A positive vision of UK with Scotland....

Watch
FredOrJohn
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
I think if Labour/Conservatives/Liberals want the union to last long term they ought to promote a new positive vision of the union that incorporates a new FEDERAL UK with England Federalised and a new Federal parliament built "up north" - ideally in Liverpool - the city, geographically in the centre of the British Isles (if you include Ireland arguably our largest trading partner). Parliament needs to distance itself from the city and refocus on industry. Perhaps Germany works so well because it is Federal. Perhaps the USA works so well because it is Federal. You could go for a confederation of independent states like Nordic-lands or Benelux but those states became independent from one another as a result of wars - we're all British , that is a significant difference and thus a Federal UK would be a positive future - but this can only work in England too is Federalised and parliament moved out of London.
The problem we have is small c conservativism. I would prefer an independent Scotland if the alternative was to continue as we are.
1
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
A federal UK is not possible. England is simply too enormous.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
(Original post by Marcum)
Do you believe it would be possible if England was carved up into smaller sub-regions? For example, the North, the South-West and the South-East?
The idea has been banded around for some time but the English electorate have always said no.

If you look at what we have in Scotland, we have a parliament set up that cost £414 million to set up and has an annual running cost of £72 million a year.

It doesn't really impact on most Scots lives but benefits mid level politicians greatly.

Better to devolve education and health care to local authorities.

Don't worry, we're not going anywhere soon.
0
reply
FredOrJohn
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by Marcum)
Do you believe it would be possible if England was carved up into smaller sub-regions? For example, the North, the South-West and the South-East?
In the original John Prescott idea the north rejected federalism in a referendum: In November 2004, voters in the North East rejected the proposal by 77.9% on a turnout of 49%, ... However since then the Scottish parliament has proved to be a huge success and now the north is strongly in favour of a federal UK.I don't see how England can be too big to be Federal - that is nonsense. the USA is miles bigger than England and it is federal as is Germany. I guess this guys geography is not his strong point. Some states might be small: Cornwall, some Large London.. But that is the nature of it. Like Bavaria in Germany is a "super state" it still works.


0
reply
FredOrJohn
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#5
The BBC has already moved many assets up to Salford. Perhaps they know Federalism is on the cards. HS2 might also be part of the infrastructure to allow Parliament to move North.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by FredOrJohn)
In the original John Prescott idea the north rejected federalism in a referendum: In November 2004, voters in the North East rejected the proposal by 77.9% on a turnout of 49%, ... However since then the Scottish parliament has proved to be a huge success and now the north is strongly in favour of a federal UK.I don't see how England can be too big to be Federal - that is nonsense. the USA is miles bigger than England and it is federal as is Germany. I guess this guys geography is not his strong point. Some states might be small: Cornwall, some Large London.. But that is the nature of it. Like Bavaria in Germany is a "super state" it still works.


Has it been a huge success? It has the same problems as any level of political establishment. Our politicians lie as deceive. NHS Scotland isn't improving and the vies if the people are being over rules in the name of green energy.
0
reply
Psyk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by FredOrJohn)
In the original John Prescott idea the north rejected federalism in a referendum: On 4 November 2004, voters in the North East rejected the proposal by 77.9% on a turnout of 49%, ... However since then the Scottish parliament has proved to be a huge success and now the north is strongly in favour of a federal UK.I don't see how England can be too big to be Federal - that is nonsense. the USA is miles bigger than England and it is federal as is Germany. I guess this guys geography is not his strong point.


I think gladders meant England is to big to be a single "state" in a federation. I agree that England should be multiple federal units.

Although I'm not sure it's worth making the officially federal. It's not really compatible with current constitutional principles. I think every part of the UK should be under some sort of devolved administration.

Right now, I'm not surprised people in Scotland are disillusioned with Westminster. Westminster is being in the strange position of being both the government of the UK and the government of England, with no clear separation of responsibilities. If England had devolved government (either as a whole or as regions), then Westminster could be more focussed on UK wide issues.
0
reply
username402722
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
I think that having English MPs vote on matters reserved for them should be a way forward, and both Scotland and Wales having the same powers. I don't think a separate parliamentary building is needed.
0
reply
FredOrJohn
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by Psyk)
I think gladders meant England is to big to be a single "state" in a federation. I agree that England should be multiple federal units.

Although I'm not sure it's worth making the officially federal. It's not really compatible with current constitutional principles. I think every part of the UK should be under some sort of devolved administration.

Right now, I'm not surprised people in Scotland are disillusioned with Westminster. Westminster is being in the strange position of being both the government of the UK and the government of England, with no clear separation of responsibilities. If England had devolved government (either as a whole or as regions), then Westminster could be more focussed on UK wide issues.
No I'm not in favour of an England parliament (unless Scotland leaves UK). I am in favour of a NEW Federal parliament based up North. "Federal" is a word basically meaning (in this context) more devolution - it not related to "constitutional principles". There is reasonable evidence that small states can react more quickly to change and large states get the economies of scale. Federalism allows fast agile movement (within the federal state) and also allows economies of scale (big collective orders, infrastructure projects etc)

I would probably split Scotland up into two states. Highland and Islands - and borders and lowlands.

