A federal UK?

simon ess

simon ess

Just call me Roxanne.
Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,836
Edit My Images
No
In the aftermath of the Scottish referendum, do we think a federal UK with powers devolved to the regions, kinda, sorta like the US, would be desirable?

How would it work, what powers should be devolved, how would funding be arranged? Is it a recipe for layer upon layer of bureaucracy or is it essential for regional growth?

Thoughts please ladies and gents.
 
Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are all countries in their own right. Scotland has its own legal system and education system, which I understand Northern Ireland has to a different extent. England and Wales have a common legal and education system, so all that would be fine if federalism meant the 3 states of England/Wales, Scotland and NI, but what the politiicians seem to be talking about are the regions of England having similar status to Scotland and NI, which takes us back to square 1 on not recognising why Scotland and NI are different from England and its regions. I'd be as happy as anyone to hear genuinely useful ideas on taking this forward, but I'm not sure that the 3 party leaders who made their "pledge" earlier in the week even realise what they meant!
 
Last edited:
Peter B said:
Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are all countries in their own right. Scotland has its own legal system and education system, which I understand Northern Ireland has to a different extent. England and Wales have a common legal and education system, so all that would be fine if federalism meant the 3 states of England/Wales, Scotland and NI, but what the politiicians seem to be talking about are the regions of England having similar status to Scotland and NI, which takes us back to square 1 on not recognising why Scotland and NI are different from England and its regions. I'd be as happy as anyone to hear genuinely useful ideas on taking this forward, but I'm not sure that the 3 party leaders who made their "pledge" earlier in the week even realise what they meant!
Click to expand...

Except if you accept that Scotland and NI are different, why wouldn't you say the same for Cornwall or Northumberland and the North East?

What criteria is used to choose who is considered to be allowed devolved powers and who isn't?
 
Cornwall and Northumberland are in England. Scotland is (sadly) recognised as a country within the UK, the other two are not.

Personally I think all boundaries should be abolished as is the outdated idea of England, wales, ni and Scotland and it's one country, Britain with one law, one, education system and one parliament
 
Historically, the regions of England were Kingdoms in their own right.

But anyway, England may be seen as too big to consider one part of a federal state, so I can see the regional idea makes sense. But we need to see whats being offered before considering it a good or bad idea.
 
Be interesting to see what will be proposed. There certainly is an energy for change in England. The old thorny question of Scottish MP's voting on matters that do not affect Scotland has surfaced ahain. I think that it is quite illogical for Scots MP's to vote in non Scottish matters, but the problem is that the Labour party will not go along with this because once the Scottish MP's are taken out of the voting equation then their (i.e. Lab. party) influence in Westminster becomes significantly depleted.

Stale mate and long grass come to mind.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Cornwall and Northumberland are in England. Scotland is (sadly) recognised as a country within the UK, the other two are not.

Personally I think all boundaries should be abolished as is the outdated idea of England, wales, ni and Scotland and it's one country, Britain with one law, one, education system and one parliament
Click to expand...

Makes sense in theory, but the stumbling bock to any change will always be the political parties puting their own interests before those of the country as a whole.
 
Dave1 said:
Except if you accept that Scotland and NI are different, why wouldn't you say the same for Cornwall or Northumberland and the North East?

What criteria is used to choose who is considered to be allowed devolved powers and who isn't?
Click to expand...

These are only counties of England in the same way as Lanarkshire and Fife are counties of Scotland. You can split England up any way you want, but the main problem is likely to be the honeypots of London and the southeast taking all the money away from Cornwall and Northumberland, and that wouldn't be good at all.
 
If we were to get a "true" Federal UK i.e all powers save from Defence, Foreign Affairs and Currency devolved to a Scottish & English Parliament I'd be in favour of that, effectively Devo-Max which I'm sure most people would have voted for.

I'm not hopeful much of anything will happen though as the Westminster parties seem unlikely to agree on much, the difference now is that there are 1.6 million people who clearly did not want to be part of this and I suspect a fair percentage of the 2 million that voted "no" that did so based on promises made, if these are not delivered then its going to be more than the 45% that are screaming out in anger.
 
I'm not sure you can say 1.6 million 'clearly don't want to be part of this'. a fair number will have voted on a preference not because they can't live without being Independent. Those 2 are not the same thing.

Anyway, back to the plot. It only takes the party in power to be in favour of a Federal system for it to be passed into law. Labour of course are against it, as pretty much thats it as far as their chances of Government are concerned. The Libs? Who knows, who cares. The Tories? I think would go down that route.

The only thing I have against it is the additional cost and troughing opportunities it gives MP's. If we are going to have a systematic reform, then a limit of 3 terms of office for any politician, local or national should be introduced. That would stop the 'professional' know nothing career politician who are doing no one but themselves any good.
 
Bernie174 said:
I'm not sure you can say 1.6 million 'clearly don't want to be part of this'. a fair number will have voted on a preference not because they can't live without being Independent. Those 2 are not the same thing.

Anyway, back to the plot. It only takes the party in power to be in favour of a Federal system for it to be passed into law. Labour of course are against it, as pretty much thats it as far as their chances of Government are concerned. The Libs? Who knows, who cares. The Tories? I think would go down that route.

The only thing I have against it is the additional cost and troughing opportunities it gives MP's. If we are going to have a systematic reform, then a limit of 3 terms of office for any politician, local or national should be introduced. That would stop the 'professional' know nothing career politician who are doing no one but themselves any good.
Click to expand...

Bernie,

It does feel that a "Federal" route almost over complicates things with different grades of MP's - I almost think that we should have an English Parliament to go with the Scottish, NI and Welsh. A portion of these MP's should then represent each parliament at a "National - Federal" Parliament when needed.

If not we're going to see far too many MP's, costs and as you say troughing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
If we are going to have a systematic reform, then a limit of 3 terms of office for any politician, local or national should be introduced. That would stop the 'professional' know nothing career politician who are doing no one but themselves any good.
Click to expand...
Ooh, that's an interesting proposition. I'd support it. (At least, I think I would. I'd want to reflect on whether there might be any non-obvious disadvantages though.)
 
StewartR said:
Ooh, that's an interesting proposition. I'd support it. (At least, I think I would. I'd want to reflect on whether there might be any non-obvious disadvantages though.)
Click to expand...


It is an interesting idea. I'd want to modify it a little to allow an amount of experience before one was placed into a senior role. Maybe have it so if you were promoted and moved into a new position then the clock reset.
 
Blimey people agreeing me with me, there's a first!

I'd modify it a bit more, no MP's who've never had a real job. In fact, I'd say 10 years working before anyone could be stand for any form of Public Office.

Obviously neither point will get anywhere, Turkey's vote for xmas? mo chance!
 
Bernie174 said:
Blimey people agreeing me with me, there's a first!

I'd modify it a bit more, no MP's who've never had a real job. In fact, I'd say 10 years working before anyone could be stand for any form of Public Office.

Obviously neither point will get anywhere, Turkey's vote for xmas? mo chance!
Click to expand...

I'd add ten years private sector experience too add to this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top