English Federalism?

[Minchandre]

Yes, I meant English, not British.

In 1998-9, parliaments were established in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and over time increasing amounts of local power and authority have devolved to those national governments.

England, however, remains parliament-less, and attempts to establish any sort of devolved English government run into the problem that England is a strong majority of the UK in terms of population, and even moreso in terms of money. This means that any decisions made for England would have a very strong effect on the rest of the UK.

The solution would presumably be to cut England up into little chunks. Scotland's population is about 5.5 million, Wales a bit over 3 million and NI a bit under 2 million; England is 56 million. So we'd probably want to cut England up into 10+ chunks to have them be on a similar order of size.

Something like this has been happening in recent years with the establishment of Combined Authorities, but those are very recent and far from covering the whole country.

What would it take to get a more federal England? PoDs before 1900 are also fine.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Maybe starting with getting some variant Redcliffe-Maud being implemented in full?

Redcliffe-Maud Report - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Part of the problem is defining what goes where. Cornwall - easy. Yorkshire, not too hard. Greater London - easy if bounded by the M25. South West England, Midlands, North East start getting tricky and you run into long-standing rivalries and resentments. The 1974 county reforms were very unpopular for similar reasons.
Then you have another tier of government, which costs a lot of money, so either something has to be removed or a clear advantage gained - but what?
These all make it tricky or difficult rather than impossible, but do need to be thought through.

 

[ramones1986]

In relation to @Minchandre 's thread, I thought of this suggestion of mine:

Inspired by the first two phases of both communitarian and regional parliaments in Belgium, what if the proposed assemblies in most of English regions were composed of sitting Members of Parliament?

In this case, the English regions would be more inclined to be decentralized and devolutional.

 

[Minchandre]

Then you have another tier of government, which costs a lot of money, so either something has to be removed or a clear advantage gained - but what?

What do you gain by devolving government to Scotland or Wales? (Northern Ireland makes sense in the context of Good Friday).

People in different places have different wants and needs. This thread was inspired by a friend of mine from Yorkshire complaining about London, and everything she said is the same thing that Scots say about England. England is far from a homogeneous place, culturally, geographically, or economically. Greater devolvement to local government makes more than a little sense.

Maybe starting with getting some variant Redcliffe-Maud being implemented in full?

Redcliffe-Maud Report - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That looks to be exactly what I was thinking of. It's unclear to me from the Wikipedia article why it didn't go through; do you know why?

 

[CaptainCalvert]

What do you gain by devolving government to Scotland or Wales? (Northern Ireland makes sense in the context of Good Friday).

People in different places have different wants and needs. This thread was inspired by a friend of mine from Yorkshire complaining about London, and everything she said is the same thing that Scots say about England. England is far from a homogeneous place, culturally, geographically, or economically. Greater devolvement to local government makes more than a little sense.


That looks to be exactly what I was thinking of. It's unclear to me from the Wikipedia article why it didn't go through; do you know why?

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are distinct countries, so there's an argument for devolution to give them an element of direct rule. While it's no surprise that someone from Yorkshire doesn't think much of rule from London, Yorkshire is a part of England rather than a separate country so while many people might agree with your friend (me included), it's a harder case to argue because a devolved Yorkshire is still part of England.
That leads into whether England should have its own parliament, but then wouldn't an English parliament be dominated by London. If ypu then creat devolved regions, are these as well as or instead of the English parliament? And are the devolved regions considered equals ofWales, Scotland and Norther Ireland (which probably wouln't go fown well), or are they just one tier of local/county/regional/English government?
The current solution appears to be allowing slightly stronger metropolitan authorities (eg Manchester). Maybe it could grow (be allowed to grow?) into something better under a decentralising reformist government. I haven't seen much sign of those recently, but you can probably find something that could create a plausible POD within the 20th century.

 

[Declan]

The issue with that is: how are you going to cut it?
You have North-South, but that divide only comes when talking about Labour issues or accents. Isn't too important. Counties are another.

But the other issue is whether the English themselves would accept this.
The whole issue is about the main ethnic groups in the UK getting a federal state. English nationalists would argue they are. So deadlock. Unless parliament unilaterally gives England its own state against the concern of the others.

