Scottish Independence

[Jacob]

I rolled my eyes because you knew I wasn't saying my statement was enough proof that a lopsided federation would work.

Of course, it is only lopsided if English MPs were to consistently band together against all other MPs. Does that typically happen now?

Certainly those of our English posters who have opined on the subject seem unanimous in saying that a lopsided federation is not going to work.

RH's excellent analysis of potential dangers for Scotland in devolution looked at it in terms of England and Scotland and assumed that the English would tend English interests to the detriment of Scots.

As for what happens now, it's neither here nor there - the point of changing the system is to change the way things happen now.

[garbon]

I rolled my eyes because you knew I wasn't saying my statement was enough proof that a lopsided federation would work.

Of course, it is only lopsided if English MPs were to consistently band together against all other MPs. Does that typically happen now?

Certainly those of our English posters who have opined on the subject seem unanimous in saying that a lopsided federation is not going to work.

RH's excellent analysis of potential dangers for Scotland in devolution looked at it in terms of England and Scotland and assumed that the English would tend English interests to the detriment of Scots.

As for what happens now, it's neither here nor there - the point of changing the system is to change the way things happen now.

So an assumption was made and that can serve now as proof of what would happen?

I would think that current actions would at least speak somewhat to inform how individuals might act in the future.

At any rate, I don't see how Yi's question has been answered.

[Viking]

having not followed the debate, given that it is about identity rather than actual politics... I did have a look at what the debate looked like when the "yes" camp started surging in the polls.. and holy mother of flying spaghetti monster, the Yes people are idiots. Seriously their argument in all cases about what would happen after independence was basically "don't worry it will be fine" simultaneously campaigning on ending tory rule and asserting that the tories would be perfectly reasonable and pro-scottish in dealing with them when they couldn't even theoretically get their votes.

So you're saying it's not about identity rather than actual politics. It's completely about politics.

No I'm saying identity determines sympathy and then you try to rationalize the facts to suit your sympathy. Knowing lots of scots I know where the sympathy lies. Somehow getting 35% of the 80% (my gut feeling about true independence desire in scotland) who want independence to vote no is a monumental victory of reason over rationalization.

[Viking]

Because federalism is crazy when one state is bigger than all the others combined five times over.

Please elaborate.

He's right. Federalism is not generally considered suitable where one state is significantly preponderant over others without any balance. The US has 50 states of varying size; the UK would have one state of 50 million with three other states of 5 million or fewer.

The two federal countries I know with single huge constituent states ended with Göring and Yeltsin in charge and the country falling apart.

[Martinus]

I'm with Yi and garbon here - the "lopsided federation does not work" side has not presented any arguments, except for assertion and then Jacob's rather bizarre logic of "UK posters asserted it won't work so it won't work".

The two federal countries I know with single huge constituent states ended with Göring and Yeltsin in charge and the country falling apart.

Apples and oranges. Both of these countries emerged through amalgamation, not devolution. And California is much bigger, population-wise, than Wyoming, yet the US federation works (despite the issues with federal chamber representation, which the UK is unlikely to have).

I don't know if England is culturally uniform with a perception of common interest the same way Scotland and Wales are for example, but if it is, noone has showed any reason why it shouldn't work.

[Sheilbh]

Of course that does assume that the MPs within a power act in a unified manner. That certainly isn't what happens here with the various Reps withing a state.

Isn't that a relatively recent change though?

For a long time I think geography was a better predictor of ideology than party and it certainly seems like, say, Southern Reps did act in a unified way.

This is complicated in the UK by the fact that the Tory party is an English party. In 2010 they won 306 seats. 297 of them were in England.

I think in all federal systems there's tension between the centre and the federal level. I'm not sure it's sustainable if that ever arose in a country where 85% are in one federal state. If for example you had an unpopular Labour government lead by Gordon Brown while David Cameron's just won a stonking majority in the English Parliament. Precisely the sort of arguments and 'democratic deficit' issues that Alex Salmond took effective advantage of are magnified hugely with an English Parliament.

At the same time it's difficult to see, at a central level, how you can give sufficient representation to Scotland and Wales so it's not just a continuation of the present without seriously disenfranchising England which would further increase English resentment.

then you try to rationalize the facts to suit your sympathy.

That's all politics though.

[Martinus]

Sheilbh, how is this materially different, however, from a situation where in your scenario tories win a resounding victory in each or most of the eight English constituents? It seems to me that the issues you are referring to are more a problem with federalism than a particular way the country is split.