An English parliament is meaningless - just carrying on as before. Broken,
0
reply
FredOrJohn
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by gladders)
A federal UK is not possible. England is simply too enormous.
This is a really silly reply when I clearly stated in the opening title a Federal state on the lines of Germany or USA. Broaden your imagination a bit. Small is fast and agile. Large has scale advantages. Join the two and you get what GErmany has.
0
reply
Psyk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by FredOrJohn)
No I'm not in favour of an England parliament (unless Scotland leaves UK). I am in favour of a NEW Federal parliament based up North. "Federal" is a word basically meaning (in this context) more devolution - it not related to "constitutional principles". There is reasonable evidence that small states can react more quickly to change and large states get the economies of scale. Federalism allows fast agile movement (within the federal state) and also allows economies of scale (big collective orders, infrastructure projects etc)

I would probably split Scotland up into two states. Highland and Islands - and borders and lowlands.

An English parliament is meaningless - just carrying on as before. Broken,
True federalism is related to constitutional principles because it puts limits on the powers of central government. In the UK we have the concept of parliamentary supremacy, and no parliament may bind a future one. Proper federalism is not compatible with that because it would be permanently ceding power to the "states", and hence binding future Parliaments. That's why I think it would be easier to have de facto federalism by giving more powers to devolved administrations, rather than de jure federalism.

What you're suggesting is a bigger change constitutionally speaking because it means effectively abolishing the state as we know it, and replacing it with some completely different. Where as my idea is a more incremental change.

Interesting idea having the federal government up north somewhere. I see the sense in that. But the path of less resistance would be to keep Westminster as the "federal" government and create new devolved governments in other places.
0
reply
FredOrJohn
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by Psyk)
True federalism is related to constitutional principles because it puts limits on the powers of central government. In the UK we have the concept of parliamentary supremacy, and no parliament may bind a future one. Proper federalism is not compatible with that because it would be permanently ceding power to the "states", and hence binding future Parliaments. That's why I think it would be easier to have de facto federalism by giving more powers to devolved administrations, rather than de jure federalism.

What you're suggesting is a bigger change constitutionally speaking because it means effectively abolishing the state as we know it, and replacing it with some completely different. Where as my idea is a more incremental change.

Interesting idea having the federal government up north somewhere. I see the sense in that. But the path of less resistance would be to keep Westminster as the "federal" government and create new devolved governments in other places.
I don't think you have explained yourself properly. Are you saying the local council is against our "constitutional principles" - I don't understand your counter argument. The central government can still unmake laws that it has made. It still has no limit from that perspective - anyway its a silly point, we don't really have a constitution we can make it anything we want it to be - what works the best is clearly the path to take - who cares about the constitutional position - just move it..
0
reply
Psyk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by FredOrJohn)
I don't think you have explained yourself properly. Are you saying the local council i against our "constitutional principles" - I don't understand your counter argument. The central government can still unmake laws that it has made. It still has no limit.
You're right, I'm not explaining myself very well.

My point is that under the proper definition of a federation, the central government has limited powers. For example the federal government cannot abolish state governments. It's typically set out in the constitution what powers and rights the federal government has vs. the state governments, and it is illegal for the federal government to infringe on the rights of a state. In theory, the federal government has legitimacy through consent of the states.

That's distinct from devolution because under devolution the central government still retains ultimate power. The UK Parliament could legally overrule or even abolish the Scottish Parliament for example, although realistically there would be huge repercussions if they did. I see it as being like the Queen's power to veto laws. In theory she retains the ability, but in practice she can only do so on the advice of her ministers. Just as the UK government could overrule devolved governments, but realistically wouldn't do so unless there are exceptional circumstances (as happened in Northern Ireland between 2003 and 2007).

So I suggest more devolution rather than proper federalism because it works out similar in practice, but without completely overhauling the core of the UK constitutional principles. It sounds like you're actually suggesting the same thing.
0
reply
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
I love how Scotland wanted so much devolution and then unified the police into a single unit. That's going in the complete ****ing opposite direction.

Local councils can do all this and they're at the direct mercy of those they live with. It's so much better to do this because if they **** up you can lynch them easily and they're likely to have little to no security. It's perfect.
0
reply
Studentus-anonymous
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
You know what? As much as I am pro-Britain and I love the Queenie, I think a more federalised constitutional monarchy would be good.

If nothing else I think England should get it's own devolved assembly and have the Westminster parliament dedicated to the UK as a whole and leave local issues to said devolved ones.

Maybe even halve England and give the north it;s own assembly to.


I reckon this would actually be a good sort of reform to make governance of the UK more efficient and more effective, and help offset how much London is tearing away from the rest of the country and dominating it with it's influence and wealth.
0
reply
FredOrJohn
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by Psyk)
You're right, I'm not explaining myself very well.

My point is that under the proper definition of a federation, the central government has limited powers. For example the federal government cannot abolish state governments. It's typically set out in the constitution what powers and rights the federal government has vs. the state governments, and it is illegal for the federal government to infringe on the rights of a state. In theory, the federal government has legitimacy through consent of the states.