That's not to say, England's role can't be mitigated. The parliament can form city states out of the most important metros in the country: London, Manchester, Liverpool to give some examples. Sort of like Hamburg and Berlin in Germany.

 

[MKD]

Long live the People's Republic of South Yorkshire!

Maybe starting with getting some variant Redcliffe-Maud being implemented in full?

Redcliffe-Maud Report - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think that is the answer - I might argue some of the subdivisions of the "provinces" but I would happily have an elected mayor for each province with powers to focus investment, redevelopment etc on actual local needs not central government whims.

The counter argument is shown by the current controversy around the alleged issues on Teesside!

 

[david31]

I remember the referendum on a North East Assembly which was roundly defeated because there was no common NE identity. North East England is a geographic term, not a cultural, ethnic. social or political entity. The locals are more like a set of warring tribes, Geordies vs Mackem, Smoggies vs both.

The only part of the proposed area that would have voted for a Regional Assembly would have been those communities south of the Tees.

But only if it was a Yorkshire Regional Assembly!

At the time English Nationalists were violently opposed to the idea of regional assemblies quite simply because they saw it as an attempt to Balkanise England. To wipe one of the oldest nations in Europe off the map. As far as they were concerned it was an English Parliament or nothing. Equality with the Jocks, the Taffys and the Paddys.

The fact that anyone who bothered to read the proposals for a regional assembly found that over 80% of its powers would have been taken from local county and borough councils rather than devolved from Westminster didn't help either!

 

[BlueTrousers]

Redcliffe-Maud is almost the right tree, but you probably want to be looking at the contemporary Kilbrandon Commission, which led to the Scotland Act 1978's abortive Scottish Assembly, and also recommended a similar assembly for Wales. There was appetite at the time for major shakeup

The main report opposed a federal United Kingdom, but a memorandum of dissent (authored by |Lord Crowther-Hunt and Professor Peacock) advocated creating five Regional Assemblies for England, in addition to those for Wales and Scotland, and giving these seven Assemblies considerably more power - including much of the machinery of central government, as well as replacing various ad-hoc authorities. Each would have its own civil service an the ability to make policy for their region. The proposed regions of England aligned very closely with those proposed by Derek Senior in his memorandum of dissent to the Redcliffe-Maud report, which is not coincidental: Crowther-Hunt and Peacock directly reference it. If Senior, Crowther-Hunt, and Peacock are more persuasive in their arguments, and a reform-friendly Labour Party is able to win in the 1970 General Election, it's a distinct possibility that federalism becomes British government policy.

For extra credit, Crowther-Hunt and Peacock also proposed reforms to Parliament, including the potential for making the House of Lords into kind of federal Senate along the lines of the USA; offloading much of the machinery of day-to-day government to the regions would allow Parliament to focus on central policy and relations with the European Commission.

This is also the same timeframe as Harold Wilson's attempt to break up the Treasury, long the bane of UK governments. Crowther-Hunt and Peacock proposed putting some Treasury responsibilities into a Prime Minister's Department, much like current campaigners advocate for the Treasury's budgetary function. Combine that with a successful Department of Economic Affairs taking on the Treasury's strategic planning function, as Wilson attempted, and the consequences could be huge.

The period between about 1965 and 1975 has huge potential for changing the direction of the United Kingdom.

 

[BlueTrousers]

As far as the regional identity question goes, Crowther-Hunt and Peacock say this:

326. There is then the question of regional identity and regional feeling. Clearly it would be best if regional boundaries were coterminous with regional or national loyalties. And this must obviously be an important factor in determining the boundaries of wales. Nor would it be unimportant in England since our Attitude Survey has shown a perhaps unexpected dgree of regional feeling in the different parts of the country. But two points need to be stressed in this general context:-
(a) a sense of regional loyalties and identity are not essential to the successful working of this scheme - though they would help;
(b) the example of West Germany suggests that those Länder which after the War were no more than the product of lines arbitrarily drawn on a map by the Allies have over the years developed a sense of identity not disssimilar from that of a Land like Bavaria with its special roots in history and tradition.
Still every effort should be made to match boundaries to loyalties. And this would point to a clearly identifiable Scotland and Wales, together with a larger number of small English regions rather than a small number of larger ones.

