Discussion
Federalism assumes the needs, hopes, desires and attitudes of people change based on where their house is, that isn't true.
All federalism in the UK would create is a even larger disproportionate concentration of wealth and resource to London.
What the Scots are being promised and presumably Wales, Cornwall and 49 Acachia Avenue want is to be funded and financed by London but with the power to arrange their own bin collections, which is what they already have.
All federalism in the UK would create is a even larger disproportionate concentration of wealth and resource to London.
What the Scots are being promised and presumably Wales, Cornwall and 49 Acachia Avenue want is to be funded and financed by London but with the power to arrange their own bin collections, which is what they already have.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
Switzerland is a really god example
the cantonal states are like little countries- they all get on, but they all have their own rules- some allow the smoking of pot, some allow the closing to roads every 4th weekend to go rallying etc etc some are filled with swiss germans and are entirely devoid of life
the cantonal states are like little countries- they all get on, but they all have their own rules- some allow the smoking of pot, some allow the closing to roads every 4th weekend to go rallying etc etc some are filled with swiss germans and are entirely devoid of life
REALIST123 said:
Yes let's make it like the USA, with proportionally the same number of members of the Houses of Parliament and other levels of admin.
These are interesting comparisons, but...The US is much, much larger than the UK. Certain states have better GDP than many countries. The wealth gap in the US is also considerably worse than ours (if that's a major concern - which for many it appears to be).
The "problem" here is that a large proportion of the country's "profitability" (if such a word can be used when we run a deficit like we do!) is based in England - particularly the South East.
What checks and measures will there be to prevent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland running unsustainable deficits that then have to be propped up by England?
These are genuine questions - I have no idea how it would work in practice without major problems. Switzerland seems to be better balanced than the US and its wealth gap is similar to our own. Having worked there on a number of occasions I'm not sure I'd aspire to being like the Swiss in many ways
It would be interesting to see each canton does in terms of finances, how they manage it and what checks they have in place though.I'm also not convinced that having 4x governments is better than 1x larger one with true representation. It just sounds like a license for increased waste to me.
Murph7355 said:
I'm also not convinced that having 4x governments is better than 1x larger one with true representation. It just sounds like a license for increased waste to me.
Given the vast scale of public spending the small additional spending required for an English parliament would be a drop in the ocean.It is a matter of fairness. If Labour get back in with a minority of English MPs and impose a controversial law that only affects England (as the matter is devolved in Scotland etc) then it is going to provoke widespread resentment.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
Switzerland is a really god example
the cantonal states are like little countries- they all get on, but they all have their own rules- some allow the smoking of pot, some allow the closing to roads every 4th weekend to go rallying etc etc some are filled with swiss germans and are entirely devoid of life
A really good example of nonsense.the cantonal states are like little countries- they all get on, but they all have their own rules- some allow the smoking of pot, some allow the closing to roads every 4th weekend to go rallying etc etc some are filled with swiss germans and are entirely devoid of life
If smoking pot is bad for you then why should the happenstance of where you live have any effect, likewise if it's good for you. It's bannanas.
We should be ruled by a meritocratic intellectual elite, they have our best interests at heart. Village by village mob rule is at best wasted effort, just because you were born some place doesn't mean you have to have a different set of standards, goals and outlook on life.
I think a federation is the way forward. The federation will have the collective clout it needs on the international stage and the federal devolution of power will reduce resentment amongst people who feel they may be being controlled or dominated by 'foreigners' who don't see things from their perspective. The provinces of England share the resentment of some of the effects of a London centric government almost as much as the Scots do, for similar reasons.
In theory, it seems to make sense. On matters such as e.g. the Falklands the UK should act as one. Internal matters can be dealt with separately.
In reality - three things can happen.
1) No significant devolution occurs. Otherwise known as "f
k you Scotland. Sincerely England.". A new referendum in three years time, which WILL be a yes, as it's clear Westminter is untrustworthy.
2) Devolution occurs and works well. Good, everyone's happy in the short term. But wouldn't it be logical to suppose the main criticism of Yes - that Scotland can't run itself - is sort of disproved by that happening? Leading to ultimately a new vote and a Yes. (Admittedly I think this is the scenario least likely to lead to a Yes vote, if people are content with the status quo).
3) Devolution occurs and Scotland is fked up. Do you really think people will blame the govt they elected? Or the nasty tories from England are at fault for not giving them enough powers? New vote, and a Yes.
I just don't see the idea going away properly until we either have a Tory govt that appeals to scottish voters (heck, any urban voters outside the south east), or no Tory govt. This doesn't solve the core problem. Not easy when they're simultaneously fighting UKIP.
