The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
But this is where any such idea runs out of road, because if you invent a model where Scotland or Wales can prevent something a majority of the U.K. (or England if you prefer) wants, then you turn me into someone who wants English independence. And it won’t just be me.
If that means the end of the Union, then so be it. Though I think England and Wales could live on as the United Kingdom on those terms (Scotland should be made to take NI with it, as penance).
If England and Wales were left alone, we might think about incorporating the overseas territories to make up the numbers. Perhaps we should do that anyway, and let them participate in Westminster remotely since we now know that works.
This isn't a realistic scenario. Let's say there's a big defence review and the Government wants to buy 200 more nukes and reduce the size of the army by 10,000. It's now their job to convince the leaders of the nations and London that this is a good idea. If they fail, they get England, but London, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland vote against. They have to go away and come up with a new proposal. You think the common yeomanry of England are going to rise up in anger at being thwarted like this? The chances are they didn't like the defence review any more than anyone else.
(By the way I am not wholly against the review, I am just using it as an example)
Another scenario, joining CPTPP. The Scottish Govt. would certainly vote against. NI, Wales, London, England, almost certainly for. I don't think most in Scotland would a) mind too much Scotland at being outvoted in that way, and b) agree with Scotland voting no anyway.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
Not a bad plan, but how would you manage it when metros cross traditional county boundaries (e.g. a good chunk of Greater Nottingham is in Derbyshire)?
In those cases, I think the metro is preeminent to the county.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
No it wouldn't. The English First Minister would answer for all devolved subjects: Health, education etc
The UK one would be responsible for UK issues, with no West Lothian Question to answer.
You're missing my point.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but you couldn't really justify have 650 Westminster MPs and then 500 odd English MEnglishPs. Therefore to the English electorate, who would be most important, the English FM or the British PM?
Probably the English FM.
At that point the whole balance of power in the country changes.
Is it not related to the TERF wars that have been raging in the SNP?
Maybe but you’d expect such office holders to be at the woke end.
I think some of them are old-fashioned feminists who take the controversial view that a man who dresses as a woman, who wants to be a woman, or who sincerely believes that he is a woman, is still a man. Of course this makes them hate-figures in the SNP.
Is this comment really necessary?
One can argue about the sensitivities and limits of what transgender people should be able to do but your comment is just deliberately inflammatory and reeks of ignorance.
Good grief.
Of course my comment was not 'necessary'. The world would have gone on unperturbed if I hadn't made it. The vast, vast majority of people in the world would have continued to agree with their dead ancestors that there was absolutely nothing controversial about it. However, as an observation on the bizarrely toxic civil war in the SNP, it is, I hope, a helpful summary of the reason why some women whom you wouldn't naturally expect to be fans of the behaviour of Alex Salmond might nonetheless want to support Alba.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
Your example federal countries don't have one constituent state that makes up 90% of the population.
The English FM would be arguably more powerful than the British PM.
I hope I am not one of those you are referring to but
Oh hell yes.
I find the word racist no longer means anything.
The woman is astonishingly stupid, however. Maddeningly so.
For me the word still has meaning even if we debate about its scope. Claiming someone is not English because of their skin colour and using the tone and terminology she does strikes me as just about as racist as you can get.
No. I’m with @Leon. It’s f***ing stupid, but it’s not racist per se.
It’s the pollution bit which is, basically, hateful.
I put British AND English down on my Census form, if it's of interest.
I didn’t. I’ll never be English.
What did you put? British?
British-New Zealand.
We’re a small and largely-forgotten caste, like those French colonists in the Director’s cut of Apocalypse Now.
I hope not. They caused the whole mess in the first place. French colonial history in Vietnam makes British colonialism look positively enlightened.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
I agree, I think a parliament for England is inevitable, but I think it might be better for London to be divided out, and the GLA given additional responsibilities.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
No it wouldn't. The English First Minister would answer for all devolved subjects: Health, education etc
The UK one would be responsible for UK issues, with no West Lothian Question to answer.
You're missing my point.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but you couldn't really justify have 650 Westminster MPs and then 500 odd English MEnglishPs. Therefore to the English electorate, who would be most important, the English FM or the British PM?
Probably the English FM.
At that point the whole balance of power in the country changes.
Who's more important in Scotland, the Scottish FM or the UK Prime Minister? Who's more important in New York, the Governor of NY, or the President of the USA?
Yes England would see a change, but that's part of having devolution. The UK would be responsible for federal issues, equally, between all the nations.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
I agree, I think a parliament for England is inevitable, but I think it might be better for London to be divided out, and the GLA given additional responsibilities.
Then you'll get people moaning about carving up England, probably rightly.
Not a bad plan, but how would you manage it when metros cross traditional county boundaries (e.g. a good chunk of Greater Nottingham is in Derbyshire)?
In those cases, I think the metro is preeminent to the county.
Counties and metros are the same level. Of equal power and eminence.
In your example, a “Nottingham & Derby” metro would act as the Tier 2 authority. It’s constituent elements: Nottingham, Ashfield, Gedling, Derby, Erewash etc would sit inside this new metro.
But of course people in Ashfield would still say, for geographical, postal and ceremonial purposes, that they are in Nottinghamshire.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
Why should my borough of Barnet, population 400k, not get a senator while tiny 50,000 population areas get one? The idea is ridiculous.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
Your example federal countries don't have one constituent state that makes up 90% of the population.
The English FM would be arguably more powerful than the British PM.
So what? What's wrong with that?
Within Scotland the FM is arguably more important than the British PM. The British PM would be for British issues, not English ones then at least.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
But this is where any such idea runs out of road, because if you invent a model where Scotland or Wales can prevent something a majority of the U.K. (or England if you prefer) wants, then you turn me into someone who wants English independence. And it won’t just be me.
If that means the end of the Union, then so be it. Though I think England and Wales could live on as the United Kingdom on those terms (Scotland should be made to take NI with it, as penance).
If England and Wales were left alone, we might think about incorporating the overseas territories to make up the numbers. Perhaps we should do that anyway, and let them participate in Westminster remotely since we now know that works.
You've just demonstrated why the current settlement is so unstable.
Yeah I don’t disagree. I completely understand where Scots Nats come from and can’t see any way to reverse that level of feeling that I could live with personally.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Does proper federalism also mean that England cannot be outvoted ?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
In my model, London, Manchester etc are metros, ie Tier 2 authorities.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
No it wouldn't. The English First Minister would answer for all devolved subjects: Health, education etc
The UK one would be responsible for UK issues, with no West Lothian Question to answer.
You're missing my point.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but you couldn't really justify have 650 Westminster MPs and then 500 odd English MEnglishPs. Therefore to the English electorate, who would be most important, the English FM or the British PM?
Probably the English FM.
At that point the whole balance of power in the country changes.
Who's more important in Scotland, the Scottish FM or the UK Prime Minister? Who's more important in New York, the Governor of NY, or the President of the USA?
Yes England would see a change, but that's part of having devolution. The UK would be responsible for federal issues, equally, between all the nations.
Your comparisons are not valid because England makes up circa 90% of the UK population.
If the English electorate view the English FM as a worthless imbecile, a bit like the North of Tyne Mayor or Police and Crime Commissioners, the post will lack any legitimacy. However if the English electorate view the English FM as a powerful figure, the post will eclipse the UK PM.
I'm not against the idea but it's certainly something to think about. It would likely result in serious diminishment of the post of Prime Minister.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Does proper federalism also mean that England cannot be outvoted ?
Does it also mean that local expenditure decisions are funded by local taxes? So I can stop funding free tuition for Scottish students out of my tax? If so I'm up for it.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Does proper federalism also mean that England cannot be outvoted ?
Proper federalism means that England could not outvote Scotland, Wales, and NI. They would have to convince at least 2 of the other constituent nations to also consent to whatever. Otherwise what's the point of the "federalism" compared to our current system?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
No it wouldn't. The English First Minister would answer for all devolved subjects: Health, education etc
The UK one would be responsible for UK issues, with no West Lothian Question to answer.
