[Calanon]

(Original post by Azog 150)
I'd agree with this. Personally I consider myself British and don't buy into English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism. However I fully appreciate that people do buy into these national identities.

There could still be a 'English' identity with regional English parliaments. For federalisation to work however, all the regional assemblies and parliaments of the United Kingdom would need the same powers.

If you wanted to give the English regional assemblies/parliaments a historic twist and identity, we could give them Saxon names roughly along the borders of the old Saxon Kingdoms. Lets say for example:

Southern Assembly= Wessex Assembly
Midlands Assembly= Mercian Assembly
Northern Assembly= Northumbrian Assembly

Greater London could still be the Greater London Assembly.

I'm an East Saxon, not a West Saxon! I don't approve of giving them a 'historic' twist in naming unless it's more accurate than what you're suggesting.

[Curzon]

(Original post by marsman13)
Hmmm okay, how would it help Wales economy if power was given locally? What would it allow Wales to do specifically?

It would enable us to focus on developing our own communities, infrastructure and private sector rather than being shunned in favour of London and the South East. We can do this to an extent now, but with a government unable to raise any money other than the budget given to it by Westminster and with still fairly limited powers in many areas, its scope is restricted.

(Original post by Calanon)
I'm an East Saxon, not a West Saxon! I don't approve of giving them a 'historic' twist in naming unless it's more accurate than what you're suggesting.

WEssex?

[Gales]

(Original post by LETSJaM)
No.

A divided Britain is a weaker Britain.

IMHO Britain is too small and to unitary to adapt well to a federal system.

<3 x

Belgium, Austria, Switzerland are all smaller than us and have federal systems. With the exception of Belgium, it works pretty well there.

[marsman13]

(Original post by Curzon)
It would enable us to focus on developing our own communities, infrastructure and private sector rather than being shunned in favour of London and the South East. We can do this to an extent now, but with a government unable to raise any money other than the budget given to it by Westminster and with still fairly limited powers in many areas, its scope is restricted.

Fair enough.

[Azog 150]

(Original post by Calanon)
I'm an East Saxon, not a West Saxon! I don't approve of giving them a 'historic' twist in naming unless it's more accurate than what you're suggesting.

I'd say its fairly accurate- these were the three most dominant Saxon kingdoms from the respective regions, and they each controlled all of these areas at one time or another.

Although herein lies the absurdity of English/Scottish/Welsh nationalism.

[Calanon]

(Original post by Azog 150)
I'd say its fairly accurate- these were the three most dominant Saxon kingdoms from the respective regions, and they each controlled all of these areas at one time or another.

But there were lots of kingdoms in south England at the time, Essex, Sussex, Wessex, East Anglia and Kent. A name should include them all. I've seen a very small amount of East Anglians that want devolution. All the current regional names (apart from Yorkshire and the Humber) are boring because they're purely geographical, but it means they're not wrong.

(Original post by Curzon)
WEssex?

What about East Anglia? They're not Saxons. ;o

[Moleman1996]

For me we are what it says on the tin. A Union of Kingdoms. Devolution decreases the value of that union, and it should be for all constituent Kingdoms (technically that's only England and Scotland, but we'll include wales and N.Ireland in there as well) at the very least. Currently the biggest part of the UK is the only one without an assembly. Im tempted to say return all power to westminster or dissolve the Union, unless England can have its own assembly too.

[NDGAARONDI]

Would people be against federalism in England if it were county based rather than region based?

[Huskaris]

Yes, what this country needs now is more layers of civil servants.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
Would people be against federalism in England if it were county based rather than region based?

I prefer counties but as said in an earlier post i only agree with devolution for some (not federalisation per say as i do not agree with differing laws).

[Psyk]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
For me we are what it says on the tin. A Union of Kingdoms. Devolution decreases the value of that union, and it should be for all constituent Kingdoms (technically that's only England and Scotland, but we'll include wales and N.Ireland in there as well) at the very least. Currently the biggest part of the UK is the only one without an assembly. Im tempted to say return all power to westminster or dissolve the Union, unless England can have its own assembly too.

