It depends on how powers were split between the regions and the federal government. If education, healthcare, taxation etc were all decided locally then it wouldn't matter who the federal government was. They would be left with just foreign wars - which is a Labour speciality.
Healthcare is already devolved as is Education. Some taxation is devolved
It would need to be agreed as to what Westminster covers but logically in my view defence. Inland Security, Air Traffic Control, Overseas affairs
Things like State Pension & Benefits might be more contentious as to Westminster or devolved nations
Just to clarify NHS & Education is sort of devolved, It is for NI, Wales & Scotland but for England comes under Westminster
Yes there should be a federal structure, but only if either county or district councils are abolished at the same time, otherwise there are four layers of government and there really shouldn't be any more than three.
That's a given - it's already the case in Scotland and Wales.
Yes but England would have to be split into regions.
After all could you imagine the people in the other regions being happy at being ruled by an English Parliament dominated by London and The South East.
But people in Scotland and Wales (if that's who you're referring to) wouldn't be ruled by an English Parliament. They'd be ruled by a UK Parliament, same as they are now.
Nope! Can't see how that would help. In any case the 'federal structure' in the US leads to some barking mad situations.
We don't have to follow the US system exactly, and in any case devolution for Scotland and Wales hasn't led to any barking mad situations! Whereas full federalism would certainly solve the West Lothian question, as well as putting all parts of the UK on an equal footing.
Not necessarily, because there would no longer be separate counties and districts in England. And we could get rid of the Lords at the same time, as was mentioned earlier.
That doesn't mean it's going to last forever. If it seems something of an anachronism now in the UK, think how it will seem in another hundred years ... if it lasts that long!
But people in Scotland and Wales (if that's who you're referring to) wouldn't be ruled by an English Parliament. They'd be ruled by a UK Parliament, same as they are now.
Actually I was talking about Northern England.
What I meant was that England should be split into regions and those regions should be run by devolved assemblies.
Over time these regions will be given more powers until they achieve Devolution Max as is proposed for Scotland (if Scotland stays as part of the UK).
The Westminster Parliament will be reduced in size and will run the UK economy, defence, external affairs and be guardians of the constitution of the UK.
Some internal matters would have to still have to be run by central government. For example Transport (where it cuts across boarders) and a Federal Police Force would need to be set up as well.
I am sure that these things can be sorted out.
Basically look at USA, Canada, Germany & Australia for solutions.
If the House of Lords was abolished at the same time there would be no additional layer of government. In fact there would probably be a saving in expense and less bureaucracy.
The English Parliament (reduced in numbers from the present UK parliament) could sit in the House of Commons. A reduced UK parliament dealing solely with matters of common concern would sit in the House of Lords.
The House of Lords should be replaced by an elected upper house.
You do need a counter-balance to the lower house.
In Australia, the upper house (the Senate) has an equal number of senators elected from each State irrespective of the population of that State. They are elected on a proportional representative system.
What I meant was that England should be split into regions and those regions should be run by devolved assemblies.
Over time these regions will be given more powers until they achieve Devolution Max as is proposed for Scotland (if Scotland stays as part of the UK).
The Westminster Parliament will be reduced in size and will run the UK economy, defence, external affairs and be guardians of the constitution of the UK.
Some internal matters would have to still have to be run by central government. For example Transport (where it cuts across boarders) and a Federal Police Force would need to be set up as well.
I am sure that these things can be sorted out.
Basically look at USA, Canada, Germany & Australia for solutions.
Police is already pretty much devolved, Scotland has moved to a Sing force for Scotland and Wales is considering it
Yes but England would have to be split into regions.
After all could you imagine the people in the other regions being happy at being ruled by an English Parliament dominated by London and The South East.
The English capital could be moved to halfway to somewhere like Birmingham or Manchester which London will remain the capital for the federal UK.
As much I would like to see a federal UK, this will never happen as Westminster is far too corrupt to allow a separate English government and to ban Scottish & Welsh MPs from getting involved in English matters.
The English capital could be moved to halfway to somewhere like Birmingham or Manchester which London will remain the capital for the federal UK.
As much I would like to see a federal UK, this will never happen as Westminster is far too corrupt to allow a separate English government and to ban Scottish & Welsh MPs from getting involved in English matters.