You're missing my point.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but you couldn't really justify have 650 Westminster MPs and then 500 odd English MEnglishPs. Therefore to the English electorate, who would be most important, the English FM or the British PM?
Probably the English FM.
At that point the whole balance of power in the country changes.
So? If, in that scenario, the Union is really that important to everyone concerned then the central Government will continue to be valued. It would have rather less to do but it would still have a suite of important responsibilities, and it would be answerable to voters in all the constituent parts. The West Lothian Question is resolved, all voters have parity of esteem again, and there are no awkward issues about MPs from outside England occupying ministerial offices or voting on any piece of legislation.
Alternatively, perhaps everyone would decide that they could do without the Union and get rid of it?
If people want it then it'll survive, otherwise sayonara. What's wrong with that?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
Your example federal countries don't have one constituent state that makes up 90% of the population.
The English FM would be arguably more powerful than the British PM.
So what? What's wrong with that?
Within Scotland the FM is arguably more important than the British PM. The British PM would be for British issues, not English ones then at least.
Canada has suspended AZ for under 55s tonight while investigating a link to blood clots. Would I found more interesting is their National Immunization Committee has recommended a 4 month gap between doses.
The UK clearly nailed it with our 12 week strategy.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
No it wouldn't. The English First Minister would answer for all devolved subjects: Health, education etc
The UK one would be responsible for UK issues, with no West Lothian Question to answer.
You're missing my point.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but you couldn't really justify have 650 Westminster MPs and then 500 odd English MEnglishPs. Therefore to the English electorate, who would be most important, the English FM or the British PM?
Probably the English FM.
At that point the whole balance of power in the country changes.
Who's more important in Scotland, the Scottish FM or the UK Prime Minister? Who's more important in New York, the Governor of NY, or the President of the USA?
Yes England would see a change, but that's part of having devolution. The UK would be responsible for federal issues, equally, between all the nations.
Your comparisons are not valid because England makes up circa 90% of the UK population.
If the English electorate view the English FM as a worthless imbecile, a bit like the North of Tyne Mayor or Police and Crime Commissioners, the post will lack any legitimacy. However if the English electorate view the English FM as a powerful figure, the post will eclipse the UK PM.
I'm not against the idea but it's certainly something to think about. It would likely result in serious diminishment of the post of Prime Minister.
So what that England makes up 90% of the UK population? It is what it is.
So what if the post eclipses the UK PM? It is what it is.
Either have devolution or don't. If FM eclipses the PM then other than hurting the ego of the PM, what's the problem exactly?
If the post of PM gets diminished, then other than hurting the ego of the PM, what's the problem exactly?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
Why should my borough of Barnet, population 400k, not get a senator while tiny 50,000 population areas get one? The idea is ridiculous.
Agreed, its ridiculous.
It seems to be an attempt to create a system where England cannot outvote Scotland but Scotland can outvote England.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
I agree, I think a parliament for England is inevitable, but I think it might be better for London to be divided out, and the GLA given additional responsibilities.
Then you'll get people moaning about carving up England, probably rightly.
England without London doesn't make sense.
I think it makes sense, and I think it's a fairly natural carve up. It's certainly not federalisation.
However, if that didn't happen, my 'Council of the Isles' would still work if the UK Government was a sitting and voting member. So you'd have the UK PM, and the heads of England, Wales, Scotland and NI. You need an odd number to avoid stalemate.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
Your example federal countries don't have one constituent state that makes up 90% of the population.
The English FM would be arguably more powerful than the British PM.
, It could be done at regional level in England instead, with Assemblies for each region similar to those in London, though in Canada Ontario makes up well over a third of the Canadian population, as does New South Wales in Australia
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Does proper federalism also mean that England cannot be outvoted ?
Proper federalism means that England could not outvote Scotland, Wales, and NI. They would have to convince at least 2 of the other constituent nations to also consent to whatever. Otherwise what's the point of the "federalism" compared to our current system?
That's just ridiculous. Break up the union if we English are going to be asked to pay for everything and simultaneously be told to have no say in what we're actually being billed for.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
No it wouldn't. The English First Minister would answer for all devolved subjects: Health, education etc
The UK one would be responsible for UK issues, with no West Lothian Question to answer.
You're missing my point.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but you couldn't really justify have 650 Westminster MPs and then 500 odd English MEnglishPs. Therefore to the English electorate, who would be most important, the English FM or the British PM?
Probably the English FM.
At that point the whole balance of power in the country changes.
So? If, in that scenario, the Union is really that important to everyone concerned then the central Government will continue to be valued. It would have rather less to do but it would still have a suite of important responsibilities, and it would be answerable to voters in all the constituent parts. The West Lothian Question is resolved, all voters have parity of esteem again, and there are no awkward issues about MPs from outside England occupying ministerial offices or voting on any piece of legislation.
Alternatively, perhaps everyone would decide that they could do without the Union and get rid of it?
If people want it then it'll survive, otherwise sayonara. What's wrong with that?
I didn't say anything was wrong with that. It's just something worth considering and why I highlighted it. It would be one of the most significant constitutional changes in hundreds of years.
The biggest historical sticking point would be the diminishing of the post of Prime Minister. They would no longer be the most powerful political figure in the realm.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
One historical analogy to the “England is too big” argument might be Prussia.
I believe that Prussia essentially ruled the German Empire until 1918. Various Prussian entities held de facto national, rather than state level, power.
There it is again - bunching up the flesh to inject. Obviously what I read about needing to stretch out the skin for a vaccination was wrong.
I've been wondering about that. Wasn't it Scandinavian health experts pointing out the technique needed to get the vaccine into muscle rather than veins?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Does proper federalism also mean that England cannot be outvoted ?
Proper federalism means that England could not outvote Scotland, Wales, and NI. They would have to convince at least 2 of the other constituent nations to also consent to whatever. Otherwise what's the point of the "federalism" compared to our current system?
That's just ridiculous. Break up the union if we English are going to be asked to pay for everything and simultaneously be told to have no say in what we're actually being billed for.
Well again you've just demonstrated the inherent instability of the British state.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
I agree, I think a parliament for England is inevitable, but I think it might be better for London to be divided out, and the GLA given additional responsibilities.
Then you'll get people moaning about carving up England, probably rightly.
England without London doesn't make sense.
I think it makes sense, and I think it's a fairly natural carve up. It's certainly not federalisation.
However, if that didn't happen, my 'Council of the Isles' would still work if the UK Government was a sitting and voting member. So you'd have the UK PM, and the heads of England, Wales, Scotland and NI. You need an odd number to avoid stalemate.
Perhaps that would be a good compromise. England effectively gets 2 votes in that scenario.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
Not on foreign policy, defence or tax
If the English Parliament cannot set tax rates then what is the point of it?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
Your example federal countries don't have one constituent state that makes up 90% of the population.
The English FM would be arguably more powerful than the British PM.
Probably the best comparison is Ontario in Canada. Approximately 38% of the population rather than 85%. So not even close really.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
In my model, London, Manchester etc are metros, ie Tier 2 authorities.
I think you are talking about Tier 3 authorities.
Personally I'd scrap two tier - 100% unitaries/metros
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
Why should my borough of Barnet, population 400k, not get a senator while tiny 50,000 population areas get one? The idea is ridiculous.
Agreed, its ridiculous.
It seems to be an attempt to create a system where England cannot outvote Scotland but Scotland can outvote England.
Yes and it's just stupid. The reason Scottish nationalism is so popular is because the English taxpayer is footing the bill for the SNP's generosity. Labour thought they would be in charge forever in Scotland and therefore benefit from being able to shower Scotland with England's taxes until the end of time to cement their dominance.
Let's actually give the 4 nations real autonomy and that means fiscal autonomy for spending decisions and the responsibility to raise the money to do it, either through borrowing (with interest payments coming from a local tax) or raising taxes.
