Would federalism ever work in the UK

[Meerkat]

Germany has 16 states with a population about 20% larger than UK. US states have an average population of just under 7 million. 7-9 English States + Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be directly comparable. 5-7 million is an optimal level for good governance, states and countries that size do tend to be well run.

Good luck dividing England up into such states!
Fixing a border for London would be a huge issue if it actually made a difference.
There is a really big reason not to divide up the UK - it would hugely emphasise how London particularly, plus the South East and East Anglia, fund the rest of England. Cue much bitterness, and calls for London to pay less federal tax, or get more spent on it (and the attached GERS type arguments about how on Earth you split revenue and taxation to decide what the net figures are anyway)

 

[Bletchleyite]

England as a state within a federal UK won't work. It is 5/6ths of the population and would dominate any democratic structure by its sheer size. English voters won't accept English parity of representation with member states with populations that are tiny in comparison. That leaves federalising England or 4 independent countries.

Wales is not a viable standalone country (it would have a farming and subsistence economy basically the same as Albania) and I think that is well recognised by most who live there.

 

[MotCO]

England is too big to be a state in a federal UK and any division would be difficult and lack widespread support. One obvious state would be Northern England (North West, North East and Yorkshire and Humberside EU regions shown on the map in post 6). Unfortunately while there is a northern identity the very tribal town and county rivalries would likely scupper any proposals. It would also be labelled as Manchester rule.

There is no local identity within England, and probably the same is true in the other countries, with the notable exception of Kernow (Cornwall ) and maybe Shetland in Scotland. I don't believe we have any allegiance to our County, only our Country, so an amalgam of Counties would not mean much to anyone.

I can give an example. The NHS has for many years had a regional structure, but at each reorganisation, the regions are re-arranged, each new structure having a different number of regions than previously to prove there is a 'new' difference. Given that the regions are all different, there does not seem to be a natural division of the country, and any attempt to create a similar political structure will similarly fail.

In addition, there are only so many functions which can be delegated. Important functions, such as Exchequer, Defence, and Security cannot be delegated, and some would argue that Education, Health Service etc cannot be delegated since all need to perform to similar standards, e.g. GCSE exams, free access to health services etc, so what would the delegated counties actually do?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is no local identity within England

I challenge you to go and stand in the centre of Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, anywhere in Yorkshire etc and say that. It's absolute and utter rubbish, I'm sorry.

What there probably is is a recognition that none of those places really form a viable country, though, and the referendum on having things like "the North" as a Governmental entity were chucked right out, not least because the War of the Roses is bigger than the North South divide.

 

[MotCO]

I challenge you to go and stand in the centre of Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, anywhere in Yorkshire etc and say that. It's absolute and utter rubbish, I'm sorry.

I agree people do have allegiance to their local town - witness football rivalries. But this does not stretch to regions, and I think we agree on that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree people do have allegiance to their local town - witness football rivalries. But this does not stretch to regions, and I think we agree on that.

I think it probably stretches to ceremonial Counties (most notably Lancashire and Yorkshire) but probably not beyond.

 

[Chester1]

There is no local identity within England, and probably the same is true in the other countries, with the notable exception of Kernow (Cornwall ) and maybe Shetland in Scotland. I don't believe we have any allegiance to our County, only our Country, so an amalgam of Counties would not mean much to anyone.

I can give an example. The NHS has for many years had a regional structure, but at each reorganisation, the regions are re-arranged, each new structure having a different number of regions than previously to prove there is a 'new' difference. Given that the regions are all different, there does not seem to be a natural division of the country, and any attempt to create a similar political structure will similarly fail.

In addition, there are only so many functions which can be delegated. Important functions, such as Exchequer, Defence, and Security cannot be delegated, and some would argue that Education, Health Service etc cannot be delegated since all need to perform to similar standards, e.g. GCSE exams, free access to health services etc, so what would the delegated counties actually do?

Education, Health and Policing are devolved in the UK already, just not within England. Some functions and some taxes would remain at a federal (UK wide) level. The "One Yorkshire" metro region proposed to replace the initial Metro regions would have a population of 5.3 million. Greater Manchester has a population of about 3 million. These areas have identies and have very similar populations to Scotland and Wales respectively. I agree its not likely to happen but it would be perfectly feasible as demonstrated by many federal countries. While some German states are based on former kingdoms, most are artificial and it works.

 

[Journeyman]

Tony Blair made an absolutely fatal error of judgement not providing a devolution proposal for England. I think it's far too late to do anything about it now.

 

[birchesgreen]

Why are people always trying to make up regions of England when there are perfectly fine regions of England (and the other countries) which have existed for hundreds of years?

Artificial regions will fail just like artificial sports teams usually fail, nothing substantial or culturally historic behind it.

