4 ms·

Politically it is very interesting and a result that in a lot of ways can bring about real change too (however, I do have obvious scepticism). The tide is now

Politically it is very interesting and a result that in a lot of ways can bring about real change too (however, I do have obvious scepticism). The tide is now with change as for the Union to continue change must happen. A lot of the high yes vote was not because people 100% believed Scotland should be independent but more they wanted change to the system (and I do believe a Scottish Parliment offered a better system), it did come with a lot of risk and a possible lose / lose for the people of the UK as a whole. It opens up the question of representation for people of the regions of England, Northern Ireland and Wales. I think a lot of momentum has been gathered for something a kin to federal government in the UK and is something I would very much welcome. In essence that is in a lot of ways what that Nationalists wanted... to keep the currency union and have essentially the same terms of attachment to the EU. I voted no on the day after a long time believing in a yes, the tide of politcal change swayed me that we may ultimately be better in a UK that had the momentum with change to our representation. The no campaign however ran an abysmal campaign and it pained me to end up siding with them, and that was in more in spite of what they had to say. Being part of the UK benefits Scotland's internal trade immensely and to think terms would have remained the same with the rUK who would have become a foreign nation at that point was naive. I think a Union with the UK has much the same arguments as staying in the EU with respect to trade, contracts and funding. It is just English nationalism and Scottish nationalism have picked differing sides.

jiggy2011 12y ago
I don't know how a federal system could work when England is about 80% of the population. The USA already has issues with California and Texas being so significant in terms of population, but England would dwarf both of them in terms of proportion. The only way it could work would be to abolish England entirely and break it up into regions.
- doc_holliday 12y ago
  I think English regions should be split up too, and their is great desire for that. England is made up of many quite distinct regions, the problem is much of the power is concentrated in London and subsequently a lot of investment and money is poured into London and immediate surroundings. The fact that England has such a disparity in investment between it's first city (London) and second city (Birmingham) is a problem. It also isn't helping concentration of populations and jobs which remained close to London. The issues Scotland has are felt throughout the UK, and Scotland therefore has a lot in common as far as wanting powers as do regions of England out with the immediate surroundings of London. This in essence is why this result could be better for the regions of England.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    Dissolving England as an entity with all of it's history would be a very difficult pill to swallow even on a purely emotional level. Do we start sending Manchester United to the world cup for example? What would the flag look like?
    - doc_holliday 12y ago
      I am not saying split England into different countries, but split regions into federal districts. That has nothing to do with separation of England, does the USA send states to the world cup? I don't know what you are saying there.
      - vidarh 12y ago
        Presumably he's comparing it to the existing situation of Scotland. But Scotland (and Wales) of course is a somewhat different situation in that it is considered a constituent country of the UK for historical reasons, which wouldn't be likely to be the case for regions in a federal UK.
      - jiggy2011 12y ago
        If you split England into states then it ceases to exist in any meaningful way. The USA model is simple, you have the federal government and you have the states. Thus you send a USA team to the world cup. Under this model, we would have to send a British team to the world cup rather than an England team. It's less of a problem for the Germans because they are comparatively more invested in europe, for example using the currency.
        nknighthb 12y ago
        As a sovereign nation, the UK has virtually limitless freedom in deciding its internal structure. You can pick and choose which things are decided at which level, and how different subdivisions might be grouped into higher levels for some purposes but not others. You are not required to follow any established model -- and you are certainly not required to follow the US's rigid structure. If you want to keep sending an England team, keep sending an England team. Big deal.
- learnstats2 12y ago
  Not the only way: The Norwegian system is such that regions are compensated for their geography - rural areas with less direct access to government have disproportionately more representatives. The EU also works quite well for small nations.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    I fear that the EU would seek to usurp a UK parliament that presided over a collection of small states and want each state to go direct to Brussels where they would have a marginal voice due to their small size.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      On what basis do you fear that? The EU already have several federations as member states: Germany, Austria and Belgium.
      - jiggy2011 12y ago
        The more powers you devolve the more risks you have. How do you deal with a situation where the EU and Welsh parliaments agree on a policy but it is blocked by the federal UK gov? If I was a cynic I might suspect that the EU would look for ways to do this on purpose.
        vidarh 12y ago
        Wales already have the Welsh Assembly, yet the EU does not seem to have tried this. I think you'd find that on the contrary a lot of EU states are terrified of any steps that would legitimise more demands for devolution because they have their own independence movements to deal with. And if anything, if the UK vote in important EU organs were split, it'd greatly increase UK influence on many matters in all the situations where interests are aligned, because most EU organs does not have representation proportional to population size, and many have requirements for super-majorities or even unanimous decisions on many things. That too would make many of the other large EU countries push back against any attempts to bypass a federal government.