I think the concerns you guys have come from the fact that, due to the fact that British democracy is quite unique in its structure, with the executive 100% subordinate to the parliament, you are just not familiar/uncomfortable with the situation of having different parties occupying different parts of the government at the same time (this is something quite common, however, not just in federations but also countries with electable heads of state, such as France).

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, how is this materially different, however, from a situation where in your scenario tories win a resounding victory in each or most of the eight English constituents? It seems to me that the issues you are referring to are more a problem with federalism that a particular division of the country.

I don't agree with creating eight artificial English regions either. I don't think it would work and I don't think there's any demand for it. I think the only solution is a federal UK with England having a Parliament. But I think there are risks.

They are basically problems with federalism but I think they're likely to be magnified if one member is massively more populated than the other two. I don't think anywhere else has ever tried federalism among coherent nations, in which one dominates. I take the point that there may be no theoretical reason why this couldn't work, but the lack of actual examples is a bit worrying.

[Razgovory]

I'm with Yi and garbon here - the "lopsided federation does not work" side has not presented any arguments, except for assertion and then Jacob's rather bizarre logic of "UK posters asserted it won't work so it won't work".

The two federal countries I know with single huge constituent states ended with Göring and Yeltsin in charge and the country falling apart.

Apples and oranges. Both of these countries emerged through amalgamation, not devolution. And California is much bigger, population-wise, than Wyoming, yet the US federation works (despite the issues with federal chamber representation, which the UK is unlikely to have).

I don't know if England is culturally uniform with a perception of common interest the same way Scotland and Wales are for example, but if it is, noone has showed any reason why it shouldn't work.

Well, we did have that civil war thingy.

[Admiral Yi]

I think in all federal systems there's tension between the centre and the federal level. I'm not sure it's sustainable if that ever arose in a country where 85% are in one federal state. If for example you had an unpopular Labour government lead by Gordon Brown while David Cameron's just won a stonking majority in the English Parliament. Precisely the sort of arguments and 'democratic deficit' issues that Alex Salmond took effective advantage of are magnified hugely with an English Parliament.

I think you and others have mentioned three or so recentish elections in which the Scottish vote "made a difference?"  Presumably English voters could have taken exception to the "democratic deficit" at those times, since they ended up getting governments that they, the English did not vote for.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

The big potential problem I could see is one I think you alluded to: if the division of powers is not clear cut then the federal government could curb regional power whenever an opposition party is in control of it.

[Sheilbh]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

No. 1964 and 74 are a world away and it didn't quite happen in 2010.

The difference made in 2010 was that we had a hung parliament rather than a majority, so the party England voted for is the party of government with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, they just have to share power with the Lib Dems. I think if Labour had pulled off their rainbow coalition after 2010 there would've been outrage in England.

I'd also say that English nationalism is emerging - which as I say I think is a positive thing in general. I think it particularly increased during Gordon Brown's premiership and there was a lot of anti-Scottish stuff about him, which is probably party why the Scots still like him more.

The big potential problem I could see is one I think you alluded to: if the division of powers is not clear cut then the federal government could curb regional power whenever an opposition party is in control of it.

Or more likely vice versa the regional governments have a democratic mandate and I think would stretch the limits of a federal system.

Look at this experience. In 2011 Cameron passed a bill giving further powers to Scotland. This was he said an outer limit of devolution. Salmond won a majority in the Scottish Parliament (a system designed to avoid majorities) with an intention to get a three question referendum (independence, status quo or home rule). Cameron tried to outfox him by forcing him into picking a date and narrowing down that question to independence or status quo. Salmond running against an unpopular government that only won 35% of the vote in Scotland in 2010 makes the referendum a clear run thing and ends up bouncing Cameron (and Labour and the Lib Dems) into supporting more or less full home rule which is what he wanted all along.

Now imagine, say, Gordon Brown facing, say, Nigel Farage.

I think it's very tough for the centre to hold when you've got such an overmighty subject as an English Parliament.

Having said all that, it's the best possible option to solve the constitutional problems.

[Admiral Yi]

Because you don't have a clear cut, constitutionally protected division of powers that require a super majority to alter.  Scottish local authority is whatever the UK parliament feels like giving them this morning.

[Warspite]

I'll post some material on why lopsided federations are problematic later; I've worked on this issue in comparative politics courses but more recently working on peace processes and post-war constitutions.

[The Brain]

Standby for dozens of links to obscure Croat Power websites.

[Martinus]

Standby for dozens of links to obscure Croat Power websites.