 

[Chester1]

Tony Blair made an absolutely fatal error of judgement not providing a devolution proposal for England. I think it's far too late to do anything about it now.

He tried but it was a poor attempt and was rejected in a referendum (North East Assembly with few powers). Petty local rivalries make a northern state unviable despite the shared interests. The obvious place to start would be London. It's nearly as big as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined. Copy and paste Welsh devolution (minus language). That would mean giving Labour politicians more power!

Why are people always trying to make up regions of England when there are perfectly fine regions of England (and the other countries) which have existed for hundreds of years?

Artificial regions will fail just like artificial sports teams usually fail, nothing substantial or culturally historic behind it.

I suggested Yorkshire (and Humberside). A One Yorkshire Combined Authority is supported by 18 out 20 local authorities. I would take it further and have an assembly and regional government. Cheshire and Lancashire cannot have their historic borders restored because it would split Greater Manchester and Merseyside up after they have merged together over 46 years. However, combined Cheshire, Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester have a population of 6.5 million which is more than Scotland. A Cheshire and Lancashire region wouldn't be wholey artificial but scousers wouldn't tolerate being in the same region as Mancs... Cumbria and the North East into one artificial region (Northumbria)? London with nearly 10 million would mean approximately 24 million people in 4 regions, leaving 33 million left. East Anglia has some regional identity and could form one. There is no political will though and the result of either our current disjointed government system or a parliament for England will be the end of the union.

 

[Meerkat]

I challenge you to go and stand in the centre of Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, anywhere in Yorkshire etc and say that. It's absolute and utter rubbish, I'm sorry.

In the cities maybe, but suggest lumping the outlying towns and cities into a Manchester or Liverpool country and I think the identity would fall apart pretty fast.

I think it probably stretches to ceremonial Counties (most notably Lancashire and Yorkshire) but probably not beyond.

It only stretches to counties in an ”against the rest“ kind of way, not at all sure it would be the same if you tell Hull/Sheffield/York people they will be ruled from Leeds, or that York folks should sub Barnsley.

 

[GusB]

I've never lived in England so I can't speak for anyone who lives there, but in my own neck of the woods people do have a connection with the wider area in which they live. As a resident of a former fishing village, I can attest to the fact that people feel strong connections to where their grandparents and great-grandparents were born. The "regional" allegiance comes into play because of the social, religious and cultural connections between coastal towns and the farming communities that surround them that make them distinct (but not hugely different) from other neighbouring areas. Language is one particular area; while English is universally spoken, it isn't universally used. Scots is the mither tongue here, and there is a world of difference between Aberdeenshire Scots, Glasgow Scots etc.

If there was a serious plan to have a federal UK I may well have had different views on Scottish independence but, as others have explained upthread, there doesn't seem to be any appetite for England to be split into states, and that's the only way I could see it working. I could also see issues with a single Scottish federal state; the further away one is from the centre of power, the more you'll feel that your voice isn't being heard. With the best will in the world, there's no way you'll ever be able to eliminate this mentality.

This leads me on to my final point - we don't have proper local government in the UK. France, for example, has various levels of government which may seem absurd here, and I wouldn't advocate having so many levels of bureaucracy, but even within the small unitary council area in which I live there are many diverse communities with different needs. A councillor who represents a coastal community is going to have different priorities to one who represents an urban community or an inland rural community. This is all the more apparent when you have a body such as Highland Council which administers all services in an area that was once served by several local councils and one regional body.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tony Blair made an absolutely fatal error of judgement not providing a devolution proposal for England. I think it's far too late to do anything about it now.

There has been a proposal that I believe even went as far as some sort of referendum. It was rightly chucked out.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Wales not viable? What about Eire?

London on its own would be a significant 'rich' nation, but it would have to import a lot of food. From Wales maybe, at good prices

How much food is produced in London now?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wales not viable? What about Eire?

Wales is massively dependent on England. North Wales is, tourism aside, mostly a commuter belt for (or businesses highly dependent on) Chester, Liverpool and Manchester. Mid Wales is farming, tourism and Shrewsbury/Birmingham. Only South Wales has the 3 cities (Cardiff, Newport and Swansea) with a far wider economic spread, but still has a strong economic connection to Bristol.

Eire is much more like Scotland than Wales - basically economically self contained.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Wales could surely prosper as an independent country, as soon as Brecon and Moat Lane is reopened
There is plenty of land that could produce oats, parsnips etc, not to mention sheep and cattle

The food could be supplied to the Free Republic of London, in exchange for whatever London produces

 

[MattA7]

I often wonder if the dreaded second Scottish independence referendum Thankfully turned out to be another no vote if that could possibly be a trigger for federalism.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I often wonder if the dreaded second Scottish independence referendum Thankfully turned out to be another no vote if that could possibly be a trigger for federalism.