jiggy2011 12y ago

I don't know how a federal system could work when England is about 80% of the population. The USA already has issues with California and Texas being so significant in terms of population, but England would dwarf both of them in terms of proportion. The only way it could work would be to abolish England entirely and break it up into regions.

doc_holliday 12y ago
I think English regions should be split up too, and their is great desire for that. England is made up of many quite distinct regions, the problem is much of the power is concentrated in London and subsequently a lot of investment and money is poured into London and immediate surroundings. The fact that England has such a disparity in investment between it's first city (London) and second city (Birmingham) is a problem. It also isn't helping concentration of populations and jobs which remained close to London. The issues Scotland has are felt throughout the UK, and Scotland therefore has a lot in common as far as wanting powers as do regions of England out with the immediate surroundings of London. This in essence is why this result could be better for the regions of England.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  Dissolving England as an entity with all of it's history would be a very difficult pill to swallow even on a purely emotional level. Do we start sending Manchester United to the world cup for example? What would the flag look like?
  - doc_holliday 12y ago
    I am not saying split England into different countries, but split regions into federal districts. That has nothing to do with separation of England, does the USA send states to the world cup? I don't know what you are saying there.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      Presumably he's comparing it to the existing situation of Scotland. But Scotland (and Wales) of course is a somewhat different situation in that it is considered a constituent country of the UK for historical reasons, which wouldn't be likely to be the case for regions in a federal UK.
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      If you split England into states then it ceases to exist in any meaningful way. The USA model is simple, you have the federal government and you have the states. Thus you send a USA team to the world cup. Under this model, we would have to send a British team to the world cup rather than an England team. It's less of a problem for the Germans because they are comparatively more invested in europe, for example using the currency.
      - nknighthb 12y ago
        As a sovereign nation, the UK has virtually limitless freedom in deciding its internal structure. You can pick and choose which things are decided at which level, and how different subdivisions might be grouped into higher levels for some purposes but not others. You are not required to follow any established model -- and you are certainly not required to follow the US's rigid structure. If you want to keep sending an England team, keep sending an England team. Big deal.
learnstats2 12y ago
Not the only way: The Norwegian system is such that regions are compensated for their geography - rural areas with less direct access to government have disproportionately more representatives. The EU also works quite well for small nations.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  I fear that the EU would seek to usurp a UK parliament that presided over a collection of small states and want each state to go direct to Brussels where they would have a marginal voice due to their small size.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    On what basis do you fear that? The EU already have several federations as member states: Germany, Austria and Belgium.
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      The more powers you devolve the more risks you have. How do you deal with a situation where the EU and Welsh parliaments agree on a policy but it is blocked by the federal UK gov? If I was a cynic I might suspect that the EU would look for ways to do this on purpose.
      - vidarh 12y ago
        Wales already have the Welsh Assembly, yet the EU does not seem to have tried this. I think you'd find that on the contrary a lot of EU states are terrified of any steps that would legitimise more demands for devolution because they have their own independence movements to deal with. And if anything, if the UK vote in important EU organs were split, it'd greatly increase UK influence on many matters in all the situations where interests are aligned, because most EU organs does not have representation proportional to population size, and many have requirements for super-majorities or even unanimous decisions on many things. That too would make many of the other large EU countries push back against any attempts to bypass a federal government.