Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Dave Coull
|
Why a Federal UK is impossibleHolebender told Aventinian | Quote: | | If you're willing to expand and defend your ideas about federalism, start a thread and we'll discuss it. I know you cannot construct a workable federal UK and I'll be happy to tell you why. |
As it happens, I am at present, on another forum, explaining to one Australian, and a couple of citizens of the USA, some of the reasons why a federal UK can't work. So, having already written something about that, I might as well use it to kick off a discussion about the same topic here.
Doug wrote | Quote: | | The point of federalism is that it can accomodate disparate groups of varying size |
Up to a point, Doug, up to a point. In the cases of both the USA and Australia, the degree of comparative disparity involved is very small, compared with the degree of disparity that would be involved in the case of the UK. No state of Australia has 84 percent of Australia's entire population. No state of the USA has 84 percent of the USA's entire population. | Quote: | | If the respective spheres of power are clearly delimited and respected then the question of "subservience" is reduced in relevance. |
The reason a federal system can "work" in the USA is because Texas does not have 84 percent of the entire population of the USA. If it did, the USA couldn't be made to "work" for ten minutes. The same principle applies with Australia.
It could be argued that the way to get round that one is to break up the "state" that is dis-proportionately big. But, as already pointed out, "Tony Blair's government did have a try at this. In order to seek to diminish the importance of Scottish nationalism, by making Scotland seem equivalent to a region of England, they came up with a plan for 'regional assemblies' in England. The first of these was supposed to be for 'North East England' - the part that was considered to have the strongest regional identity. The plan was put to a referendum in the N.E., and massively rejected."
Breaking England up into smaller units is something that is just not going to happen within the context of the UK. Also, like I said, "all moves for regional assemblies in England have vanished, but there is a growing demand for a specifically English Parliament, on the grounds 'the Scots have one, why can't we?'."
The answer to that "why can't we" is because all of the British political parties, all of the parties which want the United Kingdom to continue to exist, know that such a move would be incompatible with the continued existence of a UK. They recognise that a federal system in which one state has 84 percent of the entire population is an impossibility.
These are just some of the reasons (there are others) why a federal UK is impossible.
Coming back to how this discussion started, Dan asked about Brown V. Cameron, which is boring, but one of the consequences of a likely Cameron victory is more interesting. A Cameron government in London would find itself on collision course, not just with the SNP, but with the Scottish Parliament as such, in which the Tories are a small minority. In UK terms, the Tories in power in London, with no hope of ever achieving power in Edinburgh, is a recipe for the end of the United Kingdom.
|
landg
|
you know how to whip a crowd don't you dave?
|
Dave Coull
|
I wrote that I was currently | Quote: | | explaining to one Australian, and a couple of citizens of the USA, some of the reasons why a federal UK can't work |
and "landg" comments | Quote: | | you know how to whip a crowd don't you dave? |
I'm not "whipping" them. A couple of them are old friends of mine who I've known for many years. Like I said, I was just "explaining" something they didn't understand. But that's beside the point. Here, on THIS forum, I have given reasons "Why a federal UK is impossible". I see you have no answer to that.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | I wrote that I was currently | Quote: | | explaining to one Australian, and a couple of citizens of the USA, some of the reasons why a federal UK can't work |
and "landg" comments | Quote: | | you know how to whip a crowd don't you dave? |
I'm not "whipping" them. A couple of them are old friends of mine who I've known for many years. Like I said, I was just "explaining" something they didn't understand. But that's beside the point. Here, on THIS forum, I have given reasons "Why a federal UK is impossible". I see you have no answer to that. |
no dave, your post is the online equivalent of chloral hydrate..........
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | chloral hydrate |
Well, you do know more about drugs than me.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | landg wrote: | | chloral hydrate |
Well, you do know more about drugs than me. |
yes i do wave, and much more beside;s.
|
Aventinian
|
Re: Why a Federal UK is impossible | Dave Coull wrote: | Holebender told Aventinian | Quote: | | If you're willing to expand and defend your ideas about federalism, start a thread and we'll discuss it. I know you cannot construct a workable federal UK and I'll be happy to tell you why. |
As it happens, I am at present, on another forum, explaining to one Australian, and a couple of citizens of the USA, some of the reasons why a federal UK can't work. So, having already written something about that, I might as well use it to kick off a discussion about the same topic here. |
I am not a UK federalist in the Lib Dem fashion. If we were to be a federal state, I certainly would not seek the federative units to be places like Scotland or England.
| Quote: | | The reason a federal system can "work" in the USA is because Texas does not have 84 percent of the entire population of the USA. If it did, the USA couldn't be made to "work" for ten minutes. |
Why?
| Quote: | | It could be argued that the way to get round that one is to break up the "state" that is dis-proportionately big. But, as already pointed out, "Tony Blair's government did have a try at this. In order to seek to diminish the importance of Scottish nationalism, by making Scotland seem equivalent to a region of England, they came up with a plan for 'regional assemblies' in England. The first of these was supposed to be for 'North East England' - the part that was considered to have the strongest regional identity. The plan was put to a referendum in the N.E., and massively rejected." |
Had regionalisation really been committed to, it could have worked. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
| Quote: | | Breaking England up into smaller units is something that is just not going to happen within the context of the UK. |
Too late: counties, London region, metropolitan boroughs etc. England is far more amenable to local government than Scotland these days.
| Quote: | | Also, like I said, "all moves for regional assemblies in England have vanished |
"All" in this case meaning "one".
| Quote: | | They recognise that a federal system in which one state has 84 percent of the entire population is an impossibility. |
You keep saying it, but never addressing the 'why?'
|
Holebender
|
Do you really need to be told why? Where are the checks and balances when a single part of the whole can have its way unopposed by sheer weight of numbers? You do understand the concept of majority rule, I hope.
|
Ultra
|
| landg wrote: | | you know how to whip a crowd don't you dave? |
I have been down in England for 3 weeks and have yet to hear anyone mention anything about Scotland becoming independent nor anyone wanting anything other than a Westminister Parliament.
The English just do not care. Just like the vast majority of Scots.
|
Aventinian
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Do you really need to be told why? Where are the checks and balances when a single part of the whole can have its way unopposed by sheer weight of numbers? You do understand the concept of majority rule, I hope. |
It cannot 'have its way' - the federal government has certain powers, the (shall we call it) provincial governments have certain powers.
Of course, there's a united legislature, but that's the same non-issue as some nationalists claim we have now: that we are somehow 'dominated' by the English via the UK Parliament. Complete rot of course.
Anyway, of course I understand the concept of majority rule - but I don't agree with it. Democracy, within context, is a good thing, but 'ruling'? No. That is why I generally believe in a strong constitution or other safeguards against the tyranny of the majority.
|
Holebender
|
And when the federal government (dominated by the single large federation member) forces policies on the whole which are opposed by all but the single dominant member, what happens? How long before the smaller members of the federation cry enough and the whole thing breaks down?
|
|
|
|