The people who say Rishi is too short for next PM are right for this same reason.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
The shift from the original plan of fill and finish in Sweden/Germany has resulted in a delay of 2-4 weeks and will mean lower initial deliveries. It's not really a huge deal as it won't slow our reopening plan and we will still have offered all over 18s a first dose by the end of June as I was saying last night.
This is a huge positive as we've taken the last bit of leverage the EU had against us off the table, holding our Novavax doses hostage. They'd be mad to fuck with Pfizer but Novavax are a much smaller target and now they're playing hardball with the EU contract the temptation would be very high to use the export check mechanism to slow down exports and introduce loads of paperwork and other barriers and expensive measures to "suffocate" them.
Do you mean Novavax playing hardball with the EU contract?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
In my model, London, Manchester etc are metros, ie Tier 2 authorities.
I think you are talking about Tier 3 authorities.
Personally I'd scrap two tier - 100% unitaries/metros
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
Not on foreign policy, defence or tax
Yes, he would.
With the connivance of the Daily Mail and muppets like you, he would be making asides about asylum policy and tax rates whether or not they are in his jurisdiction.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
Not on foreign policy, defence or tax
If the English Parliament cannot set tax rates then what is the point of it?
Holyrood cannot set all tax rates, it can run Scottish health, education, most home affairs and law and order, transport and housing policy.
An English Parliament would do the same for England
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
Your example federal countries don't have one constituent state that makes up 90% of the population.
The English FM would be arguably more powerful than the British PM.
, It could be done at regional level in England instead, with Assemblies for each region similar to those in London, though in Canada Ontario makes up well over a third of the Canadian population, as does New South Wales in Australia
And then we just get back to the problem of breaking up England into (mostly artificial) cantons so that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't feel threatened. Though FWIW they'd probably still moan about being abused and ignored anyway.
There are only three equitable arrangements for the governance of the UK: the unitary state, broadly symmetrical devolution to the four home nations, or give up and get rid of it. Take your pick.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
In my model, London, Manchester etc are metros, ie Tier 2 authorities.
I think you are talking about Tier 3 authorities.
Personally I'd scrap two tier - 100% unitaries/metros
You could. But you’d be fucking the economy.
One of the reasons for British poor productivity is an inability for metros outside London (and even to some extent London) to organise themselves properly for growth.
EDIT: Sorry - misread. Thought you said you’d abolish metros.
Anyway, I’d keep two tier.
A community of 100k - 200k needs some form of local representation.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
Not on foreign policy, defence or tax
Yes, he would.
With the connivance of the Daily Mail and muppets like you, he would be making asides about asylum policy and tax rates whether or not they are in his jurisdiction.
Sturgeon does it already.
And if Westminister Parliament is controlled by opposing parties then such remarks will remain asides, not overruling.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Does proper federalism also mean that England cannot be outvoted ?
Proper federalism means that England could not outvote Scotland, Wales, and NI. They would have to convince at least 2 of the other constituent nations to also consent to whatever. Otherwise what's the point of the "federalism" compared to our current system?
That's just ridiculous. Break up the union if we English are going to be asked to pay for everything and simultaneously be told to have no say in what we're actually being billed for.
Well again you've just demonstrated the inherent instability of the British state.
But it just ends up with the Welsh, Scottish and NI senators outvoting the English ones and raising taxes on the English to pay for whatever ridiculous new giveaway they come up with. How is that in any way fair or sustainable? English apathy towards the union is based on footing an endless bill for things we don't have, free tuition, free prescriptions but still being asked to pay for it all. Now you're proposing to make it even worse by giving the three devolved nations the power to overrule England and raise taxes on us. Well fuck that.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
Not on foreign policy, defence or tax
Yes, he would.
With the connivance of the Daily Mail and muppets like you, he would be making asides about asylum policy and tax rates whether or not they are in his jurisdiction.
Sturgeon does it already.
So what, she cannot change policy on those areas, only the UK PM can
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
It's pointless comparing politics under the historic unitary state with politics under this hypothetical quasi-federal setup.
For one, good luck selling to the electorate we need another 500 politicians as part of an English Parliament in addition to the 650 MPs in the Commons and the thousands of Lords. You'd have to significantly reduce the size of Westminster.
English elections would become far more important than UK elections in most circumstances as the English Parliament would have more relevance to most issues.
Again, I'm not saying these are bad things, it's just a likely effect.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
Not on foreign policy, defence or tax
If the English Parliament cannot set tax rates then what is the point of it?
Holyrood cannot set all tax rates, it can run Scottish health, education, most home affairs and law and order, transport and housing policy.
An English Parliament would do the same for England
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
I see that you don’t understand the word realpolitik.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
Not on foreign policy, defence or tax
If the English Parliament cannot set tax rates then what is the point of it?
Holyrood cannot set all tax rates, it can run Scottish health, education, most home affairs and law and order, transport and housing policy.
An English Parliament would do the same for England
Is it not related to the TERF wars that have been raging in the SNP?
Maybe but you’d expect such office holders to be at the woke end.
I think some of them are old-fashioned feminists who take the controversial view that a man who dresses as a woman, who wants to be a woman, or who sincerely believes that he is a woman, is still a man. Of course this makes them hate-figures in the SNP.
I think they have quite a lot of good points to their argument.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
I see that you don’t understand the word realpolitik.
Realpolitik: a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
Practically if we have a Labour PM and a Tory FM then the Labour PM would make UK decisions, not the Tory FM. Realpolitik.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Does proper federalism also mean that England cannot be outvoted ?
Proper federalism means that England could not outvote Scotland, Wales, and NI. They would have to convince at least 2 of the other constituent nations to also consent to whatever. Otherwise what's the point of the "federalism" compared to our current system?
That's just ridiculous. Break up the union if we English are going to be asked to pay for everything and simultaneously be told to have no say in what we're actually being billed for.
Well again you've just demonstrated the inherent instability of the British state.
But it just ends up with the Welsh, Scottish and NI senators outvoting the English ones and raising taxes on the English to pay for whatever ridiculous new giveaway they come up with. How is that in any way fair or sustainable? English apathy towards the union is based on footing an endless bill for things we don't have, free tuition, free prescriptions but still being asked to pay for it all. Now you're proposing to make it even worse by giving the three devolved nations the power to overrule England and raise taxes on us. Well fuck that.
Hey I'm not "proposing" anything. I'm merely exploring the advantages and disadvantages of any new setup.
For it to be sustainable a majority of tax would have to be handled by the national assemblies and not by Westminster. Therefore the "senators" could not raise English taxes. I don't know what would fund the federal element though.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
Your example federal countries don't have one constituent state that makes up 90% of the population.
The English FM would be arguably more powerful than the British PM.
, It could be done at regional level in England instead, with Assemblies for each region similar to those in London, though in Canada Ontario makes up well over a third of the Canadian population, as does New South Wales in Australia
And then we just get back to the problem of breaking up England into (mostly artificial) cantons so that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't feel threatened. Though FWIW they'd probably still moan about being abused and ignored anyway.
There are only three equitable arrangements for the governance of the UK: the unitary state, broadly symmetrical devolution to the four home nations, or give up and get rid of it. Take your pick.
Either scrap devolution completely and return to direct rule by Westminster across the UK in a full Union, or give England its own Parliament or regional assemblies with the same powers as the Welsh and Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments and create a fully Federal UK with Westminster as the Federal Parliament only
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
In my model, London, Manchester etc are metros, ie Tier 2 authorities.
I think you are talking about Tier 3 authorities.
Personally I'd scrap two tier - 100% unitaries/metros
You could. But you’d be fucking the economy.
One of the reasons for British poor productivity is an inability for metros outside London (and even to some extent London) to organise themselves properly for growth.
Wait what having two Nottinghamshire/Bassetlaw councils improves our economy compared to Doncaster & Rotherham single councils a few hundred yards north and west of me ?!
There it is again - bunching up the flesh to inject. Obviously what I read about needing to stretch out the skin for a vaccination was wrong.
