A Federal UK?

Author
Discussion

Professor Barney

Original Poster:

179 posts

124 months

Thursday 18th September 2014
quotequote all
I'm conscious that the Scottish independence referendum may render this topic null and void in the next few hours, but for the sake of debate let's assume it has voted No, by whatever margin.

Does anyone else see a Federal version of the UK to be a solution to ongoing nationalist campaigns, and if so how would you see it working in practice?

loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Thursday 18th September 2014
quotequote all

I think it is vital.

Devolved powers of taxation and spending but with national government dealing with national issues.

English MPs will vote on specifically English issues, as will the Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish in their own devolved parliaments or assemblies.

The national government will also be required to sit in the regional seats of government on a rolling basis so they can experience life outside their own local constituencies and experiences.


Professor Barney

Original Poster:

179 posts

124 months

Thursday 18th September 2014
quotequote all
Thanks Loafer, I was just wondering how a shared currency would work if each member had their own tax and spend policies. Does it automatically mean that each would need to run a balanced budget (tax take = spending + levy for shared systems)?

loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Thursday 18th September 2014
quotequote all

Currency works fine - federal taxes, state taxes, just like the USA.

This is a well trodden path, and there will be real trouble if they don't do something about it, due to the inequity of the current situation.


anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 18th September 2014
quotequote all
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.

Matt..

3,586 posts

188 months

Thursday 18th September 2014
quotequote all
We're a tiny country, why do we want to do something like this?

rs1952

5,247 posts

258 months

Thursday 18th September 2014
quotequote all
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.
This matter was raised on another thread last weekend, and as it didn't "grow legs," here are my thoughts that I posted then:



IMHO, the shenanigans with Scotland suggest to me that now is the perfect time to move towards a federal system for the United Kingdom.

Assuming a no vote on Thursday, separate parliaments for England, Scotland, Wales and NI. If there was a yes vote then we'd only need 3.

These national parliaments would deal with all the matters that affect their particular countries, leaving a rump federal parliament in Westminster to deal with the federal stuff that are common to all 3 (such as defence, foreign relations).

This need not result in an increase in government, because all the MPs that currently sit in Westminster would be sitting in their own assemblies in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and somewhere that isn't London for England - Winchester would be as good as anywhere - its got the right history, or perhaps Brum as it is currently the second city of the UK in terms of population

The amount of work that would be needed to be carried out federally would be minimal, so we would only need a very small number of MPs to have seats there.

The political advantages are:
1. The end of the "West Lothian question" Matters that only affect one member country would be dealt with by that member country alone.
2. A less London-centric viewpoint for the UK

The practical advantages are:
4. The removal of the "Whitehall knows best" mentality because most of the power would be removed to the constituent countries
5. Relocation of vast swathes of government to the constituent countries seats would play some part in reducing pressure on London's infrastructure.
6. Less Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs having to attend Westminster, and a more central location for the English seat of government would have a benefit of reducing MPs travelling expenses.

This will of course never happen. Points 4 and 6 would end two gravy trains at a single stroke, so Whitehall mandarins and MPs would be implacably opposed to such a plan. The fact that the voters might like the sound of it would of course be of no consequence wink

gazapc

1,319 posts

159 months

Thursday 18th September 2014
quotequote all
Matt.. said:
We're a tiny country, why do we want to do something like this?
I'm not sure size is a good argument against it, for example both Austria and Switzerland are federal states and are much smaller than the UK.

Also GB is the 9th largest island in the world, hardly tiny!

PugwasHDJ80

7,522 posts

220 months

Thursday 18th September 2014
quotequote all
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

Sir Humphrey

387 posts

122 months

Thursday 18th September 2014
quotequote all
Yes, foreign policy and defence sorted out by Westminster, everything else decided at a county level.

steveatesh

4,893 posts

163 months

Thursday 18th September 2014
quotequote all
Sir Humphrey said:
Yes, foreign policy and defence sorted out by Westminster, everything else decided at a county level.
Personally I'd also want monetary policy and company tax set at a federal level to set money supply and avoid a race to the bottom with company tax.

I think some sort of change is inevitable because the Referendum has highlighted the current unfairness to people who previously didn't give a toss.

Field is open for political gain if a party was to pick up English democracy in its manifesto. Where does UKIP stand on this?


Sir Humphrey

387 posts

122 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
steveatesh said:
Personally I'd also want monetary policy and company tax set at a federal level to set money supply and avoid a race to the bottom with company tax.

