Will Kürlich Kerl
Banned
Challenge: With a POD after the end of World War 2, have it so that the UK is a federal state.
AHC: Federal United Kingdom
- Thread starter Will Kürlich Kerl
- Start date
It's tricky - England is the 800lb gorilla of the United Kingdom. For an equivalent, imagine Texas has a population of 250 million out of the 300 or so million population of the US, but still only gets two senators - and then imagine what the people of Texas would think of it.
Possibly the best option was brought up on here a few days ago - Malta only missed out on voting for integration with the UK in 1956 by around 1,500 too few voters turning out to make the result valid. That would result in the West Lothian question emerging as say the Valetta question rather earlier, and might lead to something actually being done about it. The Maltese would effectively have got Home Rule, and while they're pretty small you'd expect to see pressure from the British Isles MPs to do something about it over time.
Possibly the best option was brought up on here a few days ago - Malta only missed out on voting for integration with the UK in 1956 by around 1,500 too few voters turning out to make the result valid. That would result in the West Lothian question emerging as say the Valetta question rather earlier, and might lead to something actually being done about it. The Maltese would effectively have got Home Rule, and while they're pretty small you'd expect to see pressure from the British Isles MPs to do something about it over time.
Yeah but to be fair you already had the equivalent OTL with Northern Ireland's Storemont Parliament. The West Lothian question ended up not being an issue because NI was small and fairly peripheral. Malta would be even moreso.
I know you asked for a postWW2 POD but TBH I think the best might have been pre-WWI. Perhaps no WWI leads to both Irish Home Rule and Scottish Home Rule passing (A Scottish Home Rule bill was in fact on the agenda and passed the Commons on its first reading in 1914), and perhaps this leads to a further Welsh home rule bill and several regional councils in England.
Practiucally speaking, many English people would want England to remain as a single unit in such a federal system. However, the only way that the other nations wouldbe happy wouldbe if England were divided into a half-dozen or more regions (eg the regions used as the basis of EU elections). Either way, someone would be unhappy.
It might work if things were federalised at the county or (*super-county) level.
It might work if things were federalised at the county or (*super-county) level.
Have WW2 make nationalism even more toxic than it did and have a stronger movement towards European federalism. An independent UK could not work as a federal state because England is 8 times the size of the other home countries combined. But a federated UK within a United States of Europe is feasible.
This is actually highly and dependent in what region of England you ask the question. Areas like Yorkshire and Cornwall probably would like their own sub-national government. Other definitely do not, especially in the home counties near London, and due to rivalry between the northern cities each one fearing domination from outside.
As far as Scotland and Wales are concerned they largely do not care if England were to get its own parliament and sub-national powers as long as they get their own. England is already hugely dominant in the current centralized state and so they are inured to that state of affairs.
And those who advocate increased devolved power and federalism generally do not call for the break up of England into smaller units because it would otherwise be 'unfair', rather because they believe in creating a new layer of local government that is both powerful and responsive to it's population's needs. One that will champion local causes with success rather than relying on the City of London to function as 'the engine of the British economy'.
Last edited:
Does that really matter?
Though it does relate to a point I find important when discussing this issue. I have seen numerous opinion peices claiming that subdividing England into devolved authroties would be destroying it. This is frankly rubbish, England is not a plurinational entity, the inhabitants of Yorkshire, Greater Lancashire, Mercia, Wessex, and etc. under regional devolution would still be English.
There is far too high an amount of geographic mobility across England and even the wider UK for regional identities to morph into some kind of dystopic separatist crisis.
Maybe, but it'll also figure in the whole Scottish Devolution thing - Northern Ireland always gets ignored because it's a "special" place that the rest of the UK doesn't like to be compared to. Malta here is being given exactly what the Kilbrandon Commission would recommend in 1973, and which failed to be implemented. That's why I think it's significant. I'm really not convinced that Stormont has the same effect.
Does it matter what the populations are of each state im pretty sure that all the Us states arnt the same level of population
Just have
The Federal Capitol Of Greater London
The State Of South England
The State Of North England
The State Of Wales
The State Of Scotland
The State Of Northern Ireland
Each State would have its own First Minister and Parliament
Just have
The Federal Capitol Of Greater London
The State Of South England
The State Of North England
The State Of Wales
The State Of Scotland
The State Of Northern Ireland
Each State would have its own First Minister and Parliament
Im not sure why you'd want a single building to be one of the subdivisions. Besides, it's going to be called Parliament building(s), not a capitol.