I've been wondering about that. Wasn't it Scandinavian health experts pointing out the technique needed to get the vaccine into muscle rather than veins?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
Your example federal countries don't have one constituent state that makes up 90% of the population.
The English FM would be arguably more powerful than the British PM.
, It could be done at regional level in England instead, with Assemblies for each region similar to those in London, though in Canada Ontario makes up well over a third of the Canadian population, as does New South Wales in Australia
And then we just get back to the problem of breaking up England into (mostly artificial) cantons so that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't feel threatened. Though FWIW they'd probably still moan about being abused and ignored anyway.
There are only three equitable arrangements for the governance of the UK: the unitary state, broadly symmetrical devolution to the four home nations, or give up and get rid of it. Take your pick.
Indeed, either scrap devolution completely and return to direct rule by Westminster across the UK in a full Union, or give England its own Parliament or regional assemblies with the same powers as the Welsh and Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments and create a fully Federal UK with Westminster as the Federal Parliament only
Your first proposal is not an option.
Your second proposal would require a significant downsizing of Westminster and diminishing of the role of PM. You could not justify having 650 MPS and 1000s of Lords to do 1/3 of the work, if that. Could you live with that?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
In my model, London, Manchester etc are metros, ie Tier 2 authorities.
I think you are talking about Tier 3 authorities.
The 36 metropolitan boroughs are tier 2 authorities.
They do not have any other local government higher than them.
The metropolitan districts are administered by metropolitan district councils. They are the principal local authorities in the six metropolitan counties and are responsible for running most local services, such as schools, social services, waste collection and roads.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
I see that you don’t understand the word realpolitik.
Realpolitik: a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
Practically if we have a Labour PM and a Tory FM then the Labour PM would make UK decisions, not the Tory FM. Realpolitik.
You also don’t understand the word “practical” then.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
It's pointless comparing politics under the historic unitary state with politics under this hypothetical quasi-federal setup.
For one, good luck selling to the electorate we need another 500 politicians as part of an English Parliament in addition to the 650 MPs in the Commons and the thousands of Lords. You'd have to significantly reduce the size of Westminster.
English elections would become far more important than UK elections in most circumstances as the English Parliament would have more relevance to most issues.
Again, I'm not saying these are bad things, it's just a likely effect.
If you need to reduce the size of Westminster that's no bad thing, Westminster would have much less on its plate. The House of Representatives for the USA have much less than 650 Representatives.
If you didn't want devolved elections to be important, you shouldn't support devolution. Either you want devolution to exist, or you don't. If you do then we need an English Parliament. If you don't then Hollyrood etc should be abolished. Pick one.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
I see that you don’t understand the word realpolitik.
Realpolitik: a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
Practically if we have a Labour PM and a Tory FM then the Labour PM would make UK decisions, not the Tory FM. Realpolitik.
Yeah but what would "UK decisions" be in reality? Very little.
For example, for most of the last year has been the UK government controlling the English NHS. That would be handled by the English PM.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
In my model, London, Manchester etc are metros, ie Tier 2 authorities.
I think you are talking about Tier 3 authorities.
The 36 metropolitan boroughs are tier 2 authorities.
They do not have any other local government higher than them.
The metropolitan districts are administered by metropolitan district councils. They are the principal local authorities in the six metropolitan counties and are responsible for running most local services, such as schools, social services, waste collection and roads.
Yeah. You are talking about Tier 3, like Hackney where I live.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
It's pointless comparing politics under the historic unitary state with politics under this hypothetical quasi-federal setup.
For one, good luck selling to the electorate we need another 500 politicians as part of an English Parliament in addition to the 650 MPs in the Commons and the thousands of Lords. You'd have to significantly reduce the size of Westminster.
English elections would become far more important than UK elections in most circumstances as the English Parliament would have more relevance to most issues.
Again, I'm not saying these are bad things, it's just a likely effect.
If you need to reduce the size of Westminster that's no bad thing, Westminster would have much less on its plate. The House of Representatives for the USA have much less than 650 Representatives.
If you didn't want devolved elections to be important, you shouldn't support devolution. Either you want devolution to exist, or you don't. If you do then we need an English Parliament. If you don't then Hollyrood etc should be abolished. Pick one.
Why are you turning this into an argument? I'm agreeing with you but I'm just pointing out issues for discussion.
You always seem to pretend that the ideas you support have no issues with them. Everything has advantages and disadvantages.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
In my model, London, Manchester etc are metros, ie Tier 2 authorities.
I think you are talking about Tier 3 authorities.
Personally I'd scrap two tier - 100% unitaries/metros
You could. But you’d be fucking the economy.
One of the reasons for British poor productivity is an inability for metros outside London (and even to some extent London) to organise themselves properly for growth.
Wait what having two Nottinghamshire/Bassetlaw councils improves our economy compared to Doncaster & Rotherham single councils a few hundred yards north and west of me ?!
Or to put it another way I can't see anyone arguing for a south Yorkshire county council to sit above Don, Roth, Barnsley, Sheffield...
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
In my model, London, Manchester etc are metros, ie Tier 2 authorities.
I think you are talking about Tier 3 authorities.
Personally I'd scrap two tier - 100% unitaries/metros
You could. But you’d be fucking the economy.
One of the reasons for British poor productivity is an inability for metros outside London (and even to some extent London) to organise themselves properly for growth.
Wait what having two Nottinghamshire/Bassetlaw councils improves our economy compared to Doncaster & Rotherham single councils a few hundred yards north and west of me ?!
I don’t quite follow what you are saying, but I misread your first response anyway.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Does proper federalism also mean that England cannot be outvoted ?
Proper federalism means that England could not outvote Scotland, Wales, and NI. They would have to convince at least 2 of the other constituent nations to also consent to whatever. Otherwise what's the point of the "federalism" compared to our current system?
That's just ridiculous. Break up the union if we English are going to be asked to pay for everything and simultaneously be told to have no say in what we're actually being billed for.
Well again you've just demonstrated the inherent instability of the British state.
But it just ends up with the Welsh, Scottish and NI senators outvoting the English ones and raising taxes on the English to pay for whatever ridiculous new giveaway they come up with. How is that in any way fair or sustainable? English apathy towards the union is based on footing an endless bill for things we don't have, free tuition, free prescriptions but still being asked to pay for it all. Now you're proposing to make it even worse by giving the three devolved nations the power to overrule England and raise taxes on us. Well fuck that.
Hey I'm not "proposing" anything. I'm merely exploring the advantages and disadvantages of any new setup.
For it to be sustainable a majority of tax would have to be handled by the national assemblies and not by Westminster. Therefore the "senators" could not raise English taxes. I don't know what would fund the federal element though.
Any federal system that doesn't come with near fiscal autonomy is doomed to failure. US states are able to sell bonds but the interest payable for them needs to be paid by local taxation. Spending decisions on healthcare or education is decided by statehouses but the money for anything above the federal baseline needs to come from local taxes. I have no problem with such a system being introduced in the UK and having that level of fiscal autonomy being given to the four nations with Westminster essentially setting a baseline on spending and tax then having additional local rates for local spending decisions.
What we can't have is Scotland voting for England to pay for it's free tuition like we did under Labour.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
I see that you don’t understand the word realpolitik.
Realpolitik: a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
Practically if we have a Labour PM and a Tory FM then the Labour PM would make UK decisions, not the Tory FM. Realpolitik.
You also don’t understand the word “practical” then.
You don't. Practically the Westminster Parliament would vote on Westminster issues, not the English Parliament.
If there's a Labour majority in the UK Parliament after UK elections, and a Tory majority in England's Parliament after English elections, then practically speaking how does the English FM or the English Parliament overrule the UK PM and UK Parliament?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
I see that you don’t understand the word realpolitik.
Realpolitik: a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
Practically if we have a Labour PM and a Tory FM then the Labour PM would make UK decisions, not the Tory FM. Realpolitik.
Yeah but what would "UK decisions" be in reality? Very little.