I am pretty certain that it will be a yes this time round.

 

[MattA7]

I am pretty certain that it will be a yes this time round.

Not necessarily. Although the risk is Probably much higher this time round The majority of people In my area are still fairly against the idea of independence it would likely come down to the effectiveness of each campaign and events at the time of the referendum. That being said if it was another No vote SNP would probably want “indyref3”

 

[Journeyman]

I am pretty certain that it will be a yes this time round.

It'll be as close as the Brexit referendum, I reckon, but it could go either way. Like Brexit, it feels to me like an enormously risky step into the unknown for potentially precious little reward, and for that reason (and quite a few others), it's a No from me.

I'm really sick of the division and bitterness stoked up by the independence debate, and it feels to me like it's doing enormous damage to Scotland's prospects. Other political issues are available. Can we actually focus on those?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It'll be as close as the Brexit referendum, I reckon, but it could go either way. Like Brexit, it feels to me like an enormously risky step into the unknown for potentially precious little reward, and for that reason (and quite a few others), it's a No from me.

I'm not Scottish, but it'd be a certain yes from me, interestingly for similar reasons to a Brexiteer voting no to EU membership - Westminster has got so bad that I would take any risk to escape its claws.

 

[Journeyman]

I'm not Scottish, but it'd be a certain yes from me, interestingly for similar reasons to a Brexiteer voting no to EU membership - Westminster has got so bad that I would take any risk to escape its claws.

That to me feels like setting fire to your house because there's a spider in the bath. I live in Scotland, but I'm English, and so I also care about what happens in England, and I don't want to lose my right to have a say in it.

From a purely personal perspective, the ability to regain EU citizenship is irrelevant, as I also have Irish citizenship.

 

[No Expert]

Counties are much more analogous to a local 'identity' for England than the statistical regions (though obviously I understand why they exist). I don't see it working per se, but then governing a nation of tens of millions seems doomed to failure in the long run. No easy answers.

 

[MattA7]

Counties are much more analogous to a local 'identity' for England than the statistical regions (though obviously I understand why they exist). I don't see it working per se, but then governing a nation of tens of millions seems doomed to failure in the long run. No easy answers.

Other countries have much larger populations than the UK but seem to manage fine. The US for example has the 3rd largest population in the world and culture and political views vary greatly in different parts of the US. Presumably it is compatible in the US as individual states have a large amount of control over their state laws etc. Most states also give the county governments and sometimes even local governments significant power.

 

[Meerkat]

Counties are much more analogous to a local 'identity' for England than the statistical regions (though obviously I understand why they exist). I don't see it working per se, but then governing a nation of tens of millions seems doomed to failure in the long run. No easy answers.

Counties are a “local identity” but aren’t really any basis for federalism as their borders are so long out of date. So many examples of where their borders conflict with the realities of modern travel-to-work areas, economic agglomeration, and infrastructure.
Take Hampshire for example - very little in common between the top right corner of Basingstoke/Farnborough/Aldershot, the Solent cities, and the rural bit in the middle.

 

[No Expert]

Other countries have much larger populations than the UK but seem to manage fine. The US for example has the 3rd largest population in the world and culture and political views vary greatly in different parts of the US. Presumably it is compatible in the US as individual states have a large amount of control over their state laws etc. Most states also give the county governments and sometimes even local governments significant power.

Yes all very true, good points - but in countries like Spain, Italy or even the U.S where there is a more 'federal' system there are significant undercurrents of separatism or resentment between different factions.

I think that's only going to increase as society polarises. Whether that is along political/economic/religious/ethnic lines - or even on technological ones as people begin to embrace implants over the next couple of decades.

 

[birchesgreen]

Counties are a “local identity” but aren’t really any basis for federalism as their borders are so long out of date. So many examples of where their borders conflict with the realities of modern travel-to-work areas, economic agglomeration, and infrastructure.
Take Hampshire for example - very little in common between the top right corner of Basingstoke/Farnborough/Aldershot, the Solent cities, and the rural bit in the middle.

Is there much in common between Westminster and those places?

 

[Meerkat]

Is there much in common between Westminster and those places?

Better the devil you know. And also if you are building a new structure why hamstring it from the start by building a bad one just because of ancient history?

Federalism seems extraordinarily inefficient compared to devolution.

 

[Chester1]

Better the devil you know. And also if you are building a new structure why hamstring it from the start by building a bad one just because of ancient history?

Federalism seems extraordinarily inefficient compared to devolution.

We already have a federal UK but with no English state(s).

 

[Bletchleyite]

We already have a federal UK but with no English state(s).

Indeed. All I'd really change is to fix that (changing London to a city state - defining "London" would be a challenge, but I suppose you've got two obvious ones - Zone 6 boundary or the M25).