The Student Room Group

Would the UK function better as a federation?

I've been reading up a lot about federalism as of late, and in many ways I'm not quite sure why the UK doesn't operate as a federation.

For one thing, I don't think Scotland would have kicked up any fuss about independence if the UK was a federation. Unitary government is unfair as far as power and sovereignty is concerned. At least under federalism, each country of the UK would hold its own sovereignty, rather than just the UK at a national level.

If we want people to feel involved with politics, surely federalism is the way to go as it naturally promotes pluralism. Politics wouldn't seem like something dominated by Westminster because it would essentially be equally split at national and regional levels to an extent that unitary devolution doesn't provide.

Our unitary government also allows the UK to operate without a codified constitution which I find questionable concerning citizen rights and concerning the protection of local governments that could potentially be quashed under our unitary, uncodified system. If the UK was a federation, all members of the UK would be guaranteed protection and rights. Wouldn't that make the UK a more fair union?

What do you guys think?

Scroll to see replies

Well the German, Russian and US federations have all had to maintain or create themselves through violence. Britain was formed out of the Glorious Revolution which wasn't violent. Also the Monarchy is the uniting thing, not Parliament. If you want to have a sovereign Scottish, Ulster, Welsh Parliament then fine then you must increase the power of the Monarch. However the reason the Scottish are kicking up a fuss is because they want a confederation. Where they threaten to leave the nation in return for stuff from the national government.

Also we have the English Bill of Rights which nobody talks about or seeks to enforce. That Liberty, Freedom and Justice couldn't be taken away if the English Bill of Rights was enforced and power balance between the institution of the state were maintained. It seems to me Puritan/Whig/Liberal subversion of the High Tory state. You wreck one governmental system then say the system is wrecked and needs to be changed. Well some of us see through it and understand. You ruin the House of Lords so then it needs to be done away with, you take away education and welfare from the Church of England and take away its preeminence. You make the Monarch beholden to Parliament for their funding and then take away the Monarchs power.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 2
Personally I would be in favour of this, also being in favour of a federalised Europe of course I'd say that.

As as for the constitution you just loaded a powder keg there and expect a stream of people coming arguing against constitution.
Only if the federation broke England into a number of smaller States. A single, unitary English State would be inherently destabilising and the Union would fall even faster.

Personally, I think people calling for saving the Union through such measures are barking up the wrong tree. What's needed is not parliamentary or Union reform but a wholesale restructuring of the machinery of government. Whitehall has, in fifteen years, barely acknowledged the devolution has taken place, and its officials and institutions don't work for the Union but are still oriented toward a unitary state.
I think Scotland should declare independence. I think we should then declare war against it and lop the head off the Queen of Scots and and build the Hadrians Wall Mk2.

Then we should annex it as a vassal state. To show the other uppity nations we mean business.
what I still don't get is why the scots got so much attention, when compared to yorkshire for example, both have the same number of people.
Reply 6
It depends how much is still maintained at the head level. If we were to have the US style federalism perhaps that wouldnt be bad, aslong as redistribution to the poorer parts of britain was still maintained.
Yes, and don't let any leaden, empiricist, post-imperialist, trapped in the past arguments tell you otherwise. These people largely live in the past and are blinkered to and incurious about the need to change as geopolitics changes.
I personally hope that plaud cymru grows in proportion to the SNP and we get a federal Britain.
No. We should have devolution into regions in the UK (night-watchman states/minimal statism) operating under the Monarchy. We should have elective representatives in each of these regions who can be held to account for their actions via MP recall and direct democracy. However, as the Monarchy would still rule, this would be devolution, not federalism, and therefore still be a unitary system.