For example, for most of the last year has been the UK government controlling the English NHS. That would be handled by the English PM.
Welcome to federal politics. You seem taken aback with the idea.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
In my model, London, Manchester etc are metros, ie Tier 2 authorities.
I think you are talking about Tier 3 authorities.
Personally I'd scrap two tier - 100% unitaries/metros
You could. But you’d be fucking the economy.
One of the reasons for British poor productivity is an inability for metros outside London (and even to some extent London) to organise themselves properly for growth.
Wait what having two Nottinghamshire/Bassetlaw councils improves our economy compared to Doncaster & Rotherham single councils a few hundred yards north and west of me ?!
Or to put it another way I can't see anyone arguing for a south Yorkshire county council to sit above Don, Roth, Barnsley, Sheffield...
It already exists, embryonically. Dan Jarvis leads it.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
I see that you don’t understand the word realpolitik.
Realpolitik: a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
Practically if we have a Labour PM and a Tory FM then the Labour PM would make UK decisions, not the Tory FM. Realpolitik.
Yeah but what would "UK decisions" be in reality? Very little.
For example, for most of the last year has been the UK government controlling the English NHS. That would be handled by the English PM.
So what, the German Chancellor, US President or Australian PM do not run healthcare systems either, which is mostly managed at the state level
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
I see that you don’t understand the word realpolitik.
Realpolitik: a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
Practically if we have a Labour PM and a Tory FM then the Labour PM would make UK decisions, not the Tory FM. Realpolitik.
Yeah but what would "UK decisions" be in reality? Very little.
For example, for most of the last year has been the UK government controlling the English NHS. That would be handled by the English PM.
Welcome to federal politics. You seem taken aback with the idea.
Again, I support federal politics. Why do you keep suggesting I don't?
It's @HYUFD who wants an English Parliament with Westminster staying exactly the same.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Does proper federalism also mean that England cannot be outvoted ?
Proper federalism means that England could not outvote Scotland, Wales, and NI. They would have to convince at least 2 of the other constituent nations to also consent to whatever. Otherwise what's the point of the "federalism" compared to our current system?
That's just ridiculous. Break up the union if we English are going to be asked to pay for everything and simultaneously be told to have no say in what we're actually being billed for.
Well again you've just demonstrated the inherent instability of the British state.
But it just ends up with the Welsh, Scottish and NI senators outvoting the English ones and raising taxes on the English to pay for whatever ridiculous new giveaway they come up with. How is that in any way fair or sustainable? English apathy towards the union is based on footing an endless bill for things we don't have, free tuition, free prescriptions but still being asked to pay for it all. Now you're proposing to make it even worse by giving the three devolved nations the power to overrule England and raise taxes on us. Well fuck that.
Hey I'm not "proposing" anything. I'm merely exploring the advantages and disadvantages of any new setup.
For it to be sustainable a majority of tax would have to be handled by the national assemblies and not by Westminster. Therefore the "senators" could not raise English taxes. I don't know what would fund the federal element though.
Any federal system that doesn't come with near fiscal autonomy is doomed to failure. US states are able to sell bonds but the interest payable for them needs to be paid by local taxation. Spending decisions on healthcare or education is decided by statehouses but the money for anything above the federal baseline needs to come from local taxes. I have no problem with such a system being introduced in the UK and having that level of fiscal autonomy being given to the four nations with Westminster essentially setting a baseline on spending and tax then having additional local rates for local spending decisions.
What we can't have is Scotland voting for England to pay for it's free tuition like we did under Labour.
Have powerful metropolitan authorities around the eight major English core cities: Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Bristol, Sheffield, Leeds and Birmingham, and use the traditional counties for everywhere else. And name the big metros after the city: Greater Newcastle, Greater Birmingham. Not Tyne & Wear, West Midlands and the like.
The shift from the original plan of fill and finish in Sweden/Germany has resulted in a delay of 2-4 weeks and will mean lower initial deliveries. It's not really a huge deal as it won't slow our reopening plan and we will still have offered all over 18s a first dose by the end of June as I was saying last night.
This is a huge positive as we've taken the last bit of leverage the EU had against us off the table, holding our Novavax doses hostage. They'd be mad to fuck with Pfizer but Novavax are a much smaller target and now they're playing hardball with the EU contract the temptation would be very high to use the export check mechanism to slow down exports and introduce loads of paperwork and other barriers and expensive measures to "suffocate" them.
Do you mean Novavax playing hardball with the EU contract?
Novavax has refused to sign a deal with the EU because they don’t trust them as a partner. No commitments to the EU until they have fulfilled all other contracts
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
I see that you don’t understand the word realpolitik.
Realpolitik: a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
Practically if we have a Labour PM and a Tory FM then the Labour PM would make UK decisions, not the Tory FM. Realpolitik.
You also don’t understand the word “practical” then.
You don't. Practically the Westminster Parliament would vote on Westminster issues, not the English Parliament.
If there's a Labour majority in the UK Parliament after UK elections, and a Tory majority in England's Parliament after English elections, then practically speaking how does the English FM or the English Parliament overrule the UK PM and UK Parliament?
No.
You are being deliberately obtuse because that’s your preferred method of masturbation.
Legally speaking - de jure - the UKPM would overrule the EFM.
Practically speaking - de facto - the EFM would overrule the EFM.
Now stop wasting my time. I won’t explain it again.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
In my model, London, Manchester etc are metros, ie Tier 2 authorities.
I think you are talking about Tier 3 authorities.
Personally I'd scrap two tier - 100% unitaries/metros
You could. But you’d be fucking the economy.
One of the reasons for British poor productivity is an inability for metros outside London (and even to some extent London) to organise themselves properly for growth.
Wait what having two Nottinghamshire/Bassetlaw councils improves our economy compared to Doncaster & Rotherham single councils a few hundred yards north and west of me ?!
Or to put it another way I can't see anyone arguing for a south Yorkshire county council to sit above Don, Roth, Barnsley, Sheffield...
So you're not yearning for the proposed 'Sheffield City Region' which was to include Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, Sheffield, Derbyshire Dales, High Peak, North-East Derbyshire, Chesterfield, Bolsover and Bassetlaw ?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
Why should my borough of Barnet, population 400k, not get a senator while tiny 50,000 population areas get one? The idea is ridiculous.
Agreed, its ridiculous.
It seems to be an attempt to create a system where England cannot outvote Scotland but Scotland can outvote England.
Yes and it's just stupid. The reason Scottish nationalism is so popular is because the English taxpayer is footing the bill for the SNP's generosity. Labour thought they would be in charge forever in Scotland and therefore benefit from being able to shower Scotland with England's taxes until the end of time to cement their dominance.
Let's actually give the 4 nations real autonomy and that means fiscal autonomy for spending decisions and the responsibility to raise the money to do it, either through borrowing (with interest payments coming from a local tax) or raising taxes.
The people who say Rishi is too short for next PM are right for this same reason.
I feel it only fair at this juncture to point out, with regard to the eternal Barnett argument, that there is actually nothing wrong - if we are going to bother to keep on having a United Kingdom - in maintaining a system of transfer payments. Au contraire, it is necessary.
The problem lies entirely with the formula. It was only intended as a stepping stone to something better and should've been replaced with a rational calculation decades ago.
The only reason we're stuck with the present ramshackle arrangement is because any replacement that wasn't substantially more generous to the three devolved nations than the current one would cause them to howl with rage, and the loud public arguments would cause the English taxpayer to question why they were bothering to part with the money as a consequence.
It's a little bit like Lords reform - complicated, arcane, nobody can agree on an appropriate replacement, creates a lot of ill feeling, distraction from other priorities. Easier to sweep the whole issue under the carpet and try to forget about it. The fat subsidies continue, based on a crude, arbitrary formula with origins stretching back into the 19th century, and no consensus can be reached on whether they're too generous, too stingy or about right. In that way, it's quite an appropriate harbinger for devolution itself: an ill thought out, lop-sided, inequitable mess.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
Your example federal countries don't have one constituent state that makes up 90% of the population.
