taker) and most income tax is paid by the rich.....who will just move over the border. To increase services they will need more federal tax, at the same time that the data from the split will be making the net federal paying areas even grumpier about funding such transfers.
If these matters had been dealt with more responsibly at the time, devolving specific powers equally to the whole country but keeping health reserved certainly could have worked. Unfortunately that ship has rather sailed.
I suspect the question is this. Are you trying to achieve a nirvaana model of government that's most efficient and delivers the best economic benefits, or are you trying to offer the UK an entirely new constitutional settlement that will keep it's now fundamentally incompatible different constituiencies together?
One way or another it's plain that the status quo isn't an option.
Yes, I think that your preference is likely to come to pass.
The first two points are in fact not really problems. You would generally have income tax split into two charges, one set at UK level and one set by regional government. Tax paid at regional level would remain in-region, tax paid at UK level would be used to fund reserved matters like defence or long-distance transport, and then allocated grants on tbe basis of economic development and social need.
All of these ideas have been pretty standard both in the UK and elsewhere in Europe for years. What this is is a way to standardise it across constituent parts that all have populations which are reasonably similar in size - from a minimum of 2 million up to a maximum of around 7 million.
I have no idea how English devolution based on the whole 56 million people is going to help.
Last edited:
daodao
Established Member
Other than the Pennine watershed separating Yorkshire and Northumbria from Lancashire and Cumbria, and the River Tamar separating Devon and Cornwall, there are no natural boundaries in England separating different regions. Cheshire in particular, with no natural central county town, looks in 3 different directions (to Manchester, Merseyside and North Staffs), and even the boundaries with Wales and Derbyshire are artificial in places and have moved over the years. Therefore, breaking up England into lots of separate governments making different laws is daft, although obviously there needs to be local administration of centrally made laws.
The boundary separating the 6 counties from Eire is also daft and the sooner it disappears the better.
By contrast, the border between England and Scotland is generally sensible, other than that the town of Berwick (north of the Tweed) really ought to be in Scotland. All being well, there will be a 2nd Indyref with a YES vote sometime soon.
The big issue that is difficult to resolve is the future status of Wales, which has a clearly separate cultural identity and is not part of England, but much of whose border with England, particularly north of Hay-on-Wye, is illogical, and which has poor internal North-South transport links. One could smooth out some of the border irregularities, e.g. incorporation of the Oswestry area within Wales, but making it a cohesive economic entity capable of full independence is far more challenging.
Confederation would delay the breakup and ease it. If the national debt is split up and all public services and personal taxation are done by constituent countries then there would be much less to resolve if (or when) constituent countries decide to become independent.
There isn't a good solution for Wales. A customs border with England would be a disaster for the former and a local problem for the latter. It would end up a vassal state of England in a customs union and using the English currency (therefore in a banking union). They would be better off with as much devolution as possible and some influence through MPs at Westminster.
Is that really true? There is a clear Welsh cultural identity, but that isn’t the same as saying that geographical Wales has a separate identity. Are huge numbers of those in North Wales and the border areas any more different from average English identity than Geordies or Scousers? If it wasn’t for the road signs I am not convinced I would be able to tell you where the border was comparing towns either side.
Nearly a fifth of the population of Wales are English and a large number of Welsh people live or work in England. Welsh independence in the next generation or so would be a disaster. Its not like a United Ireland or independent Scotland which have issues but that could be resolved. Welsh independence is completely economically unviable and would cause massive social problems.
LSWR Cavalier
Established Member
The Marches were disputed, the border used to move
Shrewsbury station is run by TfW, obviously Herefordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire could become part of Wales
..
In Germany the states vary a lot in population and wealth, money is shuffled around. Bayern is rich now and pays in, but for many years it was a net reciever
Shrewsbury station is run by TfW, obviously Herefordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire could become part of Wales
..
In Germany the states vary a lot in population and wealth, money is shuffled around. Bayern is rich now and pays in, but for many years it was a net reciever
Considering the widespread appeal of the “take control of, and get to keep, our own money” argument in the Brexit debate (let’s not argue it’s factual basis, it’s just the appeal that is relevant here) and the issues with the Barnett formula, federalism in the UK is almost guaranteed to be hugely divisive.