They surely aren't going to be called states. Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of England, Principalty of Wales, ??? of Northern Ireland, maybe Duchy of Malta. Heck, they could use this as an excuse to regularize status of Man and the Channel Iislands.
No, but if Texas had 80% of the population of the US but only 4% of the Senators I think they'd be pretty pissed off...
Ja. But, most federal systems don't have each province/state having the same number of seats as the others. The US might be unique?
Certainly, you'd still need to break up England to have any semblance of it being more than 'England' plus peripheries.
Most federal systems have one house that has equal representation, in fact, precisely to deal with the inverse problem: of one or a few provinces/states having the majority of the population and hence the majority of the power in a purely population-dominated house.
As there are many fewer subdivisions within the United Kingdom than the United States, it's a facile but incorrect comparison to analogize between the two too much. England has 84% of the British population, but would have 25-33% of its 'senators' (or whatever you like to call a non-population-denominated house, presumably replacing the Lords), given Scotland, Wales, and possibly Northern Ireland comprising the other members of the federal union (and other territories being territories, rather than full-fledged federal units). In terms of the ratio of the fraction of population and 'senators,' this is actually better than California (which has roughly 12% of the American population, but only 2% of the senators), so this is clearly not unworkably unfair (and in any case that can be remedied by setting supermajority limits such that some English support is required for any laws, etc.)
I'm not sure why anyone would assume that England would have only 4% of the senators in a federal scenario, which would be assuming 25 different federal subunits...
I did a quick check on a couple of other Federal systems, and I haven't found an asymmetric upper house other than Canada's. So, I was wrong. Thank you for the correction.
I'd say that rather than creating more than one English "state" one could leave it integral but have devolved areas of it represent England in the Senate forming a 2-tiered federal system. I'd say that it'd be fair to have English representatives form half of the Senate.
In Australia the Northern Territory is so sparsely populated that when they were offered statehood, they were offered only 3 senators instead of the 12 that all the other states got. The Territorians voted against it probably because all other states (who all got 12) ranged populations from 500k to 7M and they were somehow going to draw the line of population with them at 200k. But I digress...
You do know that Devilking1994 meant "capital", right?
Be that as it may, Canada serves as a good counter-example why a a federation doesn't need to have an upper chamber with equal representation to its federal units. It's just the model the USA adopted that inspired most other federations ever since.
In Australia the Northern Territory is so sparsely populated that when they were offered statehood, they were offered only 3 senators instead of the 12 that all the other states got. The Territorians voted against it probably because all other states (who all got 12) ranged populations from 500k to 7M and they were somehow going to draw the line of population with them at 200k. But I digress...
The states of India are represented in the Rajya Sabha in proportion to their population, which may have come about because the difference between the smallest and largest Indian state dwarfs the difference between Wales or NI and England. (EDIT: On checking, it isn't strictly proportional: Uttar Pradesh has 31 times as many Rajya Sabha representatives as Sikkim, but more than 300 times the population. But if India can accommodate a 300:1 difference between its largest and smallest states, the UK should be able to deal with the 30:1 difference between England and Northern Ireland.)
The German Bundesrat is another example. Currently, states have either four, five or six votes depending on population. During the Second Reich, representation ranged from 1 to 17 seats, with Prussia getting 17 of 61 votes despite having a majority of the population. If a federal UK goes according to a similar plan, England could have one or two votes short of a majority.
Another alternative would be something similar to Mexico, where each state gets three senators but there are also 32 senators elected at large via proportional representation.
Or a federal UK might not need a "house of states" at all - if the competences of the regional and federal governments are clearly set forth, it might be possible to just keep the existing parliament to legislate on matters of national competence while the regional parliaments have exclusive control of other matters. Given that the matters within the purview of the national government would probably include things like defense where England would shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden, it might not be unfair to have an England-dominated parliament decide these issues.
Last edited:
Other federal upper houses that are unequal: Austria, Belgium.
The Comoros, Micronesia and Venezuela have unicameral legislatures despite having a federal structure.
The Comoros, Micronesia and Venezuela have unicameral legislatures despite having a federal structure.
India, Ethiopia... the list goes on, methinks.
Lots follow the American solution instead, which may I say is an elegant one... at least for the American case.