My recommendation would be to keep the English parliament at Westminster and construct a brand new Federal capital city in neutral territory like that have done in the US (Washington), Australia (Canberra) Canada (Ottawa) and Brazil (Brasilia)
My recommendation would be to keep the English parliament at Westminster and construct a brand new Federal capital city in neutral territory like that have done in the US (Washington), Australia (Canberra) Canada (Ottawa) and Brazil (Brasilia)
Agree with either way but constructing a new city from scratch wouldn't be like Burma, for example where the common-folk are simply ignored, I can't see this going well with NIMBYs complaining about the loss of land and money being wasted like they're doing in the HS2 debacle!
A federal UK would be more fairer, if the Scots vote to remain, than we have at the moment which the English don't get the benefits the Scots and Welsh get including anomalies such as non-English MPs voting on English only matters which English MPs can't with Scottish & Welsh only matters etc. The Barnett formula etc must be done away with.
The federal approach should stop English and Scots from bickering "Our taxpayers money being wasted on the Scots for their freebies" "The English are controlling us Scots, we must get rid of them" so if the Scots screw up on something then they can't blame English, same in vice versa.
A federal UK government wouldn't be as powerful as the home nations would all be devolved then the Scots & Welsh wouldn't have the problem of English/Westminster interference in their affairs.
A federal UK is common sense and irons out the messy way we have at the moment, why can't our political parties even see it? Too corrupt!
Agree with either way but constructing a new city from scratch wouldn't be like Burma, for example where the common-folk are simply ignored, I can't see this going well with NIMBYs complaining about the loss of land and money being wasted like they're doing in the HS2 debacle!
A federal UK would be more fairer, if the Scots vote to remain, than we have at the moment which the English don't get the benefits the Scots and Welsh get including anomalies such as non-English MPs voting on English only matters which English MPs can't with Scottish & Welsh only matters etc. The Barnett formula etc must be done away with.
The federal approach should stop English and Scots from bickering "Our taxpayers money being wasted on the Scots for their freebies" "The English are controlling us Scots, we must get rid of them" so if the Scots screw up on something then they can't blame English, same in vice versa.
A federal UK government wouldn't be as powerful as the home nations would all be devolved then the Scots & Welsh wouldn't have the problem of English/Westminster interference in their affairs.
A federal UK is common sense and irons out the messy way we have at the moment, why can't our political parties even see it? Too corrupt!
Railways could only be partially devolved of it gets messy as some service run between nations and tracks can be shared etc. Not unresolvable. Things like fixing timetables priority of track useage etc
Railways could only be partially devolved of it gets messy as some service run between nations and tracks can be shared etc. Not unresolvable. Things like fixing timetables priority of track useage etc
The railways could come under a single entity run by the federal government or run by a company, similar to Directly Operated Railways, owned 33% each by the English, Welsh & Scottish goverments
The English capital could be moved to halfway to somewhere like Birmingham or Manchester which London will remain the capital for the federal UK.
As much I would like to see a federal UK, this will never happen as Westminster is far too corrupt to allow a separate English government and to ban Scottish & Welsh MPs from getting involved in English matters.
If we have devolved regions then there would be no need for a English Capital.
I think this should be London and the English capital should be relocated somewhere.
London should join England, Scotland & Wales as the 4th home nation so the city will be no longer part of England and become a federal city state. It could be argued that not many English people live in London as it is no longer English as it was.
With London being home to the federal government with MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and London, watering down any worries of "English dominance/interference" as London would be a neutral territory.
Also promote a less London-centric UK, following the German example that all British cities contribute to keeping the country running such as federal capital in London, fashion in Birmingham, media in Manchester, industry in Glasgow, finance in Cardiff for example
If we have devolved regions then there would be no need for a English Capital.
Yes, there should be a capital for a devolved England as the English capital is currently London however there is no English government as both English & British affairs are dealt with by Westminster - this is what is ridiculously wrong and unfair about the UK being run like this. Hence the discussion for a federal system.
Comments
Healthcare is already devolved as is Education. Some taxation is devolved
It would need to be agreed as to what Westminster covers but logically in my view defence. Inland Security, Air Traffic Control, Overseas affairs
Things like State Pension & Benefits might be more contentious as to Westminster or devolved nations
Just to clarify NHS & Education is sort of devolved, It is for NI, Wales & Scotland but for England comes under Westminster
You can never say never! The monarchy is not going to last forever.
But people in Scotland and Wales (if that's who you're referring to) wouldn't be ruled by an English Parliament. They'd be ruled by a UK Parliament, same as they are now.
Nope! Can't see how that would help. In any case the 'federal structure' in the US leads to some barking mad situations.