The English FM would be arguably more powerful than the British PM.
, It could be done at regional level in England instead, with Assemblies for each region similar to those in London, though in Canada Ontario makes up well over a third of the Canadian population, as does New South Wales in Australia
And then we just get back to the problem of breaking up England into (mostly artificial) cantons so that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't feel threatened. Though FWIW they'd probably still moan about being abused and ignored anyway.
There are only three equitable arrangements for the governance of the UK: the unitary state, broadly symmetrical devolution to the four home nations, or give up and get rid of it. Take your pick.
Indeed, either scrap devolution completely and return to direct rule by Westminster across the UK in a full Union, or give England its own Parliament or regional assemblies with the same powers as the Welsh and Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments and create a fully Federal UK with Westminster as the Federal Parliament only
Your first proposal is not an option.
Your second proposal would require a significant downsizing of Westminster and diminishing of the role of PM. You could not justify having 650 MPS and 1000s of Lords to do 1/3 of the work, if that. Could you live with that?
The first would be an option for a future Tory PM if no devolution to England.
Given even the US House of Representatives has only 435 members and the US Senate has only 100 for a country with a population 5 times ours, Canada has only 338 MPs, Australia has only 151 members of the House of Representatives and Germany has only 69 in the Bundesrat, I would have no problem cutting the size of the House of Commons and Lords
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
It's pointless comparing politics under the historic unitary state with politics under this hypothetical quasi-federal setup.
For one, good luck selling to the electorate we need another 500 politicians as part of an English Parliament in addition to the 650 MPs in the Commons and the thousands of Lords. You'd have to significantly reduce the size of Westminster.
English elections would become far more important than UK elections in most circumstances as the English Parliament would have more relevance to most issues.
Again, I'm not saying these are bad things, it's just a likely effect.
If you need to reduce the size of Westminster that's no bad thing, Westminster would have much less on its plate. The House of Representatives for the USA have much less than 650 Representatives.
If you didn't want devolved elections to be important, you shouldn't support devolution. Either you want devolution to exist, or you don't. If you do then we need an English Parliament. If you don't then Hollyrood etc should be abolished. Pick one.
Why are you turning this into an argument? I'm agreeing with you but I'm just pointing out issues for discussion.
You always seem to pretend that the ideas you support have no issues with them. Everything has advantages and disadvantages.
I don't support this idea. I support English independence. 🤷♂️
I'm just puzzled by those who want devolution and want the UK to survive as a federal state but are aghast at the consequences of devolution or the notion of federation.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
Your example federal countries don't have one constituent state that makes up 90% of the population.
The English FM would be arguably more powerful than the British PM.
, It could be done at regional level in England instead, with Assemblies for each region similar to those in London, though in Canada Ontario makes up well over a third of the Canadian population, as does New South Wales in Australia
And then we just get back to the problem of breaking up England into (mostly artificial) cantons so that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't feel threatened. Though FWIW they'd probably still moan about being abused and ignored anyway.
There are only three equitable arrangements for the governance of the UK: the unitary state, broadly symmetrical devolution to the four home nations, or give up and get rid of it. Take your pick.
This isn't logical - the breaking up of England into cantons WOULD threaten the other nations - by breaking England up, you build in an English majority that will carry all decisions, again. So there's really no point.
Under my proposal, England stays as one (or two) and for the purposes of these votes, it votes as a nation amongst its peers, like Denmark having an EU veto the same as Germany. They are only voting on the initiatives of the UK Government (not originating their own initiatives), so England doesn't get pushed into anything against its will.
Have powerful metropolitan authorities around the eight major English core cities: Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Bristol, Sheffield, Leeds and Birmingham, and use the traditional counties for everywhere else. And name the big metros after the city: Greater Newcastle, Greater Birmingham. Not Tyne & Wear, West Midlands and the like.
Impose it, and get it done.
According to my incredibly geeky analysis, you’d probably want to do this for 17 metros.
And since people seem to be passionate about these things, I’d try to go for portmanteau names to avoid controversy.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
It's pointless comparing politics under the historic unitary state with politics under this hypothetical quasi-federal setup.
For one, good luck selling to the electorate we need another 500 politicians as part of an English Parliament in addition to the 650 MPs in the Commons and the thousands of Lords. You'd have to significantly reduce the size of Westminster.
English elections would become far more important than UK elections in most circumstances as the English Parliament would have more relevance to most issues.
Again, I'm not saying these are bad things, it's just a likely effect.
If you need to reduce the size of Westminster that's no bad thing, Westminster would have much less on its plate. The House of Representatives for the USA have much less than 650 Representatives.
If you didn't want devolved elections to be important, you shouldn't support devolution. Either you want devolution to exist, or you don't. If you do then we need an English Parliament. If you don't then Hollyrood etc should be abolished. Pick one.
Why are you turning this into an argument? I'm agreeing with you but I'm just pointing out issues for discussion.
You always seem to pretend that the ideas you support have no issues with them. Everything has advantages and disadvantages.
I don't support this idea. I support English independence. 🤷♂️
I'm just puzzled by those who want devolution and want the UK to survive as a federal state but are aghast at the consequences of devolution or the notion of federation.
I'm not against the consequences of devolution or the notion of federalism. I'm merely exploring the issues. Just because I've raised an issue doesn't mean I think it's a bad idea on the whole.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
Your example federal countries don't have one constituent state that makes up 90% of the population.
The English FM would be arguably more powerful than the British PM.
, It could be done at regional level in England instead, with Assemblies for each region similar to those in London, though in Canada Ontario makes up well over a third of the Canadian population, as does New South Wales in Australia
And then we just get back to the problem of breaking up England into (mostly artificial) cantons so that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't feel threatened. Though FWIW they'd probably still moan about being abused and ignored anyway.
There are only three equitable arrangements for the governance of the UK: the unitary state, broadly symmetrical devolution to the four home nations, or give up and get rid of it. Take your pick.
This isn't logical - the breaking up of England into cantons WOULD threaten the other nations - by breaking England up, you build in an English majority that will carry all decisions, again. So there's really no point.
Under my proposal, England stays as one (or two) and for the purposes of these votes, it votes as a nation amongst its peers, like Denmark having an EU veto the same as Germany. They are only voting on the initiatives of the UK Government (not originating their own initiatives), so England doesn't get pushed into anything against its will.
You are one of the few here thinking creatively and undogmatically.
Have powerful metropolitan authorities around the eight major English core cities: Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Bristol, Sheffield, Leeds and Birmingham, and use the traditional counties for everywhere else. And name the big metros after the city: Greater Newcastle, Greater Birmingham. Not Tyne & Wear, West Midlands and the like.
Impose it, and get it done.
According to my incredibly geeky analysis, you’d probably want to do this for 17 metros.
And since people seem to be passionate about these things, I’d try to go for portmanteau names to avoid controversy.
For example, “Birmingham & the Black Country”.
Coventry would be angling to get back into Warwickshire even more so than it already is!
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
Your example federal countries don't have one constituent state that makes up 90% of the population.
The English FM would be arguably more powerful than the British PM.
, It could be done at regional level in England instead, with Assemblies for each region similar to those in London, though in Canada Ontario makes up well over a third of the Canadian population, as does New South Wales in Australia
And then we just get back to the problem of breaking up England into (mostly artificial) cantons so that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't feel threatened. Though FWIW they'd probably still moan about being abused and ignored anyway.
There are only three equitable arrangements for the governance of the UK: the unitary state, broadly symmetrical devolution to the four home nations, or give up and get rid of it. Take your pick.
This isn't logical - the breaking up of England into cantons WOULD threaten the other nations - by breaking England up, you build in an English majority that will carry all decisions, again. So there's really no point.
Under my proposal, England stays as one (or two) and for the purposes of these votes, it votes as a nation amongst its peers, like Denmark having an EU veto the same as Germany. They are only voting on the initiatives of the UK Government (not originating their own initiatives), so England doesn't get pushed into anything against its will.