In reality - three things can happen.
1) No significant devolution occurs. Otherwise known as "f
k you Scotland. Sincerely England.". A new referendum in three years time, which WILL be a yes, as it's clear Westminter is untrustworthy.2) Devolution occurs and works well. Good, everyone's happy in the short term. But wouldn't it be logical to suppose the main criticism of Yes - that Scotland can't run itself - is sort of disproved by that happening? Leading to ultimately a new vote and a Yes. (Admittedly I think this is the scenario least likely to lead to a Yes vote, if people are content with the status quo).
3) Devolution occurs and Scotland is f
ked up. Do you really think people will blame the govt they elected? Or the nasty tories from England are at fault for not giving them enough powers? New vote, and a Yes.I just don't see the idea going away properly until we either have a Tory govt that appeals to scottish voters (heck, any urban voters outside the south east), or no Tory govt. This doesn't solve the core problem. Not easy when they're simultaneously fighting UKIP.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
How are you going to have a competition when one of the federal areas is greater London and the other one is Cumbria? Unless the competition is who can shear sheep fastest it's always going to be somewhat skewed. Unless we're talking a scorched earth new beginning the whole conversation is complete nonsense.Sir Humphrey said:
XJ Flyer said:
Switzerland is a Confederation not a Federation which is what the C in CH means.Just like America was supposed to have been and would have been if the right side had won the Civil War.
Courting controversy there, not that you're wrong.http://nazarenespace.com/profiles/blogs/federalist...
Matt.. said:
We're a tiny country, why do we want to do something like this?
Because something needs to be done to stop the bloody Celts whining?Because there have been the UK has seen 9 Labour General Election victories since 1945, yet England has only returned a Labour majority twice, in '45 & '97?
Because the idiot "Yes Scotland" camp have spent the last couple of years highlighting just how good a deal they've already got, and English taxpayers are pissed off about paying for it?
An English parliament in Birmingham Im loving that idea, we could stick them all in the rotunda.
we could then convert westminster in to a swanky hotel for yanks and Russians to pay for everything.
the federal uk govt or whatever you call it would all work out of whitehall..
great excuse to get rid of the two tier local govt system and create unitary authorities based on the shires and the major towns etc.
more local representation and less overall government.
Independence for worcestershire, freedom from the London Government
we could then convert westminster in to a swanky hotel for yanks and Russians to pay for everything.
the federal uk govt or whatever you call it would all work out of whitehall..
great excuse to get rid of the two tier local govt system and create unitary authorities based on the shires and the major towns etc.
more local representation and less overall government.
Independence for worcestershire, freedom from the London Government
anonymous said:
[redacted]
How do you reach the conclusion that federalism equals devolution of powers.When by definition federalism means the exact opposite in the 'centralisation' of powers.As I've said devolution means 'Confederation' of sovereign states and regions in which local democracy overrules central government.Make no mistake the argument between federalists/unionists and anti federalists/nationalists won't go away just because the Scottish have been bribed by the unionist cause not to mention the efforts of supposed anti federalist,but in reality federalist,idiots like Farage,into supporting the status quo by a narrow margin.In which local democracy and national sovereignty and identity is trampled on by the UK union and by implication the even bigger federal project of the EU.
As for words like union and collectivisation they really belong with the old Soviet Union which you've guessed it was just another form of federation.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 19th September 12:08
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 19th September 12:09
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 19th September 12:20
Graham said:
An English parliament in Birmingham Im loving that idea, we could stick them all in the rotunda.
we could then convert westminster in to a swanky hotel for yanks and Russians to pay for everything.
the federal uk govt or whatever you call it would all work out of whitehall..
great excuse to get rid of the two tier local govt system and create unitary authorities based on the shires and the major towns etc.
more local representation and less overall government.
Independence for worcestershire, freedom from the London Government
If that's anything like the carousel in Logan's Run I whole heartedly agree.we could then convert westminster in to a swanky hotel for yanks and Russians to pay for everything.
the federal uk govt or whatever you call it would all work out of whitehall..
great excuse to get rid of the two tier local govt system and create unitary authorities based on the shires and the major towns etc.
more local representation and less overall government.
Independence for worcestershire, freedom from the London Government
Kermit power said:
Matt.. said:
We're a tiny country, why do we want to do something like this?
Because something needs to be done to stop the bloody Celts whining?Because there have been the UK has seen 9 Labour General Election victories since 1945, yet England has only returned a Labour majority twice, in '45 & '97?
Because the idiot "Yes Scotland" camp have spent the last couple of years highlighting just how good a deal they've already got, and English taxpayers are pissed off about paying for it?
