Federal UK?

[The Jasminia Islands]

Declaring independence =/= armed rebellion Kef.

They only don't equal if one side just outright gives up at the very beginning. But I don't think its a very British approach to surrender without firing a shot... after all, the independance people are basically (no matter how they sugarcoat it), seeking to take away a huge chunk of territory away from the ownership of the United Kingdom. It is taking away land that rightfully belongs to the UK Crown... I don't see the UK allowing half of their country to be torn away (along with population, resources, economic output, land etc) without a fight.

Also, if the Scots can do it... then why not the Cornish? The Welsh? The Northern Irish? Maybe Sussex doesn't like London?

You see where this is going? UK has to put on the brakes now.

Well I think that federalism would help solve this somewhat. There are always going to be Scottish nationalists and they will never be satisfied, but they are a minority. The majority of Scots would rather have more power within the UK than actually leaving.

[Marcurix]

It seems odd to me to separate Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland on identity and then split the English regions. Perhaps awarding greater autonomy to the third level of local government in the English province (or whatever it is the Federation would be divided into) would make more sense while keeping the two equal levels of government down to the traditional four.

[The Jasminia Islands]

It seems odd to me to separate Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland on identity and then split the English regions. Perhaps awarding greater autonomy to the third level of local government in the English province (or whatever it is the Federation would be divided into) would make more sense while keeping the two equal levels of government down to the traditional four.

Well the fear is that England would be so powerful, it would create tension between them and the other nations. Furthermore, because of its size, and English citizen would not get as much representation at their parliament. Thirdly, there are regional identities. London can feel a long way away when you live in Cornwall or Cumbria.

[Britannic Realms]

Devolved governments legislate on local issues, so why have independence if you have that?

I suspect that many people care more about the security of their job and ability to feed their family.

Perhaps they feel that their own interests are being blocked at a federal level, or perhaps that they are made to be lesser than the interests. I cannot say I know the minds of every person, but if the majority feel that it is in their best interests to separate, then who are we to deny them?

Ultimately, I would prefer that Scotland remain with the United Kingdom, but they are a nation unto themselves and if the Scottish people should choose to leave, then they are by no means wrong for doing so.

I'm not opposed to the principle of self-determination; I just do not think it should be as 'easy' as having a single referendum. There should be a series of referenda on all aspects of self-rule, like a pick and mix of powers for a devolved government. Then this newly-empowered parliament should be put to the vote and only if that fails should they get independence.

To address some of the other arguments in this thread, I don't think you can compare a federal UK to the United States. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, England (and even places like Cornwall, to an extent) are countries with their own identities and cultures, and this would affect a federal UK. The states in the US are different because they don't have such different cultures and strong regional identities.

[Britannic Realms]

It seems odd to me to separate Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland on identity and then split the English regions. Perhaps awarding greater autonomy to the third level of local government in the English province (or whatever it is the Federation would be divided into) would make more sense while keeping the two equal levels of government down to the traditional four.

Well the fear is that England would be so powerful, it would create tension between them and the other nations. Furthermore, because of its size, and English citizen would not get as much representation at their parliament. Thirdly, there are regional identities. London can feel a long way away when you live in Cornwall or Cumbria.

I don't think England has any strong regional identities beyond Cornwall. The north and south of England have many differences, so you could have a division there; but the only thing that differs Wessex from the rest of England, for example, is that Wessex is more agricultural. There is no meaningful regional identity.

[Antirome]

I'm not opposed to the principle of self-determination; I just do not think it should be as 'easy' as having a single referendum. There should be a series of referenda on all aspects of self-rule, like a pick and mix of powers for a devolved government. Then this newly-empowered parliament should be put to the vote and only if that fails should they get independence.

To address some of the other arguments in this thread, I don't think you can compare a federal UK to the United States. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, England (and even places like Cornwall, to an extent) are countries with their own identities and cultures, and this would affect a federal UK. The states in the US are different because they don't have such different cultures and strong regional identities.

To the first, I can say that is a fairly reasonable approach, and while some may disagree, I can accept it. But on the topic of American cultures, while cultures may not be as different as the differences forged in the United Kingdom through many centuries, the American people are not as similar as one might think looking from the outside. There are actually very many different peoples and cultures within the United States, even if they aren't readily apparent, that are as big as any differences one might find across nations.

A man from the backwoods of Appalachia has an incredibly different culture from someone from Los Angeles, and there is indeed an intense sense of regionalism in both instances, it's just that this people have for almost as long as they have existed as a culture, been a part of one united federation.