We don't have to follow the US system exactly, and in any case devolution for Scotland and Wales hasn't led to any barking mad situations! Whereas full federalism would certainly solve the West Lothian question, as well as putting all parts of the UK on an equal footing.
It has lasted longer than democracy.
Like what?
Another layer of bureaucracy to pay for.
Not necessarily, because there would no longer be separate counties and districts in England. And we could get rid of the Lords at the same time, as was mentioned earlier.
That doesn't mean it's going to last forever. If it seems something of an anachronism now in the UK, think how it will seem in another hundred years ... if it lasts that long!
Actually I was talking about Northern England.
What I meant was that England should be split into regions and those regions should be run by devolved assemblies.
Over time these regions will be given more powers until they achieve Devolution Max as is proposed for Scotland (if Scotland stays as part of the UK).
The Westminster Parliament will be reduced in size and will run the UK economy, defence, external affairs and be guardians of the constitution of the UK.
Some internal matters would have to still have to be run by central government. For example Transport (where it cuts across boarders) and a Federal Police Force would need to be set up as well.
I am sure that these things can be sorted out.
Basically look at USA, Canada, Germany & Australia for solutions.
The House of Lords should be replaced by an elected upper house.
You do need a counter-balance to the lower house.
In Australia, the upper house (the Senate) has an equal number of senators elected from each State irrespective of the population of that State. They are elected on a proportional representative system.
Police is already pretty much devolved, Scotland has moved to a Sing force for Scotland and Wales is considering it
Rail is already partially devolved
Not true.
In Australia the Queen's representative (the Governor General) sacked the Prime Minister.
You can't get much more powerful than that.
The English capital could be moved to halfway to somewhere like Birmingham or Manchester which London will remain the capital for the federal UK.
As much I would like to see a federal UK, this will never happen as Westminster is far too corrupt to allow a separate English government and to ban Scottish & Welsh MPs from getting involved in English matters.
My recommendation would be to keep the English parliament at Westminster and construct a brand new Federal capital city in neutral territory like that have done in the US (Washington), Australia (Canberra) Canada (Ottawa) and Brazil (Brasilia)
So why are you not in favour of it?
Agree with either way but constructing a new city from scratch wouldn't be like Burma, for example where the common-folk are simply ignored, I can't see this going well with NIMBYs complaining about the loss of land and money being wasted like they're doing in the HS2 debacle!
A federal UK would be more fairer, if the Scots vote to remain, than we have at the moment which the English don't get the benefits the Scots and Welsh get including anomalies such as non-English MPs voting on English only matters which English MPs can't with Scottish & Welsh only matters etc. The Barnett formula etc must be done away with.
The federal approach should stop English and Scots from bickering "Our taxpayers money being wasted on the Scots for their freebies" "The English are controlling us Scots, we must get rid of them" so if the Scots screw up on something then they can't blame English, same in vice versa.
A federal UK government wouldn't be as powerful as the home nations would all be devolved then the Scots & Welsh wouldn't have the problem of English/Westminster interference in their affairs.
A federal UK is common sense and irons out the messy way we have at the moment, why can't our political parties even see it? Too corrupt!
Railways could only be partially devolved of it gets messy as some service run between nations and tracks can be shared etc. Not unresolvable. Things like fixing timetables priority of track useage etc
The railways could come under a single entity run by the federal government or run by a company, similar to Directly Operated Railways, owned 33% each by the English, Welsh & Scottish goverments
Yes but I am talking about extending that to newly devolved English Regions as well.
Incidentally Network Rail owns and operates the mainline railway infrastructure in the whole of Mainland Britain (including Scotland).
The Scottish Government like the Welsh Assembly only has the power to award the franchise for domestic use.
The main Inter-City franchises are awarded by the UK Government.
If we have devolved regions then there would be no need for a English Capital.
I think this should be London and the English capital should be relocated somewhere.
London should join England, Scotland & Wales as the 4th home nation so the city will be no longer part of England and become a federal city state. It could be argued that not many English people live in London as it is no longer English as it was.
With London being home to the federal government with MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and London, watering down any worries of "English dominance/interference" as London would be a neutral territory.
Also promote a less London-centric UK, following the German example that all British cities contribute to keeping the country running such as federal capital in London, fashion in Birmingham, media in Manchester, industry in Glasgow, finance in Cardiff for example
Yes, there should be a capital for a devolved England as the English capital is currently London however there is no English government as both English & British affairs are dealt with by Westminster - this is what is ridiculously wrong and unfair about the UK being run like this. Hence the discussion for a federal system.