There's no chance of that now though.With even so called anti federalists like Farage having thrown his lot in with the unionist cause.While at the same time shouting about fairness for the 'English' and how bad being ruled by a federation is.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 19th September 12:18
FredClogs said:
How are you going to have a competition when one of the federal areas is greater London and the other one is Cumbria? Unless the competition is who can shear sheep fastest it's always going to be somewhat skewed. Unless we're talking a scorched earth new beginning the whole conversation is complete nonsense.
Oh, Cumbria. I wouldn't let them go it alone.......You're not a Cumbrian are you? It's the ones from Carlisle I worry about the most (having stayed there for a few years), maybe split Cumbria along the A66, give the North to the Scots and the South can come and join Yorkshire.
XJ Flyer said:
Kermit power said:
Matt.. said:
We're a tiny country, why do we want to do something like this?
Because something needs to be done to stop the bloody Celts whining?Because there have been the UK has seen 9 Labour General Election victories since 1945, yet England has only returned a Labour majority twice, in '45 & '97?
Because the idiot "Yes Scotland" camp have spent the last couple of years highlighting just how good a deal they've already got, and English taxpayers are pissed off about paying for it?
There's no chance of that now though.With even so called anti federalists like Farage having thrown his lot in with the unionist cause.While at the same time shouting about fairness for the 'English' and how bad being ruled by a federation is.
Start out by refusing to put Devo Max on the referendum, then go through a painful campaign, then agree to bring it in, then point out - now the whole thing has far, far more visibility than it otherwise would - that we're really going to have to solve the issue for England as well, then sit back and say oh... look at that... Labour will never get a majority in the English parliament! Who would've thought it??
Apparently Ed Balls has been spitting feathers about the whole thing, as unlike Milliband and others, he's seen the inevitability of a devolved England and doesn't like it.
Kermit power said:
XJ Flyer said:
Kermit power said:
Matt.. said:
We're a tiny country, why do we want to do something like this?
Because something needs to be done to stop the bloody Celts whining?Because there have been the UK has seen 9 Labour General Election victories since 1945, yet England has only returned a Labour majority twice, in '45 & '97?
Because the idiot "Yes Scotland" camp have spent the last couple of years highlighting just how good a deal they've already got, and English taxpayers are pissed off about paying for it?
There's no chance of that now though.With even so called anti federalists like Farage having thrown his lot in with the unionist cause.While at the same time shouting about fairness for the 'English' and how bad being ruled by a federation is.
Start out by refusing to put Devo Max on the referendum, then go through a painful campaign, then agree to bring it in, then point out - now the whole thing has far, far more visibility than it otherwise would - that we're really going to have to solve the issue for England as well, then sit back and say oh... look at that... Labour will never get a majority in the English parliament! Who would've thought it??
Apparently Ed Balls has been spitting feathers about the whole thing, as unlike Milliband and others, he's seen the inevitability of a devolved England and doesn't like it.
It will therefore be able to put Cameron in the catch 22 situation of either using greater devolution within the Union to put an impossible price on any removal of Scottish MP's from the UK government electoral majority calculation.Or keep the status quo going in which Scottish MP's form the government of the 'UK' in all of its decision making processes.
While it won't be any good now relying on the votes of people like me who 'would have' voted for an anti federalist rebel Conservative/UKIP alliance to stop that situation.Being that UKIP has obviously shown its willingness to put the federalist agenda ahead of its supposed anti federalist credentials.
In which case the country is now basically lumbered with a thousand year reich of the combination of the same old UK federation subservient to the even bigger EU federation.With EU dictat implemented by a federalist Scottish based LabLibdem coalition supported by their federalist allies in the Cons who set the whole thing up with a foregone conclusion based on bribery of the Scottish electorate and Soviet style biased propaganda to get the vote they wanted.
Instead of what was needed in an anti federalist Conservative and UKIP rebellion led by Farage in 'support' of Scottish independence 'and' English independence thereby giving England back to the English as a precursor to getting us out of the EU.The fact is if you want to build a Confederation of devolved seperately governed nation states ( as opposed to a federation of centrally governed non sovereign nation states ) first you have to take back sovereign control of the country ( in our case England ) to do it.
In which case Farage and his supposed anti federalist backing have let the country down massively.With his pretence of now caring about the interests of the English in all this being at best a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.Or at worst being yet another cynical pretence of being an anti federalist when he is actually the total opposite in being no less a supporter of the Scottish run UK union and by implication its implementation of EU policy as Gordon Brown,Miliband,Clegg and Cameron.All of who he obviously stupidly preferred to ally himself with in keeping that federal system going when he had the chance to help to destroy it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff