nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Should the UK federalise?

ancapailldorcha

So, the below picture cropped up on my feed today. I think it makes for an intriguing premise. We've seen arguments for an England-only Parliament on the basis that people in England feel unrepresented given the regional assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I think that not only would this go a step further, it would help bring Politics closer to people. I've read anecdotes of MP's in the North registering that people are fed up of being told what to do by London though these It would also serve to recognise the regional identities that have existed in England for over a thousand years. As someone who enjoys reading English history, it would be wonderful to see terms like "Mercia" and "Wessex" re-enter the vernacular.

A United Kingdom Parliament could still legislate on matters of international trade, foreign aid, defence, etc while regional Parliaments would legislate for each region. I do not think that this is ever likely or even possible given how centralised this country has become but I think that it's something to consider.

What do ye think? Could this be a step forward?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

liamtech

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So, the below picture cropped up on my feed today. I think it makes for an intriguing premise. We've seen arguments for an England-only Parliament on the basis that people in England feel unrepresented given the regional assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I think that not only would this go a step further, it would help bring Politics closer to people. I've read anecdotes of MP's in the North registering that people are fed up of being told what to do by London though these It would also serve to recognise the regional identities that have existed in England for over a thousand years. As someone who enjoys reading English history, it would be wonderful to see terms like "Mercia" and "Wessex" re-enter the vernacular.

A United Kingdom Parliament could still legislate on matters of international trade, foreign aid, defence, etc while regional Parliaments would legislate for each region. I do not think that this is ever likely or even possible given how centralised this country has become but I think that it's something to consider.

What do ye think? Could this be a step forward?

Its an interesting concept. I think it depends on what we consider the differences are, between a 'nation' and a 'state'. For me i have always considered a 'state' to be an administrative area, governed by an Administration, located in a designated capital.

Where as a 'nation' is more a kin to an area, where citizen ethnicity, culture, and history, are roughly homogeneous; an area occupied by the same 'people', who IDENTIFY as such.

(not wanting to start the debate over immigration on this thread, let us just leave this aside for now, and talk in black and white terms).

So if we examine Europe we see a mixture, in terms of states and nations. Obviously the EU is made up of 'States', in the strictest sense of the word.

Germany - A state, and arguably a 'Nation State' - granted there are sub regions within Germany but German IDENTITY is secure

Austria - A State made up of German speakers who self identify as Austrian, and have done so for hundreds of years. Therefore similarly a 'Nation State'; Austrians have not been seen as wishing to be incorporated into Germany.

But then it gets a bit more complicated. Take France and Spain. Two 'States', but within their boarders are, effectively, several different 'Nations' - Basque Country, Catalonia etc - let us also not forget the Bretons - an area within France that is sometimes entirely overlooked

Again the Netherlands and Belgium are similar - Walloon's, Dutch Flemish, Belgian Flemish etc

Now we could suggest that the barriers are merely linguistic but that is not entirely the case. Certainly not for the Basque and Catalonian regions. arguably not for the Netherlands and Belgium. These are, in my opinion, different 'Communities' therefore, technically could function as Nations in their own right.

So if we then examine the United Kingdom. Truly Unique in this discussion, for within its boarders, the UK has many different cultures, histories, and arguably 'Nations'

Scotland - a Nation with its own Proud Heritage and history, language, and culture - a Nation, but not a state
Wales - Similar, broadly speaking to the description of Scotland
Isle of Mann - technically a Crown Dependency as opposed to a Constituent Member of the UK - but similar to the above - culture, language, history, unique
Northern Ireland Like the United Kingdom itself, divided within itself. Nationalistic, Religious, cultural and identity politics, entirely divisive in terms to its own societal structure.

So where is Britain? Technically it does, and doesn't exist. The State, de Jure exists, in the form of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland. However who are the British people. Well they are English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish Citizens who add the prefix 'British' to their otherwise basic identity. But their numbers are arguably falling; British IDENTITY is falling, as several studies and articles have highlighted - and this has been reliably reported on the news

English Nationalism is growing and arguably at the center of the Brexit debacle
Scottish Nationalism is alive, and arguably thriving - more so now that a distinct difference in policy view (brexit), has come to light. For the first time in a long time, London and Edinburgh are ENTIRELY at odds.
Welsh is present, and while not vocal atm, it is unique, with special emphasis on the language and culture of wales
Northern Ireland - well we have thread after thread on the divisions within the 6 counties so i wont waste time

So in terms of Federalism, a Federal UK - would it work. I would cite the US as an example of a Federal system that works. Sure states sometimes have differing views (relgious, attitudes to LGBTQ issues Abortion, etc) , but the key factor, IDENTITY; never in doubt - ask someone from any state in the US, what they are, identity wise, and i would argue that 999/1000 would say 'American' - Americanism is an 'Ideal' and not dependent on ethnicity or culture, or historical origin.