As well as that, we should leave the EU and reengage with the Commonwealth nations and kickstart a Commonwealth Empire via the political route giving us power in multiple continents. We should invest in these countries, have military bases in these countries and have freedom of movement amongst countries living up to a certain standard. Initially, freedom of movement would be restricted to the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. As these countries are the most advanced they will have the most influence during political conferences. Also, all 4 nations would have to pledge to give a percentage of GDP to the smaller Commonwealth nations to boost their development and economic prosperity.
Reply 9
So long as England is broken unto regions I think further devolution and 'federalisation' could work to everyone's benefit.
Original post by Sanctimonious


As well as that, we should leave the EU and reengage with the Commonwealth nations and kickstart a Commonwealth Empire via the political route giving us power in multiple continents. We should invest in these countries, have military bases in these countries and have freedom of movement amongst countries living up to a certain standard. Initially, freedom of movement would be restricted to the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. As these countries are the most advanced they will have the most influence during political conferences. Also, all 4 nations would have to pledge to give a percentage of GDP to the smaller Commonwealth nations to boost their development and economic prosperity.


I've said this multiple times on here. It's staring us in the face that a commonwealth union with free movement of Labour makes vastly more sense than a European one. We still need to be open to the world far beyond Europe for trade so this notion that it is the only way to keep our horizons wide is nonsense. Plus those countries share a much deeper bond with us that goes back to their foundations as democracies.

Not so much with you on the monarchism in theory but maybe such a union would need it.
Original post by thisistheend
I think Scotland should declare independence. I think we should then declare war against it and lop the head off the Queen of Scots and and build the Hadrians Wall Mk2.

Then we should annex it as a vassal state. To show the other uppity nations we mean business.


Err, America and Europe would intervene and we would be reduced to a joke. I presume this was ironic though..
we would function very well under a federal system
each of our countries (england, scotland, wales and NI) have different cultures and different politics
trying to blend it all together in one parliament, mixing local and national issues, is very difficult to do well
I emphasise, a federal system could only function if England were broken up into smaller bodies.
Original post by SaucissonSecCy
Err, America and Europe would intervene and we would be reduced to a joke. I presume this was ironic though..
I'm deadly serious. I despise the Scots and how uppity they are. They get far more than they deserve from the Barnet Formula yet they have the cheek to ask for more. Wales and NI knows they have a good thing going and quietly keep theirs mouths shut.

I am an English nationalist.
Original post by Reluire
I've been reading up a lot about federalism as of late, and in many ways I'm not quite sure why the UK doesn't operate as a federation.

For one thing, I don't think Scotland would have kicked up any fuss about independence if the UK was a federation. Unitary government is unfair as far as power and sovereignty is concerned. At least under federalism, each country of the UK would hold its own sovereignty, rather than just the UK at a national level.

If we want people to feel involved with politics, surely federalism is the way to go as it naturally promotes pluralism. Politics wouldn't seem like something dominated by Westminster because it would essentially be equally split at national and regional levels to an extent that unitary devolution doesn't provide.

Our unitary government also allows the UK to operate without a codified constitution which I find questionable concerning citizen rights and concerning the protection of local governments that could potentially be quashed under our unitary, uncodified system. If the UK was a federation, all members of the UK would be guaranteed protection and rights. Wouldn't that make the UK a more fair union?

What do you guys think?


Wasn't Scotland promised "Damn Near Federalism" by Gordon Brown, on the run up to the referendum?
Reply 16
Original post by Swanbow
So long as England is broken unto regions I think further devolution and 'federalisation' could work to everyone's benefit.


Devolution is just a watered down version of federalism, to be honest.

Original post by SausageMan
Wasn't Scotland promised "Damn Near Federalism" by Gordon Brown, on the run up to the referendum?


The kind of federalism he was promoting was hardly federalism because he was just looking to score points for Scotland. Wales, NI and England didn't benefit at all from what he was proposing - he just wanted to keep Scotland in the union. That's not federalism, that's just special treatment.
Original post by Reluire
Devolution is just a watered down version of federalism, to be honest.


It is federalism without a constitution. The United Kingdom's archaic and unique situation means things come along rather ad hoc.

