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.
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.
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.
although it might be worth bearing in mind that somewhere around half of Cornwall's current inhabitants were actually born elsewhere in the UK...Areas like Yorkshire and Cornwall probably would like their own sub-national government
although it might be worth bearing in mind that somewhere around half of Cornwall's current inhabitants were actually born elsewhere in the UK...
In terms of local loyalty, and therefore wanting a separate assembly? Quite possibly, yes.Does that really matter?
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.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.
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.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
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...Does it matter what the populations are of each state im pretty sure that all the Us states arnt the same level of population
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.
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...
You do know that Devilking1994 meant "capital", right?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.
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.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 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.
India, Ethiopia... the list goes on, methinks.Other federal upper houses that are unequal: Austria, Belgium.