I dare say that is not the case in the UK. The only area where people readily identify as British is Northern Ireland. And i would argue that it is more of a deliberate choice, NOT TO IDENTIFY as Irish - rather then a true allegiance to British-ness.

I think realistically, The UK has a choice.

It either remains intact as it is today - with no further erosion of powers from the State Parliament
Or it begins to federalize, which for me, would spell the break up of the Union. And the creation of something more a Kin to the Commonwealth, than to the US

I think once you allow more devolution, the UK will begin to break up. Once Wales, Scotland, et al, start to have the power to decide more and more, their own destiny, then Identity Politics, will take over. The question will not be, do we all follow together within the autonomous structures that we have - it will be, 'we want MORE autonomy. we don't agree, and are therefore going to seek further devolution'

In terms of the smaller constituent members of the UK, mainly English it has to be said, Federalization may allow the outliers to throw in with one of the major groups - while the closer to London one gets, the more English one identifies as

It is interesting and my response is only my personal view - if citations are needed/requested i will provide what i can - my own college back ground is International relations so i believe im on steady ground in this response - but i welcome descent as always - i am at home with a nasty flu so, i can probably do better in articulating my thoughts later in the week

[Deleted User]

liamtech wrote: »

Its an interesting concept. I think it depends on what we consider the differences are, between a 'nation' and a 'state'. For me i have always considered a 'state' to be an administrative area, governed by an Administration, located in a designated capital.

Where as a 'nation' is more a kin to an area, where citizen ethnicity, culture, and history, are roughly homogeneous; an area occupied by the same 'people', who IDENTIFY as such.

(not wanting to start the debate over immigration on this thread, let us just leave this aside for now, and talk in black and white terms).

So if we examine Europe we see a mixture, in terms of states and nations. Obviously the EU is made up of 'States', in the strictest sense of the word.

Germany - A state, and arguably a 'Nation State' - granted there are sub regions within Germany but German IDENTITY is secure

Austria - A State made up of German speakers who self identify as Austrian, and have done so for hundreds of years. Therefore similarly a 'Nation State'; Austrians have not been seen as wishing to be incorporated into Germany.

But then it gets a bit more complicated. Take France and Spain. Two 'States', but within their boarders are, effectively, several different 'Nations' - Basque Country, Catalonia etc - let us also not forget the Bretons - an area within France that is sometimes entirely overlooked

Again the Netherlands and Belgium are similar - Walloon's, Dutch Flemish, Belgian Flemish etc

Now we could suggest that the barriers are merely linguistic but that is not entirely the case. Certainly not for the Basque and Catalonian regions. arguably not for the Netherlands and Belgium. These are, in my opinion, different 'Communities' therefore, technically could function as Nations in their own right.

So if we then examine the United Kingdom. Truly Unique in this discussion, for within its boarders, the UK has many different cultures, histories, and arguably 'Nations'

Scotland - a Nation with its own Proud Heritage and history, language, and culture - a Nation, but not a state
Wales - Similar, broadly speaking to the description of Scotland
Isle of Mann - technically a Crown Dependency as opposed to a Constituent Member of the UK - but similar to the above - culture, language, history, unique
Northern Ireland Like the United Kingdom itself, divided within itself. Nationalistic, Religious, cultural and identity politics, entirely divisive in terms to its own societal structure.

So where is Britain? Technically it does, and doesn't exist. The State, de Jure exists, in the form of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland. However who are the British people. Well they are English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish Citizens who add the prefix 'British' to their otherwise basic identity. But their numbers are arguably falling; British IDENTITY is falling, as several studies and articles have highlighted - and this has been reliably reported on the news
English Nationalism is growing and arguably at the center of the Brexit debacle

Scottish Nationalism is alive, and arguably thriving - more so now that a distinct difference in policy view (brexit), has come to light. For the first time in a long time, London and Edinburgh are ENTIRELY at odds.

Welsh is present, and while not vocal atm, it is unique, with special emphasis on the language and culture of wales

Northern Ireland - well we have thread after thread on the divisions within the 6 counties so i wont waste time

So in terms of Federalism, a Federal UK - would it work. I would cite the US as an example of a Federal system that works. Sure states sometimes have differing views (relgious, attitudes to LGBTQ issues Abortion, etc) , but the key factor, IDENTITY; never in doubt - ask someone from any state in the US, what they are, identity wise, and i would argue that 999/1000 would say 'American' - Americanism is an 'Ideal' and not dependent on ethnicity or culture, or historical origin.