Sorting out our constitutional affairs is a necessity, but no one is really bothered. Tory backbenchers are the vanguard of the status quo, and Labour seems willing to go along with it and occasionally do things bit by bit. Unfortunately the whole matter is unintelligible for most, and more likely to backfire on any party campaigning for it. I mean the Senate proposed by Labour is potentially their most lasting legacy if they enter government, but it has hardly been talked about. And the Fixed Term Parliament Act brought by the Lib Dems had good intentions but has made things even more complicated if there is no winner at this election. I've always believed in gradually reform, but maybe it is time we actually went back to the drawing board and sorted out the whole mess.
Some may view as archaic but our political system has worked for centuries, has been admired and inspired by other countries and institutions, being the leaders of democracy and human rights, but all the time and the interesting part, is that each of our former colonial countries, we gave them a Bill of Rights and a written constitution, while our constitution remains largely unwritten but successful. Now the measure of its success is disputable and change is needed to make sure each part of our Union is treated fairly and right now, Scotland does have more than its Welsh counterpart, Scotland has its own Parliament, Wales has its National Assembly and now Plaid Cymru wants to see Wales as a republic and Scotland as we all know, seeks independence despite the once in a generation vote that said NO

We already have, as mentioned above, a type of federalism, but it just needs to be managed more in my opinion and one suggestion with this as proposed by UKIP is to replace the Barnett formula - whether it is replaced or reformed, something needs to be done to start fixing these issues, but I would not want to see the UK federalised like the USA, I stand by our Monarchy. I feel that if we took the Monarchy away, I would not feel British anymore. The Queen makes Britain, Britain and the royals themselves presents Britain's place in the world on the global stage, while also increasing commercialism and tourism, for those who are interested in the economic value. What do people think of when they think of Britain? Tea, Pound, Queen - federalism would remove this British identity. Even the Scots in their referendum, wanted to have our Queen as theirs too and that's from a party that wants to be independent, so they do not want too big changes.

Swanbow brought up about the Senate and that's another thing to get me started with my blood pumping, because it's true! not a lot has been said about it, so we don't truly know what's it all about, how it will work and what we are in for, which I find entirely unfair. I tried seeking answers to Labour itself, but all I received was the promotion leaflet that stated the policy, same when I asked about how tuition fees would be repaid under the £6K, but gave me nothing, which I am truly disappointed with, so I can only base the Senate on what I know from studying Public and Constitutional Law:

USA has Houses of Congress, made up of two Houses; House of Representatives and the Senate
UK has Houses of Parliament, made up of two Houses; House of Commons and the Senate (under proposed plans)

^
See the similarity? and the problem the Obama administration faced, the elected administration faced, was when both Houses were largely represented by the Opposition which makes policies very difficult to put forward. Now, if you vote a party to do X/Y/Z and they do carry them out but the opposing party in both Houses block it, then what is the point of voting? Under our unwritten constitutional conventions, you are supposed to stand by your party, so if Milliband for examples presents a reduction of tuition fees to £6K which the voters want, but opposing parties say no - I'm just really concerned about it, it's can't really be said it is a Senate of representatives but a Senate of Nations, but don't we have elected representatives in the House of Commons already, based on who the Scottish/Welsh/Irish vote for to represent them

Hereditary Peers in the House of Lords posed a problem, but that's been dealt with so people can't just inherit a seat after doing nothing, but the Law Lords who do sit in the House of Lords do have expertise in their fields or an active role in their fields. Take for example Ros Altmann who once served Labour but is a pension campaigner and seeks financial education to help young people, so her experience would be gaining her a place in the House of Lords, so if a policy has to do with pensions, then clearly she would have a say on the matter, which those in the Commons might not have and exactly my point with a Senate of Nations. The House of Lords do not even have power over finance bills from the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, because the House of Commons under Lib-dem did not like the Lords stopping them - We should deal first with the House of Commons where the action happens
Original post by thisistheend
I'm deadly serious. I despise the Scots and how uppity they are. They get far more than they deserve from the Barnet Formula yet they have the cheek to ask for more. Wales and NI knows they have a good thing going and quietly keep theirs mouths shut.

I am an English nationalist.


Wales and NI don't 'have a good thing going', they have to put up with what they have. And nationalisms like yours are harming the future of this country and will cause it to be drastically reduced in the world.

Quick Reply

Latest