Cologne - you are so wrong - England has a population roughly ten times Scotlands California has a population 66 times Wyoming - 38million to 582 thousand. Population has nothing to do with federal structures. Each country looks after its own affairs without the interference of the others - just as Scotland wants now. England's 50 million plus would have their own parliament. That would not impact on Scotland's 5 million It is only when you then get to the federal matters - defence etc that a preponderence of English MPs could be said to dominate - but that is called the UK Parliament now. So does not affect anything Please do not tell me you do not want a fair PR system because it costs a little more. Shave 1% off defence - there its all paid for and the rest. The overall cost would not be so much more than now. Essentially you would have exactly what you do now but then maybe have a Federal Assembly - perhaps in the North West of England to give it geographic proximity to Wales, Ireland and Scotland and distance it from Westminster which would be English. that Assembly could be composed of an agreed number of representatives of each nation - much like the EU is now. They would deal with a select few affairs and so would not need to meet all the time. But these are details - the principle is what counts and should be put in place.
Leo, what I was trying to say was that the biggest unit - be it California, England or wherever should not be so large in comparison to the whole. California cannot dominate US politics any more than Texas can. The point is that an English parliament, because of it's size, would actually be able to do just that - which in addition to the powers of 85% of Westminster MPs would be too much concentration of power for my liking. What do you have against regional assemblies which would, eventually, have the same powers as the Scottish assembly ? The extra costs which I was talking about are not those of the state and cannot be relocated from anywhere - they would be extra costs for the parties themselves, which if not covered by membership fees, would lead to a rise in the sponsorship of political parties, which is hardly in the interests of democracy. If you bring in a system of PR then smaller parties, like the Greens, are faced with the problem of funding election campaigns over much wider areas (every constituency) which they cannot do as yet.
OK - so you can see there is no problem in terms of population with the 4 "states" - yes? Each state is self governing on matters that need not involve the UK as a whole. It does not matter at all how big each is as it does not affect the other. California has laws for its 38 million and Wyoming has laws for its half a million. Absolutely no conflict. You cannot have an issue about the UK "federal" side of the equation either as it is what we have now - a UK Parliament. So it works. However my proposal would have the "federal" Parliament (for issues involving all 4 nations like foreign affairs and defense) being totally different and much cheaper. It would have something like 50 English representatvies, 25 Scottish, 15 Welsh and 10 Irish - which means that although England dominates it does not dominate as much as it does now. After all 53 out 63 million has a right to a large say. I would abolish the House of Lords altogether - massive saving. ON foreign and defense issues you would hope that party lines and national lines would not throw up such enormous differences as on the likes of welfare and health. I hvae nothing against devolving powers within England as it is so large - but would aim to replace the council tier with regional assemblies for issue sthat currently are council matters. Need to think that through a little more htough. I wnat England to retain an identity though - and not to simply be split up.
I think Leo that it does not matter much in which way you do it - the fundamental goal is decentralization, both of political and economic power away from London. Federalism started out with the idea of trying to prevent concentrations of power - this is why the Americans made Washington their capital. The same principle was later applied to Germany (which had been centralized under Hitler) with Bonn as its capital. If you look at Germany now it is the very model of decentralization. Berlin is technically the capital but Frankfurt is the capital for banking and communications, the two most successfull Cities per capita are Hamburg and Stuttgart, the capital for beer and football is Munich and the city with the most tourists is Cologne (because of our big lump of old stone in the middle) - Cologne is also the Grufti capital of Germany and has the most Nuns ! Surprisingly to many Brits (who think that all Germans are basically the same) the Germans still think very regionally - don't forget Prussia and Bavaria disappeared only in 1878. The most local patriotism is, however, found here in Cologne where it is a criminal offence to drink any beer not made here, or to support any other football team, or to speak any form of intelligable German whatsoever ( Kolsch is like Scouse is to normal English).
I am not a great fan of decentralisation - the smaller the unit the easier it is for determined activists to bully their way to power. I want to see England have what Scotland, Wales and Ireland have - the ability to have votes on English matters without the interfernece of people who are not affected by those matters. I do not then mind some form or regional government below that to replace the haphazard structure we have now. Oh - and Bonn became the capital as Berlin was in the middle of Communist East Germany - not a very practical place for a capital - it returned to its former status upon unification. In Berlin's absence other cities grabbed power.
For me the attraction of decentralization is that I want a system in which decisions are made as close to those affected by them as possible - this is for me an essential of democracy because people can be more easily held accountable for their actions. England cannot help it's history in as much as London has been the capital for about a thousand years and is 8 times bigger than the next largest City - so a situation like in Germany is not possible. Also the central role of London has been strengthened since England ripped its industrial heart out in the 80s. However, the regions of England need to be strengthened. Need to be able to re establish themselves as self confident, vibrant centres which are not permanently looking to London for initiative - this can only come through some sort of extension of powers of self determination. By the way Bonn was chosen in 1946 against Frankfurt, Hamburg and Munich as capital of the former West Germany. It was chosen for the same reasons as Washington was chosen in America (ie. to prevent one city from becoming too powerfull). Had Frankfurt been chosen (which was the first choice because of its central position) I doubt very much if Berlin would be capital now.
I see that the favourite to replace Salmond as FM and leader of the SNP is a Sturgeon? Something fishy going here, who is next Captain Haddock?
That is all very well but how many decisions are really local? Do you want roads to be organised on a local basis? How would you feel about different regions making different NHS decisions - you get more postcode lottery. No - England is a small but populous country and there is not much room for having everyone make local rules and regulations. It sounds very nice but is not practical.
Grow up No - we know it will never be over. The left never gives up - but they delude themselves that they can gain power. Kinnock, Foot, Benn etc - never realised that the majority of people in these islands are conservative with a small "c". That is just another rant by a disgruntled loser. Do you know what - you lost - only 1.6m of over 5m Scots fell for the propaganda. The UK will not grant Scotland another referendu for a generation - in our lifetime according to Salmond. By then the oil will certainly be well diminished and the left will find it even harder to con the good people of Scotland. Keep telling everyone it was the fault of the over 65s yes the people with most experience of life, those less easily conned by smooth undeliverable promises. Your 20 year olds will soon buy their own houses and realise that the UK is a great place to live. Scotland can always have its proud tradition within the UK You lost once and for all - face it - accept it and go back to your own board. We are bored with this one now - the debate has moved on to what England, Wales and Northern Ireland need.
Second phase. http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/19/wipe-your-eyes-on-your-feet/ Don't bother Leonardo it's way beyond your understanding.
Just my opinion and similar to most other posters on here I think you will find. After all this is a Watford board. I'm sorry if you find it challenging. Seems rather elementary to me. Regurgitated left wing dogma as everything you have posted has been. You are a very poor loser - must be hard to know you will never see your dream of a left wing independent Scotland. ... and you would have us believe you are quite well off with your own business and properties in England and Scotland. Champagne socialist springs to mind.
Bored with you now Spurf so you can go on as long as you like - this is my last communication with you. Loser