I dare say that is not the case in the UK. The only area where people readily identify as British is Northern Ireland. And i would argue that it is more of a deliberate choice, NOT TO IDENTIFY as Irish - rather then a true allegiance to British-ness.

I think realistically, The UK has a choice.
It either remains intact as it is today - with no further erosion of powers from the State Parliament

Or it begins to federalize, which for me, would spell the break up of the Union. And the creation of something more a Kin to the Commonwealth, than to the US

I think once you allow more devolution, the UK will begin to break up. Once Wales, Scotland, et al, start to have the power to decide more and more, their own destiny, then Identity Politics, will take over. The question will not be, do we all follow together within the autonomous structures that we have - it will be, 'we want MORE autonomy. we don't agree, and are therefore going to seek further devolution'

In terms of the smaller constituent members of the UK, mainly English it has to be said, Federalization may allow the outliers to throw in with one of the major groups - while the closer to London one gets, the more English one identifies as

It is interesting and my response is only my personal view - if citations are needed/requested i will provide what i can - my own college back ground is International relations so i believe im on steady ground in this response - but i welcome descent as always - i am at home with a nasty flu so, i can probably do better in articulating my thoughts later in the week

Are you saying someone from Stoke Newingron feels more English than someone from Stoke on Trent?

You would be very wrong if you are.

liamtech

Aegir wrote: »

Are you saying someone from Stoke Newingron feels more English than someone from Stoke on Trent?

You would be very wrong if you are.

Ok straight away, no, i am not saying that. i do not claim an expertise on individual county pride, or identity within England.

What i also claim is that i seriously doubt either of these areas would explicitly want self governing authority devolved from West Minster.

But the evidence i would suggest for the outliers being more distant from London, in their outlook on policy, is that there seemed to be a genuine pull away from England by its northern Counties -

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/15/should-north-england-join-scotland

especially during IndyRef - as the above article indicates - whether or not this is 'identity based', or a general disapproval of Southern England's dominance, i would not say - but the fact within Northern Counties, English People might prefer to be a party of an independent scotland, does support the idea that at least within the UK, distance matters.

One could not say the same of the US, a Federal system; Los Angeles is as far from Washington as you can get (leave Alaska and Hawaii aside for this) - but there is no support in LA for independence - or a difference in Identity Politics - LA is a city in the State of California -within the United States of America - and its people are American

The fact that anyone in Sheffield or Middlesborough, English Cities, would sign a petition indicating a wish to join an Independent Scotland - supports the fragility of the UK as i have outlined in my opinion. and Supports a thesis that Federalization, could lead to break up

It would not be a United States of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

It would be England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (probably the most PRO union, ANTI federalist area - and how that would resolve is another debate) - existing within a Common wealth of Great Britain

EDIT - it is an interesting difficult topic to debate but the fact that any english person, would prefer to live in a Break Away Scotland, supports at least a moderate argument that distance from center of gravity - matters

Harry Palmr

There is something to be said for "Lander" style regional governance but it would surely need to come at the expense of city/county administration as well as that at national level. Cue Greater Manchester screaming like stuck pigs at the idea of Liverpool having greater prominence within the Lancaster lander.

Cornwall is the obvious outlier as they can make a half decent claim to being a nation within a nation but even there would you want to indulge the notion of moving towards independence which is the logical next step for much of that population.

I'm sure you could make a list of arguments pro and con that would be about the same length.

TheValeyard

It's an interesting map alright.

kowloon

Do that and the Scandinavians will start sending raiding parties up and down the coast again.

derrymcorry

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So, the below picture cropped up on my feed today. I think it makes for an intriguing premise. We've seen arguments for an England-only Parliament on the basis that people in England feel unrepresented given the regional assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I think that not only would this go a step further, it would help bring Politics closer to people. I've read anecdotes of MP's in the North registering that people are fed up of being told what to do by London though these It would also serve to recognise the regional identities that have existed in England for over a thousand years. As someone who enjoys reading English history, it would be wonderful to see terms like "Mercia" and "Wessex" re-enter the vernacular.

A United Kingdom Parliament could still legislate on matters of international trade, foreign aid, defence, etc while regional Parliaments would legislate for each region. I do not think that this is ever likely or even possible given how centralised this country has become but I think that it's something to consider.

What do ye think? Could this be a step forward?

Apart from Northern Ireland it would be a step forward for GB post-Brexit, although I'd rather see Scotland independent.

