Scottish Independence

[Martinus]

I just consistently fail to see how the problems of England being the largest state of the federation that would emerge from the United Kingdom would be greater or different than the situation the UK is in now, with England just not having a "home rule" but all the other nations do. Could someone care to explain this to me?

It's not like the component nations of the UK are independent now and joining into a federation would lead to England having a disproportionate say in affairs of the federated states - it already does. So what is the issue?

[Gups]

At the moment we have a UK Parliament in whcih English, Scottis, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs sit. Some of the issues they deal with are UK wide matters. But many affect only the English.  There's a clear democratic issue with MPs voting on matters that do not affect their constituents. It's been semi-igored up to now but with fresh devolution to Scot, Wal & NI and with teh debate the referendum has thrown up, it plainly can't stand for much longer.

But how do you deal with it. If non-Englsh MPs are excluded from voting on 70% of the House's business, then (a) what's the point of them being there (b) what happens when you have a political party with a majority in the UK as a whole but not in England. How coudl they govern?

If you have  seperate English & UK Parliaments, this must surely imply seperate English and UK Governments. This is a pretty radical reform.

The West Lothain Question does not have a simple answer.

[Warspite]

I just consistently fail to see how the problems of England being the largest state of the federation that would emerge from the United Kingdom would be greater or different than the situation the UK is in now, with England just not having a "home rule" but all the other nations do. Could someone care to explain this to me?

You've answered your own question. The problems of England's size are not solved by federalism.

It's not like the component nations of the UK are independent now and joining into a federation would lead to England having a disproportionate say in affairs of the federated states - it already does. So what is the issue?

The issue is that if the UK is solve this problem, it can't swap one system that perpetuates the problem for another.

[Warspite]

The problem with a lopsided federation in the UK would be (and this is extremely simplified because federation in a basic sense is nothing more than a legal relationship between states, meaning there is a great diversity of types of federation) this.

If voting weights in the federal chamber - where the constituent states sit together - are based purely on population, then the English vote would be unbeatable even if Scotland, Wales and NI, and whatever other statelets were potentially represented, voted as a bloc. This is because as 80% of the population of the UK, the English 80 beat the other 20 every time in a hypothetical 100 seat chamber.

If the voting weights in this chamber are set to a strict number per state (and not population), then Scotland, Wales, and NI can outvote England 6 to 2. Or England and Wales can buddy up and tie things 4 all. This solves the problem above - no state can potentially achieve an unbeatable vote by itself. However, this now means that 5.1 million Scots have exactly the same voice as 50 million English people. A relatively tiny federal unit has extremely disproportional power. This problem is not replicated to the same degree in the US system because of the larger size of the chamber with more participants (California's two senators vs Maine's two senators is more palatable than England's two vs Scotland's two because California does not represent nearly the same % of the population of the US as England does of the UK).

Adjusting the voting weights, as the EU does, is also difficult, again because of the huge disparity in population. Whichever way you alter them, you're engineering a massive underrepresentation of the English because you have to give huge bonuses to the value of a Scottish, Welsh or NI vote to engineer the possibility of an upper-chamber coalition being able to defeat the English vote.

Now I concede this would all be less of a problem if the party-political preferences across the UK were a similar split between the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and so on. But they're not: we have seen a real difference in party support across the different nations, most obviously manifest in the destruction of the Tory party in Scotland and its renaissance in England.

None of this is to say that federalism in the UK is impossible as the home nations are presently constructed - but I am arguing that it would not be conducive to political stability in the long run, ie keeping a substantial majority of English and Scots persuaded of the value of the Union. Right now, 45% of Scots don't. That's big.

[Admiral Yi]

Right.  So the problem is the Scottish don't like the national governments English voters produce.  That doesn't change if you have 1 English parliament determining local matters, or 6 or 12.

[Warspite]

Right.  So the problem is the Scottish don't like the national governments English voters produce.  That doesn't change if you have 1 English parliament determining local matters, or 6 or 12.

There is substantial variation within England too.

The problem is reduced if you have England split up into a number of smaller units. Then, in a hypothetical example, Scotland is able to build coalitions with, along with Wales and NI, Northeast England, Yorkshire, Wessex, London district, East Anglia, and/or the Home Counties.

There are a host of policy issues that could see Scotland having more in common with the north of England, so on and so forth.

[Admiral Yi]

There is substantial variation within England too.

The problem is reduced if you have England split up into a number of smaller units. Then, in a hypothetical example, Scotland is able to build coalitions with, along with Wales and NI, Northeast England, Yorkshire, Wessex, London district, East Anglia, and/or the Home Counties.

There are a host of policy issues that could see Scotland having more in common with the north of England, so on and so forth.

I don't follow.  Do you expect voting patterns to change?  Will English voters stop voting Labour and start voting Northumbria Independence Party?

[Martinus]

The problem with a lopsided federation in the UK would be (and this is extremely simplified because federation in a basic sense is nothing more than a legal relationship between states, meaning there is a great diversity of types of federation) this.

If voting weights in the federal chamber - where the constituent states sit together - are based purely on population, then the English vote would be unbeatable even if Scotland, Wales and NI, and whatever other statelets were potentially represented, voted as a bloc. This is because as 80% of the population of the UK, the English 80 beat the other 20 every time in a hypothetical 100 seat chamber.