All the cross-funding that is currently hidden in national budgets will be laid bare, and it won’t look pretty.
All the cross-funding that is currently hidden in national budgets will be laid bare, and it won’t look pretty.
I think it would have the opposite effect. The current situation is highly divisive for Northern Ireland and Scotland, reducing the power of the national government would slow that down. The fiscal transfers would be done on the basis of objective policy based on need and development, rather than the current basis of politics.
So you make it better for Scotland and NI by creating hugely divisive arguments in England?!
The transfers in the EU are theoretically done on the same basis and yet were significant in the Brexit debate - and EU transfers are trivial compared to those within the UK.
I don't understand how that's not a reason in favour of transparent and objective subsidies?
It's not clear at all why it needs to be divisive. If the Scottish Government are matched in powers and influence throughout the whole UK, they would simply become one among equals, rather than outliers with a clear motivation to want to be free of the shackles of the centre. More than that though if the UK were federalised on the basis of the approximate powers of the Scottish Government we could then redistribute debt as well as power, and constitutional authority would come down from the Westminster Parliament having the ultimate authority to dismiss the devolved Parliaments. It would need to be replaced with a more clearly defined constitutional agreement between the new states once they've all been first elected.
To put it another way, the centre would lose some constitutional authority and every region would gain some, including Scotland and Northern Ireland. This would seem like a considerably fairer deal for their electorates, but it just cannot be delivered unless it happens in England and Wales also.
A huge PR campaign couldn’t convince the electorate that relatively small EU transfers were a good thing, so the huge transfers within a federal UK would be massively divisive - “hard-working Londoners paying loads of tax to workshy northerners”, “why do Geordies get more subsidies than us” etc etc.
You can argue about the mis-Reading of the data but the tabloid headline is that the Barnett formula means England subsidises the Scots to get better services than England, and that causes bitterness. The London v North East numbers would be really ugly in a federal England and cause much rancour.
On the contrary, under the proposals the Barnett Forumula would fall away and be replaced with something that most people would consider fairer, while 'answering the call' of thr SNP by handing the Scottish Government increased constitutional authority (which is what they say they want, not more money). In the case of your point about 'hard-working Londoners', more of the tax raised in London would be controlled by local politicians than today. Indeed every part of your argument is actually an argument in favour of more local control and a more transparent cross-subsidy system.
I think the thread title can be conclusively answered as in theory yes, in reality no (due to the politics of it).
I can see confederation happening in some form to buy off moderate Scots for a while. An English parliament is possible but I can't see the Tories ever agreeing to an English government. Scotland and Wales currently have constituency seats, the latters mirror Westminster constituency boundaries. Northern Ireland uses STV multi member constituencies for their assembly but that could be changed. The Westminster MPs could automatically be the constitutency MPs for the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments. I suspect Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would want regional top up MPs for their parliaments (like today) and the Tories would be very happy with an English parliament of the 535 constituency MPs only. There would be limits on how often the UK parliament could meet because the 4 national parliaments couldn't meet at the same time as a large proportion of their members would be members of two parliaments.
I can see confederation happening in some form to buy off moderate Scots for a while. An English parliament is possible but I can't see the Tories ever agreeing to an English government. Scotland and Wales currently have constituency seats, the latters mirror Westminster constituency boundaries. Northern Ireland uses STV multi member constituencies for their assembly but that could be changed. The Westminster MPs could automatically be the constitutency MPs for the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments. I suspect Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would want regional top up MPs for their parliaments (like today) and the Tories would be very happy with an English parliament of the 535 constituency MPs only. There would be limits on how often the UK parliament could meet because the 4 national parliaments couldn't meet at the same time as a large proportion of their members would be members of two parliaments.
“Most people would consider fairer”
So ‘hard working Londoners‘ getting to keep more of their money and ‘workshy northerners’ having to work harder or get worse services as transfers are reduced.
Unless you are expecting a surprising outbreak of altruism - if that altruism already exists how do you explain repeated voting for an austerity government?
That sounds simple but does it really work as it means the English voters have to vote for one party even if they like the Liberal‘s English policies and Labour‘s UK policies - if they aren’t voted for separately then what’s the gain?
- Status