[Deleted User]

liamtech wrote: »

Ok straight away, no, i am not saying that. i do not claim an expertise on individual county pride, or identity within England.

What i also claim is that i seriously doubt either of these areas would explicitly want self governing authority devolved from West Minster.

But the evidence i would suggest for the outliers being more distant from London, in their outlook on policy, is that there seemed to be a genuine pull away from England by its northern Counties -

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/15/should-north-england-join-scotland

especially during IndyRef - as the above article indicates - whether or not this is 'identity based', or a general disapproval of Southern England's dominance, i would not say - but the fact within Northern Counties, English People might prefer to be a party of an independent scotland, does support the idea that at least within the UK, distance matters.

One could not say the same of the US, a Federal system; Los Angeles is as far from Washington as you can get (leave Alaska and Hawaii aside for this) - but there is no support in LA for independence - or a difference in Identity Politics - LA is a city in the State of California -within the United States of America - and its people are American

The fact that anyone in Sheffield or Middlesborough, English Cities, would sign a petition indicating a wish to join an Independent Scotland - supports the fragility of the UK as i have outlined in my opinion. and Supports a thesis that Federalization, could lead to break up

It would not be a United States of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

It would be England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (probably the most PRO union, ANTI federalist area - and how that would resolve is another debate) - existing within a Common wealth of Great Britain

EDIT - it is an interesting difficult topic to debate but the fact that any english person, would prefer to live in a Break Away Scotland, supports at least a moderate argument that distance from center of gravity - matters

Considering that there are over 700,000 Scots who were born in Scotland, but living in England, I would put no relevance at all to 28,000 people voting in a public vote with no idea where those who voted actually live, or their country of birth.

Especially from an area with a population of over 12,000,000.

Sinbad_NI

OP... IOM and CI aren't part of the UK

kowloon

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

OP... IOM and CI aren't part of the UK

They might be happy to move from crown dependancy to federal state. There would be quite a few UK territories that might be subject to a change if such a massive reorganisation was ever to happen.

derrymcorry

kowloon wrote: »

They might be happy to move from crown dependancy to federal state. There would be quite a few UK territories that might be subject to a change if such a massive reorganisation was ever to happen.

CI should have a referendum on whether or not they want to rejoin France. The majority of people there identify as European.

IOM has its own parliament, the Tynwald, said to be the oldest continually functioning legislature in the world. The Manx economy is based on its financial sector and they would lose this as part of a federated Britain. It should remain as it is.

ancapailldorcha

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

OP... IOM and CI aren't part of the UK

I was more getting at the idea in general rather than taking the image 100%. However, I didn't think about this at all.

IOM and CI I suppose can remain as they are.

liamtech

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I was more getting at the idea in general rather than taking the image 100%. However, I didn't think about this at all.

IOM and CI I suppose can remain as they are.

I think the unique relationship that the Isle of Mann and the Channel Islands have with the UK,(that being a special status aligned with and protected by the UK as it is today), they would definitely change if the UK were to Federalize. So therefore it would not be a stretch to suggest they would become functioning 'states' (in the case of the IOM, a nation state by my line of thinking), within a Federalized United States of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

However i would still suggest that this would fall apart rapidly - with so much devolved power, identity politics would see it fragment - and we might end up with a 'Jigsaw puzzle UKGB with missing pieces'

Scotland - most likely to leave
Wales - seem content with current arrangement although Plaid is growing in popularity - possible leave at some point in the case of Federalization
Northern Ireland - the absolute hold out of Unionism (leaving a border poll aside) - to what would it remain 'United' with? England, IOM and the Channel Islands?
England - English nationalism - definitely on the rise

it is a fascinating concept, id be interested to see what everyone else has to say

ancapailldorcha

I should have cleared this up but the meat of my idea is federalising England specifically to bring an end to the idea of England effectively controlling the UK. This would allow the UK to continue to exist as an entity while each region would have a degree of autonomy.

derrymcorry

liamtech wrote: »

I think the unique relationship that the Isle of Mann and the Channel Islands have with the UK,(that being a special status aligned with and protected by the UK as it is today), they would definitely change if the UK were to Federalize. So therefore it would not be a stretch to suggest they would become functioning 'states' (in the case of the IOM, a nation state by my line of thinking), within a Federalized United States of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

However i would still suggest that this would fall apart rapidly - with so much devolved power, identity politics would see it fragment - and we might end up with a 'Jigsaw puzzle UKGB with missing pieces'

Scotland - most likely to leave
Wales - seem content with current arrangement although Plaid is growing in popularity - possible leave at some point in the case of Federalization
Northern Ireland - the absolute hold out of Unionism (leaving a border poll aside) - to what would it remain 'United' with? England, IOM and the Channel Islands?
England - English nationalism - definitely on the rise

it is a fascinating concept, id be interested to see what everyone else has to say

Irish reunification aside, people often view Scottish nationalism and Welsh nationalism as the same. They are not.