 

[Zardust]

There is simply no practical need for it-England is barely the size of Florida and has no history of provincial government. It has always been a unitary state.

 

[Analytical Engine]

There is simply no practical need for it-England is barely the size of Florida and has no history of provincial government. It has always been a unitary state.

Barely the size of Florida and with the combined population of California and Texas.

Both Spain and France have decentralised(ish) regional governments, despite being unitary states. There's no reason why England can't have the same.

However, they'd be more super-councils than actual federal states. Maybe in addition to an English parliament, rather than instead of one.

 

[yulzari1]

England is a nation with its own language and history. To break it into arbitrary regions is not to federalise but simply play Titanic deckchairs with local government. This could only work with doing the same to Scotland and Wales as part of a federalised United Kingdom.

The simplest solution is for England to leave the Union and revert to a sovereign state. Within the European Union if sanity is allowed. After that it can play all the games it wants with local government.

 

[Zardust]

Federalism has no appeal, historical precedent or necessity in the English context, as many have said. The one time the UK government did try to set up a devolved legislature in England, in the North East, there was a referendum where the idea flopped quite decisively-and the North East was considered the most amenable to the idea as well.

The most you would ever get, or need, is what England in many cases has now-regional mayor's with enhanced powers in the sphere of local government and policing (the most coherent form of enhanced local government in England wouldnt have Metro Mayors AND Policing and Crime Commissioners, but would follow the London model and merge the two positions in the person of the Mayor of a given region) but very little influence over what would be Primary legislative areas such as macro economics, foreign affairs, Industrial policy etc

 

[ArtosStark]

Then you have another tier of government, which costs a lot of money, so either something has to be removed or a clear advantage gained - but what?

Governments tend to cost more or less depending on the powers given to them. As a Canadian my perspective is one of an outsider, and Canada is possibly less diverse within its provinces. But I will note that at least in our experience having 3 levels of government hasn’t, in and of itself, seemed to cost us much more. I grew up voting for County Reeve and Council, Provincial MLA and (by extension through largest party) Premier and MP and (by extension) PM.

Granted we are a lot younger of a nation, with perhaps less intrenched local cultures, especially when the provinces were created. We also were federal from the start with various distinct colonies joining together and becoming provinces. But it still seems a little odd to my outsiders perspective that another tier of government to help standardize and streamline the national government would be so strongly resisted.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

England is a nation with its own language and history. To break it into arbitrary regions is not to federalise but simply play Titanic deckchairs with local government. This could only work with doing the same to Scotland and Wales as part of a federalised United Kingdom.

The simplest solution is for England to leave the Union and revert to a sovereign state. Within the European Union if sanity is allowed. After that it can play all the games it wants with local government.

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would probably vote Yes to England leaving!

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

There is simply no practical need for it-England is barely the size of Florida and has no history of provincial government. It has always been a unitary state.

That's not quite true . For centuries large parts of the North of England were a virtual semi independent Kingdom within the Kingdom of England. This only began to change with the Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland, and the last remnants of their civil power ended in 1836.

The Prince Bishops of Durham

Who were the Prince Bishops of Durham? How did there come to be “two kings in England”? Includes a list of all the prelates who held the post.

englandsnortheast.co.uk

The powers of the Prince Bishops. (Not much different to a King's)

Bishops of Durham were thus given powers enabling them to:

• hold their own parliament
• raise their own armies
• appoint their own sheriffs and Justices
• administer their own laws
• levy taxes and customs duties
• create fairs and markets
• issue charters
• salvage shipwrecks
• collect revenue from mines
• administer the forests
• and mint their own coins

 

[Crazyduck156]

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would probably vote Yes to England leaving!

And England would vote yes to boot them out!

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Soon thereafter NI, Scotland and Wales would be begging England to rejoin and start paying their bills again.

(I know of quite a few that would vote to kick London out of the England and the Union)