[The UK in Exile]

Well the fear is that England would be so powerful, it would create tension between them and the other nations. Furthermore, because of its size, and English citizen would not get as much representation at their parliament. Thirdly, there are regional identities. London can feel a long way away when you live in Cornwall or Cumbria.

I don't think England has any strong regional identities beyond Cornwall. The north and south of England have many differences, so you could have a division there; but the only thing that differs Wessex from the rest of England, for example, is that Wessex is more agricultural. There is no meaningful regional identity.

There are plenty of strong county identities.

[Caltarania]

I am a big fan of a federal UK.

Just make sure that Yorkshire is a state :3

[Great Kleomentia]

Celtic Empire all the way. Push the Anglo-Saxons back into Germany!
On a serious note, the UK is basically a Federal state as it is, so what would be the major change?

[Britannic Realms]

I don't think England has any strong regional identities beyond Cornwall. The north and south of England have many differences, so you could have a division there; but the only thing that differs Wessex from the rest of England, for example, is that Wessex is more agricultural. There is no meaningful regional identity.

There are plenty of strong county identities.

Not really. Like I said, Cornwall (and maybe Yorkshire) are the only counties which have strong identities.

[The Nihilistic view]

And thereby massively encouraging independence movements until the entire country us broken up?

you just need to criminalize independance.

The majority of the people aren't lawbreakers. They won't break the law and decalre independance. Right now, they might support it because the UK is de facto saying ''we might recognize independance.'' If you make it illegal, the force of the law will be in operation.

Independance movements can be deterred by a strong state. The UK parliament just needs to pass a bill, get down to business, and be prepared to enforce its decrees with the police/military whenever necessary.

Giving the independance movements more carrots just baits them into wanting more. Its not a good strategy.You can't throw them a few tidbits and then hope they stop trying to split the country up. You have to be firm and decisive.

If the UK breaks apart, the British Isles will be a mess...

We don't want Northern Ireland troubles in Scotland thank you very much. Your course of action is exactly how to make the UK fall apart in a mist of blood, acrimony and hate.

[Alf Landon]

Celtic Empire all the way. Push the Anglo-Saxons back into Germany!
On a serious note, the UK is basically a Federal state as it is, so what would be the major change?

The constitutional problem at present is, whilst Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have self-government, England doesn't, and that's a problem when English matters are instead left to the UK Parliament, where MPs from across the UK can vote on them. It's called the West Lothian question.

Although we've done well at ignoring these problems, that can't go on forever - something's got to change. It might be something like only letting English MPs vote, to giving England self-government, or to the individual regions.

[The UK in Exile]

There are plenty of strong county identities.

Not really. Like I said, Cornwall (and maybe Yorkshire) are the only counties which have strong identities.

yeah, you were wrong though.

[Britannic Realms]

Not really. Like I said, Cornwall (and maybe Yorkshire) are the only counties which have strong identities.

yeah, you were wrong though.

Would you like to provide some examples, then?

[Wilkshire]

I am in favour of full independence for England, Scotland and Wales. Not sure about what that would mean for Northern Ireland though, whether they would then become part of a united Ireland or not.

[Alf Landon]

I'm not opposed to the principle of self-determination; I just do not think it should be as 'easy' as having a single referendum. There should be a series of referenda on all aspects of self-rule, like a pick and mix of powers for a devolved government. Then this newly-empowered parliament should be put to the vote and only if that fails should they get independence.

To address some of the other arguments in this thread, I don't think you can compare a federal UK to the United States. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, England (and even places like Cornwall, to an extent) are countries with their own identities and cultures, and this would affect a federal UK. The states in the US are different because they don't have such different cultures and strong regional identities.

To the first, I can say that is a fairly reasonable approach, and while some may disagree, I can accept it. But on the topic of American cultures, while cultures may not be as different as the differences forged in the United Kingdom through many centuries, the American people are not as similar as one might think looking from the outside. There are actually very many different peoples and cultures within the United States, even if they aren't readily apparent, that are as big as any differences one might find across nations.

A man from the backwoods of Appalachia has an incredibly different culture from someone from Los Angeles, and there is indeed an intense sense of regionalism in both instances, it's just that this people have for almost as long as they have existed as a culture, been a part of one united federation.

Actually, I'd go further and say the cultural differences in the United States are more dramatic than those in the United Kingdom. However different the sensibilities of the Home Counties may be to the Highlands, it's quite dramatic when you put up Oklahoma against California, Vermont against Texas, the rural South against San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, e.t.c.

[Britannic Realms]

I am in favour of full independence for England, Scotland and Wales.