Scotland was historically a country, and it still retains its own distinctive legal system etc. It only stopped being a country after the 1707 Acts of Union with England to from the Kingdom of Great Britain. This is the same way Ireland was dragged into the UK in 1801.

Wales was never a country. It was an area with several kingdoms and its own distinct language that was absorbed without any Act of Union into England in the 16th century. It is represented by the St. George's Cross in the Union Jack, it follows English law and is basically a region of England that has a small amount of autonomy. Wales also couldn't realistically become independent as it is an economic deadweight.

Ireland - country.
Scotland - country.
Wales - autonomous part of England.

liamtech

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I should have cleared this up but the meat of my idea is federalising England specifically to bring an end to the idea of England effectively controlling the UK. This would allow the UK to continue to exist as an entity while each region would have a degree of autonomy.

Ah ok - that is different. Far more interesting, would each of the English sub-states/counties, have the same position in the Union, as Scotland and Wales? With devolution, i could see that possibly being unstable. I am unfamiliar with the demographics within England (religiosity, societal views, liberality) - i could see perhaps areas, ending up with some strange local laws, which would be challenged then, at a federal level.

Alternatively, if the 'sub states' within the UK as a whole (wales, scotland, Lancaster, Essex, etc) had 'More devolution', akin to state congresses in the US, then i think it would be similar to my original argument - possible unstable to the point of the UK ending up as a Commonwealth of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

derrymcorry wrote: »

Irish reunification aside, people often view Scottish nationalism and Welsh nationalism as the same. They are not.

Scotland was historically a country, and it still retains its own distinctive legal system etc. It only stopped being a country after the 1707 Acts of Union with England to from the Kingdom of Great Britain. This is the same way Ireland was dragged into the UK in 1801.

Wales was never a country. It was an area with several kingdoms and its own distinct language that was absorbed without any Act of Union into England in the 16th century. It is represented by the St. George's Cross in the Union Jack, it follows English law and is basically a region of England that has a small amount of autonomy. Wales also couldn't realistically become independent as it is an economic deadweight.

Ireland - country.
Scotland - country.
Wales - autonomous part of England.

Its interesting and that is true. However i would use the word 'Nation' to describe a region that is populated by people with the same 'Identity'. I think it is true to say that People living in Wales, from that region, consider themselves Welsh. While many might see themselves as British Welsh, i doubt many would identify as English too (although of course many may do so depending on where their ancestors come from)

But in terms of Nation, i would say Wales qualifies - although not as a State - in the same way that Catalonia and the Basque Regions, are arguably nations - but not states/countries

[Deleted User]

derrymcorry wrote: »

CI should have a referendum on whether or not they want to rejoin France. The majority of people there identify as European.

Why?

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So, the below picture cropped up on my feed today. I think it makes for an intriguing premise. We've seen arguments for an England-only Parliament on the basis that people in England feel unrepresented given the regional assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I think that not only would this go a step further, it would help bring Politics closer to people. I've read anecdotes of MP's in the North registering that people are fed up of being told what to do by London though these It would also serve to recognise the regional identities that have existed in England for over a thousand years. As someone who enjoys reading English history, it would be wonderful to see terms like "Mercia" and "Wessex" re-enter the vernacular.

A United Kingdom Parliament could still legislate on matters of international trade, foreign aid, defence, etc while regional Parliaments would legislate for each region. I do not think that this is ever likely or even possible given how centralised this country has become but I think that it's something to consider.

What do ye think? Could this be a step forward?

Interesting idea.

Most of the regions have a population of about 5 million, with the exception of Essex, East Anglia, Cornwall, and Dumnonia. Turn those four into two regions, then they would all be about the same population.

Like the EU, the central Gov would need to reserve certain competences to them selves such as trade, defence. and foreign affairs plus more areas that would be best centralised. The rest are devolved to the regional assemblies equally.

If done well with STV elections, federal taxation, plus local taxation, it could work. There would be three levels of government - Central, Regional, and local (County Councils). Each would have clearly defined roles, clearly elected assemblies, and with fixed term elections for the two lower levels, I think it could only be better than is there now.

Obviously, if one of the lower levels misbehaves (corruption or incompetence) then the higher level can put in commissioners to sort it out. It would work with a written constitution.