You are one of the few here thinking creatively and undogmatically.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
In my model, London, Manchester etc are metros, ie Tier 2 authorities.
I think you are talking about Tier 3 authorities.
Personally I'd scrap two tier - 100% unitaries/metros
You could. But you’d be fucking the economy.
One of the reasons for British poor productivity is an inability for metros outside London (and even to some extent London) to organise themselves properly for growth.
Wait what having two Nottinghamshire/Bassetlaw councils improves our economy compared to Doncaster & Rotherham single councils a few hundred yards north and west of me ?!
I don’t quite follow what you are saying, but I misread your first response anyway.
I thought you were suggesting abolishing metros.
Nah, just don't see the point of having two sets of councils here, if any party proposes North Notts unitary in the LEs I'd vote for them tommorow
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
Because an English First Minister would be so powerful that in an political battle between an EFM and a UKPM, the EFM would win.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
No they wouldn't.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Constitutionally, the EFM would not be able to overrule the UKPM.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
How? They would be separate posts, answering to separate Parliaments.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
AS A MATTER OF REALPOLITIK.
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
That's not how Realpolitik works.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
I see that you don’t understand the word realpolitik.
Realpolitik: a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
Practically if we have a Labour PM and a Tory FM then the Labour PM would make UK decisions, not the Tory FM. Realpolitik.
You also don’t understand the word “practical” then.
You don't. Practically the Westminster Parliament would vote on Westminster issues, not the English Parliament.
If there's a Labour majority in the UK Parliament after UK elections, and a Tory majority in England's Parliament after English elections, then practically speaking how does the English FM or the English Parliament overrule the UK PM and UK Parliament?
No.
You are being deliberately obtuse because that’s your preferred method of masturbation.
Legally speaking - de jure - the UKPM would overrule the EFM.
Practically speaking - de facto - the EFM would overrule the EFM.
Now stop wasting my time. I won’t explain it again.
No, legally and practically speaking neither would overrule the other.
You are showing a shocking ignorance about how federal politics works. Have you ever bothered to learn about federal countries, let alone lived in one? Different levels of Parliament have different responsibilities and different powers, settled by different elections. It is far from unprecedented for a state to be held by one party and the federal government by another.
If the English state Parliament is Tory and the UK federal one is Labour then nobody is "overruling" anyone.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
Yes there would, the UK PM would be responsible for defence, foreign policy and major tax and financial policy, while most other domestic policy would be the responsibility of the head of the devolved governments.
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
Your example federal countries don't have one constituent state that makes up 90% of the population.
The English FM would be arguably more powerful than the British PM.
, It could be done at regional level in England instead, with Assemblies for each region similar to those in London, though in Canada Ontario makes up well over a third of the Canadian population, as does New South Wales in Australia
And then we just get back to the problem of breaking up England into (mostly artificial) cantons so that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't feel threatened. Though FWIW they'd probably still moan about being abused and ignored anyway.
There are only three equitable arrangements for the governance of the UK: the unitary state, broadly symmetrical devolution to the four home nations, or give up and get rid of it. Take your pick.
This isn't logical - the breaking up of England into cantons WOULD threaten the other nations - by breaking England up, you build in an English majority that will carry all decisions, again. So there's really no point.
Under my proposal, England stays as one (or two) and for the purposes of these votes, it votes as a nation amongst its peers, like Denmark having an EU veto the same as Germany. They are only voting on the initiatives of the UK Government (not originating their own initiatives), so England doesn't get pushed into anything against its will.
Yeah I think that's a good idea. England gets a veto, but the English will have to be comfortable with Scotland also having a veto.
Have powerful metropolitan authorities around the eight major English core cities: Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Bristol, Sheffield, Leeds and Birmingham, and use the traditional counties for everywhere else. And name the big metros after the city: Greater Newcastle, Greater Birmingham. Not Tyne & Wear, West Midlands and the like.
Impose it, and get it done.
You think people in Sunderland or Bradford or Derby will be happy to be told they're now in Greater Newcastle / Leeds / Nottingham and that their taxes are going to be spent how people in Newcastle / Leeds / Nottingham decide they will be ?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
There are 36 metropolitan boroughs in England.
In my model, London, Manchester etc are metros, ie Tier 2 authorities.
I think you are talking about Tier 3 authorities.
Personally I'd scrap two tier - 100% unitaries/metros
You could. But you’d be fucking the economy.
One of the reasons for British poor productivity is an inability for metros outside London (and even to some extent London) to organise themselves properly for growth.
Wait what having two Nottinghamshire/Bassetlaw councils improves our economy compared to Doncaster & Rotherham single councils a few hundred yards north and west of me ?!
Or to put it another way I can't see anyone arguing for a south Yorkshire county council to sit above Don, Roth, Barnsley, Sheffield...
It already exists, embryonically. Dan Jarvis leads it.
Yes.
The buggers are attempting to effectively steal swathes of Derbyshire. Again.
Just think how much more agreeable all our lives would be if the but where TSE lives were still Derbyshire.
Have powerful metropolitan authorities around the eight major English core cities: Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Bristol, Sheffield, Leeds and Birmingham, and use the traditional counties for everywhere else. And name the big metros after the city: Greater Newcastle, Greater Birmingham. Not Tyne & Wear, West Midlands and the like.
Impose it, and get it done.
You think people in Sunderland or Bradford or Derby will be happy to be told they're now in Greater Newcastle / Leeds / Nottingham and that their taxes are going to be spent how people in Newcastle / Leeds / Nottingham decide they will be ?
I've talked about this at length. Sunderland goes back in County Durham. Greater Newcastle then equals Tyneside and perhaps the southern Northumberland towns.
Have powerful metropolitan authorities around the eight major English core cities: Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Bristol, Sheffield, Leeds and Birmingham, and use the traditional counties for everywhere else. And name the big metros after the city: Greater Newcastle, Greater Birmingham. Not Tyne & Wear, West Midlands and the like.
Impose it, and get it done.
According to my incredibly geeky analysis, you’d probably want to do this for 17 metros.
And since people seem to be passionate about these things, I’d try to go for portmanteau names to avoid controversy.
For example, “Birmingham & the Black Country”.
Coventry would be angling to get back into Warwickshire even more so than it already is!
Actually, I *would* put it back into Warwickshire.
Analysis of commuting patterns show that Warwickshire county is pretty much Coventry’s catchment area. It doesn’t really have much to do with Birmingham next door.
Comments
(By the way I am not wholly against the review, I am just using it as an example)
Another scenario, joining CPTPP. The Scottish Govt. would certainly vote against. NI, Wales, London, England, almost certainly for. I don't think most in Scotland would a) mind too much Scotland at being outvoted in that way, and b) agree with Scotland voting no anyway.
The U.K. itself would be delegitimised and it would hasten dissolution.
Not a bad plan, but how would you manage it when metros cross traditional county boundaries (e.g. a good chunk of Greater Nottingham is in Derbyshire)?
In those cases, I think the metro is preeminent to the county.
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Nottingham
Just as is the case in Federal countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India and Germany.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but you couldn't really justify have 650 Westminster MPs and then 500 odd English MEnglishPs. Therefore to the English electorate, who would be most important, the English FM or the British PM?
Probably the English FM.
At that point the whole balance of power in the country changes.
The English FM would be arguably more powerful than the British PM.
They caused the whole mess in the first place. French colonial history in Vietnam makes British colonialism look positively enlightened.
Who's more important in New York, the Governor of NY, or the President of the USA?
Yes England would see a change, but that's part of having devolution. The UK would be responsible for federal issues, equally, between all the nations.
England without London doesn't make sense.
Counties and metros are the same level.
Of equal power and eminence.
In your example, a “Nottingham & Derby” metro would act as the Tier 2 authority. It’s constituent elements: Nottingham, Ashfield, Gedling, Derby, Erewash etc would sit inside this new metro.