If the voting weights in this chamber are set to a strict number per state (and not population), then Scotland, Wales, and NI can outvote England 6 to 2. Or England and Wales can buddy up and tie things 4 all. This solves the problem above - no state can potentially achieve an unbeatable vote by itself. However, this now means that 5.1 million Scots have exactly the same voice as 50 million English people. A relatively tiny federal unit has extremely disproportional power. This problem is not replicated to the same degree in the US system because of the larger size of the chamber with more participants (California's two senators vs Maine's two senators is more palatable than England's two vs Scotland's two because California does not represent nearly the same % of the population of the US as England does of the UK).

Adjusting the voting weights, as the EU does, is also difficult, again because of the huge disparity in population. Whichever way you alter them, you're engineering a massive underrepresentation of the English because you have to give huge bonuses to the value of a Scottish, Welsh or NI vote to engineer the possibility of an upper-chamber coalition being able to defeat the English vote.

Now I concede this would all be less of a problem if the party-political preferences across the UK were a similar split between the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and so on. But they're not: we have seen a real difference in party support across the different nations, most obviously manifest in the destruction of the Tory party in Scotland and its renaissance in England.

None of this is to say that federalism in the UK is impossible as the home nations are presently constructed - but I am arguing that it would not be conducive to political stability in the long run, ie keeping a substantial majority of English and Scots persuaded of the value of the Union. Right now, 45% of Scots don't. That's big.

Ok, a couple of questions:

1. You are assuming that there would be an upper "federal" chamber of Parliament. Why would that have to be the case? Why not keep the current system at the national level, and just add a separate (different) parliament at the local level?

2. How is a situation when a different party rules in England than in the UK different from a situation when a different party rules in Scotland than in the UK?

[Martinus]

There is substantial variation within England too.

The problem is reduced if you have England split up into a number of smaller units. Then, in a hypothetical example, Scotland is able to build coalitions with, along with Wales and NI, Northeast England, Yorkshire, Wessex, London district, East Anglia, and/or the Home Counties.

There are a host of policy issues that could see Scotland having more in common with the north of England, so on and so forth.

I don't follow.  Do you expect voting patterns to change?  Will English voters stop voting Labour and start voting Northumbria Independence Party?

Yeah, this is my question as well. With the "first past the post" voting system, I fail to see how there is any difference whatsoever.

And again, look at the US which is a federation - you don't have Teaxs forming coalitions with California or Rhode Island. You have Democrats forming coalition with Democrats, and Republicans with Republicans. Why would that be any different no matter how many local parliaments there are in England - I assume the elections to the national parliament would still be direct, no?

[Martinus]

Ok, I am beginning to see there may be some difference in how we imagine this system will work. I think Yi and I think that the UK federalism would be arranged like this:

- There is still a House of Commons elected in direct elections from one-seat circuits,
- There is still a House of Lords, which stays pretty much the same as it is now,
- Each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland gets to elect (in completely separate elections) its own parliament that deals with local matters.

Is this not how it would work? Why there would be any "federal chamber"? 

[Admiral Yi]

The federal chamber is the House of Commons.

[Martinus]

The federal chamber is the House of Commons.

Ok but it would still get elected in the general elections like now, right? So why would there be a need to form a Scotland-Cumbrian coalitions there? This part eludes me. There would be labour, or tories, or lib-dems, or UKIP, running from each part, I presume. Sure, people in Scotland may be more likely to vote Labour than Tory but it has nothing to do with a federation - and it is pretty normal in any country, no matter how unitarian or federal it is, that people in different regions may have different voting preferences.

[Gups]

I differ from Arkie as to where the problem lies. I don't think there is any issue with the English being able to outvote other countries in a UK Parliament. Any UK Parliament woudl be primarily dealing with federal issues - foreign policy, defence and a few otehr matters that don't split on party lines in the way that tax and spend issues do. Further, it's not as if each nation's MPS vote in blocs in any event.

The difficulty is the emanciated nature of a UK Parliament and of a UK Government. With such limited powers and so few Government posts, who would pursue a career in such a body. The only way round this, as far as I can see, is that the UK body is indirectly elected with members appointed by the devolved assemblies.

[Martinus]

The difficulty is the emanciated nature of a UK Parliament and of a UK Government. With such limited powers and so few Government posts, who would pursue a career in such a body. The only way round this, as far as I can see, is that the UK body is indirectly elected with members appointed by the devolved assemblies.

Sorry, but I think this would be horrible and indeed a huge democracy deficit problem (much like today's European Commission suffers from the democracy deficit compared to relatively powerless Parliament). Again, the US Congress is hardly an emaciated body yet it has few powers compared to national parliaments in non-federal countries.

And besides, in your idea, England would indeed hold a disproportionate sway (as, as a result, if one party wins in the English parliament, it would effectively grab all English delegates to the UK parliament - which is horrible).

[Gups]

Yeah, I don't like it much either. I wouldl have thought that one of the issues coudl be resolved by representation from the devolved assemblies being propotional to party representation.  I think a UK Parliament would have significantly fewer powers than the US Congress. The UK Parliament would not, for example, be able to introduce Obamacare or have supervision over a federal police force.

It's a mess and a choice between bad options.