I think some sort of change is inevitable because the Referendum has highlighted the current unfairness to people who previously didn't give a toss.

Field is open for political gain if a party was to pick up English democracy in its manifesto. Where does UKIP stand on this?
Companies don't pay tax as they are inanimate objects (just like your car doesn't pay VED). If the people in local areas want to have the right to choose who provides their services or alternatively pay higher taxes and have government run it, that would be their choice.

I'd also have a written constitution which includes a clause that we are not to go to war with another country unless we are directly attacked (like the Germans do).

s2art

18,937 posts

252 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
Sir Humphrey said:
I'd also have a written constitution which includes a clause that we are not to go to war with another country unless we are directly attacked (like the Germans do).
Do they? How do they square that with NATO membership? And how would the UK square that with something like the Falklands being attacked?

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
We've already effectively got a federal UK which is the problem.Federal meaning undemocratic top down centralised government often taking in previously seperate sovereign states.

The usual result being an undemocratic system in which a majority vote based on foreign electoral mandate dictate local policy and/or tramples all over the sovereignty and rights of seperate nations as in this case let alone the EU.

I think those calling for federal solutions are getting confused between the idea of Confederations as opposed to Federations.In general the difference being that Confederations allow for more local control in the form of Veto and/or opt out over central government decisions.

Not vice versa in the form of federations in which central federal government takes precedence over local government and local electoral mandate.Which in this case translates as Scottish MP's with a Scottish electoral mandate deciding English policy.

Or for that matter EU foreign elected MP's deciding English and Scottish etc policy by majority vote in the EU parliament.

Which leaves the contradictions of a so called nationalist but also federalist SNP and a so called anti federalist but also Unionist UKIP.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
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
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.

Sir Humphrey

387 posts

122 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
s2art said:
Do they? How do they square that with NATO membership? And how would the UK square that with something like the Falklands being attacked?
Looks a bit more complicated than that, the parliament has to approve it and put time limits on it (NATO members being attacked would be OK).

The Falklands are an overseas territory of the UK and we are wholly responsible for its defence.

Sir Humphrey

387 posts

122 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
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.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
Sir Humphrey said:
Companies don't pay tax.
Mine does. It even has its own bank account (seemingly with payment of tax as its primary function).

PlankWithANailIn

439 posts

148 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
XJ Flyer said:
We've already effectively got a federal UK which is the problem.Federal meaning undemocratic top down centralised government often taking in previously seperate sovereign states.

The usual result being an undemocratic system in which a majority vote based on foreign electoral mandate dictate local policy and/or tramples all over the sovereignty and rights of seperate nations as in this case let alone the EU.

I think those calling for federal solutions are getting confused between the idea of Confederations as opposed to Federations.In general the difference being that Confederations allow for more local control in the form of Veto and/or opt out over central government decisions.

Not vice versa in the form of federations in which central federal government takes precedence over local government and local electoral mandate.Which in this case translates as Scottish MP's with a Scottish electoral mandate deciding English policy.

Or for that matter EU foreign elected MP's deciding English and Scottish etc policy by majority vote in the EU parliament.

Which leaves the contradictions of a so called nationalist but also federalist SNP and a so called anti federalist but also Unionist UKIP.
By recognising the current situation is already Federal and dominated by the English we can at least improve on what we have got. I have no issue with the Federal government taking precedence over local government, however I doubt that would happen often outside of Foreign and Monetary policy.

Confederations always seem a bit crappy, can't think of there ever being a good one. Checking up on the net I can't find a single example of a confederation. For example Switzerland, they chose the name confederation when it had no political meaning, apparently they had a civil war in 1847 (learn something every day) when some of the Catholic cantons tried to set up a separate alliance (the Sonderbundskrieg), the resulting political system acquired all the characteristics of a federation.

Perhaps we could do a FIFA and confuse everyone by join all political the terms together into a mega term....

International Federation of Association Football: Confederations Cup.

Just drop The Football and Cup and add our own confusing reality.. we get

International Federation of Association Kingdoms and Confederated Parliamentary Democracies in Affiliation to but not a part of the European Union.

IFAKCPDAEU: hmm needs some work....






JagLover

42,265 posts

234 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
gazapc said:
I'm not sure size is a good argument against it, for example both Austria and Switzerland are federal states and are much smaller than the UK.

Also GB is the 9th largest island in the world, hardly tiny!
Indeed

GB has a population of 60 million which makes it considerably larger than numerous countries that have proper federal systems.

By all means give the Scots whatever devolved powers they want and give the English exactly the same powers.