But of course people in Ashfield would still say, for geographical, postal and ceremonial purposes, that they are in Nottinghamshire.
The Bavarian Minister President or the Governor of California have a lot of power but they cannot overrule the German Chancellor or US President on Federal matters.
Within Scotland the FM is arguably more important than the British PM. The British PM would be for British issues, not English ones then at least.
I think you are talking about Tier 3 authorities.
If the English electorate view the English FM as a worthless imbecile, a bit like the North of Tyne Mayor or Police and Crime Commissioners, the post will lack any legitimacy. However if the English electorate view the English FM as a powerful figure, the post will eclipse the UK PM.
I'm not against the idea but it's certainly something to think about. It would likely result in serious diminishment of the post of Prime Minister.
But as a matter of realpolitik, he would.
Alternatively, perhaps everyone would decide that they could do without the Union and get rid of it?
If people want it then it'll survive, otherwise sayonara. What's wrong with that?
The UK clearly nailed it with our 12 week strategy.
So what if the post eclipses the UK PM? It is what it is.
Either have devolution or don't. If FM eclipses the PM then other than hurting the ego of the PM, what's the problem exactly?
If the post of PM gets diminished, then other than hurting the ego of the PM, what's the problem exactly?
It seems to be an attempt to create a system where England cannot outvote Scotland but Scotland can outvote England.
However, if that didn't happen, my 'Council of the Isles' would still work if the UK Government was a sitting and voting member. So you'd have the UK PM, and the heads of England, Wales, Scotland and NI. You need an odd number to avoid stalemate.
It could be done at regional level in England instead, with Assemblies for each region similar to those in London, though in Canada Ontario makes up well over a third of the Canadian population, as does New South Wales in Australia
The biggest historical sticking point would be the diminishing of the post of Prime Minister. They would no longer be the most powerful political figure in the realm.
The UKPM would answer to the UK Parliament, not the English one.
I believe that Prussia essentially ruled the German Empire until 1918. Various Prussian entities held de facto national, rather than state level, power.
It didn’t end well, though.
For instance:
https://www.paramedicpractice.com/features/article/best-practice-technique-in-intramuscular-injection
I know you are not that stupid, please stop pretending you are.
Approximately 38% of the population rather than 85%.
So not even close really.
Let's actually give the 4 nations real autonomy and that means fiscal autonomy for spending decisions and the responsibility to raise the money to do it, either through borrowing (with interest payments coming from a local tax) or raising taxes.
The people who say Rishi is too short for next PM are right for this same reason.
Feb 1974 style results, England has a Tory majority in its Parliament with a Tory First Minister, the UK Parliament has a Labour Prime Minister. How do you think the English FM would be able to overrule the UK PM by realpolitik?
Not to forget that while that style of result has already happened three times post-war, it could happen more often with devolution since people would be able to vote differently across the different Parliaments.
I know you're not stupid, please don't pretend you are.
With the connivance of the Daily Mail and muppets like you, he would be making asides about asylum policy and tax rates whether or not they are in his jurisdiction.
Sturgeon does it already.
An English Parliament would do the same for England
There are only three equitable arrangements for the governance of the UK: the unitary state, broadly symmetrical devolution to the four home nations, or give up and get rid of it. Take your pick.
But you’d be fucking the economy.
One of the reasons for British poor productivity is an inability for metros outside London (and even to some extent London) to organise themselves properly for growth.
EDIT: Sorry - misread. Thought you said you’d abolish metros.
Anyway, I’d keep two tier.
A community of 100k - 200k needs some form of local representation.
For one, good luck selling to the electorate we need another 500 politicians as part of an English Parliament in addition to the 650 MPs in the Commons and the thousands of Lords. You'd have to significantly reduce the size of Westminster.
English elections would become far more important than UK elections in most circumstances as the English Parliament would have more relevance to most issues.
Again, I'm not saying these are bad things, it's just a likely effect.
Practically if we have a Labour PM and a Tory FM then the Labour PM would make UK decisions, not the Tory FM. Realpolitik.
For it to be sustainable a majority of tax would have to be handled by the national assemblies and not by Westminster. Therefore the "senators" could not raise English taxes. I don't know what would fund the federal element though.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/14493313/labour-frontbencher-calls-business-people-the-enemy/
Your second proposal would require a significant downsizing of Westminster and diminishing of the role of PM. You could not justify having 650 MPS and 1000s of Lords to do 1/3 of the work, if that. Could you live with that?
They do not have any other local government higher than them.
The metropolitan districts are administered by metropolitan district councils. They are the principal local authorities in the six metropolitan counties and are responsible for running most local services, such as schools, social services, waste collection and roads.
If you didn't want devolved elections to be important, you shouldn't support devolution. Either you want devolution to exist, or you don't. If you do then we need an English Parliament. If you don't then Hollyrood etc should be abolished. Pick one.
For example, for most of the last year has been the UK government controlling the English NHS. That would be handled by the English PM.
I am talking about London.
You always seem to pretend that the ideas you support have no issues with them. Everything has advantages and disadvantages.
I thought you were suggesting abolishing metros.
What we can't have is Scotland voting for England to pay for it's free tuition like we did under Labour.
If there's a Labour majority in the UK Parliament after UK elections, and a Tory majority in England's Parliament after English elections, then practically speaking how does the English FM or the English Parliament overrule the UK PM and UK Parliament?
Dan Jarvis leads it.
It's @HYUFD who wants an English Parliament with Westminster staying exactly the same.
Impose it, and get it done.
You are being deliberately obtuse because that’s your preferred method of masturbation.
Legally speaking - de jure - the UKPM would overrule the EFM.
Practically speaking - de facto - the EFM would overrule the EFM.
Now stop wasting my time.
I won’t explain it again.
The problem lies entirely with the formula. It was only intended as a stepping stone to something better and should've been replaced with a rational calculation decades ago.
The only reason we're stuck with the present ramshackle arrangement is because any replacement that wasn't substantially more generous to the three devolved nations than the current one would cause them to howl with rage, and the loud public arguments would cause the English taxpayer to question why they were bothering to part with the money as a consequence.
It's a little bit like Lords reform - complicated, arcane, nobody can agree on an appropriate replacement, creates a lot of ill feeling, distraction from other priorities. Easier to sweep the whole issue under the carpet and try to forget about it. The fat subsidies continue, based on a crude, arbitrary formula with origins stretching back into the 19th century, and no consensus can be reached on whether they're too generous, too stingy or about right. In that way, it's quite an appropriate harbinger for devolution itself: an ill thought out, lop-sided, inequitable mess.
Given even the US House of Representatives has only 435 members and the US Senate has only 100 for a country with a population 5 times ours, Canada has only 338 MPs, Australia has only 151 members of the House of Representatives and Germany has only 69 in the Bundesrat, I would have no problem cutting the size of the House of Commons and Lords
I'm just puzzled by those who want devolution and want the UK to survive as a federal state but are aghast at the consequences of devolution or the notion of federation.
Under my proposal, England stays as one (or two) and for the purposes of these votes, it votes as a nation amongst its peers, like Denmark having an EU veto the same as Germany. They are only voting on the initiatives of the UK Government (not originating their own initiatives), so England doesn't get pushed into anything against its will.
And since people seem to be passionate about these things, I’d try to go for portmanteau names to avoid controversy.
For example, “Birmingham & the Black Country”.
You are showing a shocking ignorance about how federal politics works. Have you ever bothered to learn about federal countries, let alone lived in one? Different levels of Parliament have different responsibilities and different powers, settled by different elections. It is far from unprecedented for a state to be held by one party and the federal government by another.
If the English state Parliament is Tory and the UK federal one is Labour then nobody is "overruling" anyone.
The buggers are attempting to effectively steal swathes of Derbyshire. Again.
Just think how much more agreeable all our lives would be if the but where TSE lives were still Derbyshire.
Analysis of commuting patterns show that Warwickshire county is pretty much Coventry’s catchment area. It doesn’t really have much to do with Birmingham next door.