UK stands for United Kingdom, not United Kingdoms. It is a single, united kingdom. It's a union of former kingdoms, not a union of current kingdoms.

[Curzon]

(Original post by Calanon)
What about East Anglia? They're not Saxons. ;o

Oh ****. What about Hwicce?

Everyone seems to be forgetting to Cornish here too. Give them some love.

[Kaiser MacCleg]

In the absence of an option for independence, yes, I'd plump for federalisation. Such an arrangement may just make being a part of this union tolerable.

(Original post by Moleman1996)
Devolution decreases the value of that union

Could you outline your opinion on the value of this union and explain how devolution devalues it?

(Original post by Curzon)
You speak like you know a lot about Wales. I don't think you do...

Don't worry, he doesn't.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by Kaiser MacCleg)
In the absence of an option for independence, yes, I'd plump for federalisation. Such an arrangement may just make being a part of this union tolerable.


Could you outline your opinion on the value of this union and explain how devolution devalues it?


Don't worry, he doesn't.

One of the main benefits of a union is increased power. If that power is localised, then the government is weaker. If constituent countries can do what they want anyway, then what is the point in a union?

[Calanon]

(Original post by Curzon)
Oh ****. What about Hwicce?

Everyone seems to be forgetting to Cornish here too. Give them some love.

The Cornish aren't English so also wouldn't be in Wessex. :P

[Richiboi]

i'd like to see devolved regional governments with the ability to raise revenues for some issues. this would let them focus on local projects of importance, and react more quickly to give public investment in industries important to that area (something national governments unfortunately think it is ideologically inappropriate to do, bizarrely..)

it would also hopefully address the massive london bias in the UK.

[Sithiris]

In an ideal world a more centralised United Kingdom would be by far the preferable option; however I think holding on to this idea is denial and delaying the inevitable. I believe Scotland is past the point of no return with Wales fast approaching; a problem that is only hastened by what these countries see as an axe wielding coalition without a mandate in these areas.

I think rather than weakening or destroying the UK federalising it is its only option. Further devolution not towards this goal will result in the UK slowly breaking up and any attempt to centralise power would result in a massive backlash. Federalisation would cement the Union while also giving the separate regions more say and their governments a better mandate.

Personally I would split the UK into Scotland, Northern England, Midlands, Southern England, Cornwall & Wales (these two nations share a lot of history and culture, with Cornwall being known as West Wales in the past. I believe a union between the two would be practical considering their small populations, maybe also include other areas of the west country for geographic practicality) and leave London as an independent area as the capital in the same way Washington D.C. is. In Northern Ireland I would propose it remain a federal nation of the UK, but at the same time normalise some areas of its relationship with the Republic of Ireland so that for the average joe citizen they would not appear separate countries outside of legal definitions and who gets the final say over things, not sure how this would work though.

Another area I would consider would be creating some sort of parliament to cover the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. Is there any constitutional reason why these could not be amalgamated into the UK proper? It seems unfair that they could be ruled by us but not have a true say; it would also solve a lot of international issues with this being the reason many are considered colonies where as their French and Dutch counterparts are not. It is also the reason Spain justifies its possession of Ceuta and Melilla, while demanding Gibraltar back.

[Curzon]

(Original post by Calanon)
The Cornish aren't English so also wouldn't be in Wessex. :P

Indeed, but they haven't been mentioned so I assume everyone is thinking of lumping them in with Wessex... they won't be happy

[Kaiser MacCleg]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
One of the main benefits of a union is increased power. If that power is localised, then the government is weaker. If constituent countries can do what they want anyway, then what is the point in a union?

Power for who? Certainly not everyone in the Union.

[Psyk]

(Original post by Curzon)
Indeed, but they haven't been mentioned so I assume everyone is thinking of lumping them in with Wessex... they won't be happy

What do you think of Sithiris' suggestion of making Cornwall part of Wales?

I don't see it happening personally.

Cornwall could potentially be a region of it's own, but it would be significantly smaller than any others.