That's distinct from devolution because under devolution the central government still retains ultimate power. The UK Parliament could legally overrule or even abolish the Scottish Parliament for example, although realistically there would be huge repercussions if they did. I see it as being like the Queen's power to veto laws. In theory she retains the ability, but in practice she can only do so on the advice of her ministers. Just as the UK government could overrule devolved governments, but realistically wouldn't do so unless there are exceptional circumstances (as happened in Northern Ireland between 2003 and 2007).

So I suggest more devolution rather than proper federalism because it works out similar in practice, but without completely overhauling the core of the UK constitutional principles. It sounds like you're actually suggesting the same thing.
My point is your argument must have existed in 2004 when the Federalism referendum took place (NE England - John Prescott idea). The reason it lost was due to: (a) unpopular labour government (b) Conservatives against it (c) Scottish parliament had not yet proved to be a success.

Since 2004, I believe all sides are now interested in a new Federal UK. I will vote "NO" to Scottish independence not because I don't believe "Small is not best" - it is best, but rather because the whole thing is causing some slight ill feeling down south particularly (its like Southerners have B.O so you are getting some resentment (slight but real)).

The best solution, to keep all sides friendly and happy is a FEDERAL UK .... I do not mean a federation of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, I mean a federation of states with populations no higher than about 15 million (so England would have to be split into many local states: eg London, Kent (oldest UK nation state), Cornwall (nationalist), Merica (Midlands), East Anglia, Nothumbria, and the Big One: "The North" (the counter weight to London). Ideally Scotland should be split into two states as well (lowlands and Borders - based in Paisley, and highlands and Islands - based in Aberdeen).
0
reply
Psyk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by FredOrJohn)
My point is your argument must have existed in 2004 when the Federalism referendum took place (NE England - John Prescott idea). The reason it lost was due to: (a) unpopular labour government (b) Conservatives against it (c) Scottish parliament had not yet proved to be a success.
No, that referendum was not technically about federalism. It was about regional devolution. As I explained they are not quite the same thing.

Fundamentally I agree with you. I want regions of the UK to have their own governments, and I agree that England should be split into multiple regions.

I'm just saying that so far the route we've been going down with devolution does not fit the technical definition of a federation. And going further with the idea does not necessarily mean we have to have an official federation. Regions of England can have their own autonomous governments without de jure federalism, just as the other nations of the UK do now.
0
reply
FredOrJohn
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by Psyk)
No, that referendum was not technically about federalism. It was about regional devolution. As I explained they are not quite the same thing.

Fundamentally I agree with you. I want regions of the UK to have their own governments, and I agree that England should be split into multiple regions.

I'm just saying that so far the route we've been going down with devolution does not fit the technical definition of a federation. And going further with the idea does not necessarily mean we have to have an official federation. Regions of England can have their own autonomous governments without de jure federalism, just as the other nations of the UK do now.
I don't suppose it matters what it is called, provided the new "federal" or "devolved" parliament is outside of london - ideally Liverpool. The House of Commons should ideally be a tourist attraction not a functioning modern centre of government.

An iceberg ahead needs way more agile thinking and less super tanker sinking. Small is beautiful and agile. ONE central government for 60 million bright , clever and agile people is not a government - its a mill stone.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
(Original post by FredOrJohn)
This is a really silly reply when I clearly stated in the opening title a Federal state on the lines of Germany or USA. Broaden your imagination a bit. Small is fast and agile. Large has scale advantages. Join the two and you get what GErmany has.
Aaaand that's pretty much why I said what I said: a federal system is incompatible with one of those federal subjects being too damn large.

Marcum perhaps subnational English federal states could work, but at the moment the English are too politically unenthusiastic for it. Maybe that will one day change, but until then...
0
reply
FredOrJohn
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by gladders)
Aaaand that's pretty much why I said what I said: a federal system is incompatible with one of those federal subjects being too damn large.

Marcum perhaps subnational English federal states could work, but at the moment the English are too politically unenthusiastic for it. Maybe that will one day change, but until then...
I really don't understand that. England is not a Federal Country yet - so you equating a Federal UK to England and Scotland is just plan daft as a brush. I'm sorry but that is daft. A federal UK has to have England split up into regions. From recent opinion polls the NE (who rejected it in 2004) is now strongly in favour. So on all acounts, you are wrong. Sorry - but you are just plan wrong. The UK regions do now want more power - you are stuck in 2004. I'm sorry but I really have to have a go at you because you are miles wrong about what people in the UK want now... Not 2004.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How would you feel if uni students needed to be double vaccinated to start in Autumn?

I'd feel reassured about my own health (32)
15.31%
I'd feel reassured my learning may be less disrupted by isolations/lockdowns (64)
30.62%
I'd feel less anxious about being around large groups (25)
11.96%
I don't mind if others are vaccinated or not (17)
8.13%
I'm concerned it may disadvantage some students (12)
5.74%
I think it's an unfair expectation (56)
26.79%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (3)
1.44%

Watched Threads

View All