Why?

[Alf Landon]

I am in favour of full independence for England, Scotland and Wales. Not sure about what that would mean for Northern Ireland though, whether they would then become part of a united Ireland or not.

Unless you want a civil war in Northern Ireland, they'd basically have to settle for going it alone.

[Vozt Yurkova]

yeah, you were wrong though.

Would you like to provide some examples, then?

Tyne and Wear, Essex, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, the west Midlands... Essentially anywhere outside of London has a different cultural identity to London.

Even within the West Midlands there's arguably a cultural division between Birmingham, the Black Country and Coventry - but they relate more to each other than to London.

[The UK in Exile]

yeah, you were wrong though.

Would you like to provide some examples, then?

Somerset, Devon, the south-east tends to blob up but has its own defined identity as "THE South" as opposed to "the West Country", London, Norfolk and for that matter Essex both have clear identities though Essex's is hardly flattering. Lancashire defines itself via its ancestral feud with Yorkshire and of course, the Far north looks down on everyone who comes from further south.

Thats before you bring in brummies, mancuniean's, scousers, cockney's, geordies and the delightful citizens of pompey. Who all have strong senses of identity.

[Alf Landon]

I found a map of how the states could be. You'd leave Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as they are and just divide England so. I think it's based on the ancient kingdoms, and I do think that if there are regional identities, they're probably roughly in line with these areas. Also, it removes the problem of having one powerful state dominating the others as these regions' populations are much closer than England's and Scotland's.

(Image)

Now this is more like it! Where did you get that map from?

It would certainly beat names like South-West England, and at least they wouldn't be fully artificial creations.

[Britannic Realms]

Would you like to provide some examples, then?

Tyne and Wear, Essex, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, the west Midlands... Essentially anywhere outside of London has a different cultural identity to London.

Even within the West Midlands there's arguably a cultural division between Birmingham, the Black Country and Coventry - but they relate more to each other than to London.

Would you like to provide some examples, then?

Somerset, Devon, the south-east tends to blob up but has its own defined identity as "THE South" as opposed to "the West Country", London, Norfolk and for that matter Essex both have clear identities though Essex's is hardly flattering. Lancashire defines itself via its ancestral feud with Yorkshire and of course, the Far north looks down on everyone who comes from further south.

Thats before you bring in brummies, mancuniean's, scousers, cockney's, geordies and the delightful citizens of pompey. Who all have strong senses of identity.

Fair enough.

[The UK in Exile]

I found a map of how the states could be. You'd leave Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as they are and just divide England so. I think it's based on the ancient kingdoms, and I do think that if there are regional identities, they're probably roughly in line with these areas. Also, it removes the problem of having one powerful state dominating the others as these regions' populations are much closer than England's and Scotland's.

(Image)

Now this is more like it! Where did you get that map from?

It would certainly beat names like South-West England, and at least they wouldn't be fully artificial creations.

Just antiquated ones.

[Alf Landon]

Now this is more like it! Where did you get that map from?

It would certainly beat names like South-West England, and at least they wouldn't be fully artificial creations.

Just antiquated ones.

Yeah well, in the absence of an alternative...

[Angleter]

I found a map of how the states could be. You'd leave Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as they are and just divide England so. I think it's based on the ancient kingdoms, and I do think that if there are regional identities, they're probably roughly in line with these areas. Also, it removes the problem of having one powerful state dominating the others as these regions' populations are much closer than England's and Scotland's.

(Image)

Oooooooooh, I did that map!

Since then, I've come to realise that there's the following problems:

- Yorkshire people have a far stronger Yorkshire identity than 'Northumbrian'. And I doubt attachment to medieval Northumbria exists outside rural Northumberland and the various places in County Durham that have something to do with St. Bede.

- Few to no people in the North West will have heard of the term 'Rheged', let alone identify with it. In fact, I doubt there's much of a common identity at all in the region.

- Like the North West, there's no real common term for what I called 'Cantia', and no real common identity.

- Mercia, Wessex, and (East) Anglia all play reasonably well in their core areas, but I doubt people in Berkshire give a stuff about Wessex, people in Nottinghamshire care for Mercia, or people in Buckinghamshire identify as Anglian (not least since it's nowhere near the borders of the original East Anglia).

So essentially, the problem with regional identities is that they're patchy, no matter what name you give the regions or where you draw the borders. With apologies to Massimo d'Azeglio, we can make 'Cantia', but we'd then have to make Cantians. And I don't think anyone, let alone anyone trying to get re-elected, would be remotely interested in trying to impose that on people.