In the midst of the first lockdown, I wrote a brief opinion piece in a local newsletter contemplating the notion of federalism in the United Kingdom. Briefly, the basis of the piece was discussing the inconsistency of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom making announcements that are only relevant to England. Inspiration for the piece arose after seeing the tension that had been raised - especially by the Daily Post's online website, North Wales Live - in the regular publishing of articles reporting on English visitors breaking lockdown to travel to Wales. Some cited confusion over the rules, specifically a lack of awareness that the rules were different between the two countries, as their reasoning behind their visit. Whether or not allegations that the coverage of the number of English people breaking lockdown rules was reported on in greater frequency than the number of Welsh people who broke the lockdown rules within Wales in a deliberate attempt to create a division between the two nations, as suggested by various passing comments in the comments section of each article shared on Facebook, are true, it was explicitly the confusion over the rules - of which there have been plenty since, more recently in regards to mask-wearing, which piqued my interest. Ultimately, if an English person was to hear an announcement from the Head of Government of a union, is it not justified to assume this announcement applied to the whole of the EU?
To a nationalist of any of the non-English nations, the symbolism attached to the British Prime Minister speaking on behalf of, and to the citizens of, England only, reinforces arguably the main criticism from nationalists aimed at the United Kingdom - the synonymity of 'British' and 'English'. However, the difference in population between the four nations and how this is reflected in the number of seats allocated to each nation means the electoral system allows this synonymity to develop from a symbolic one to a practical one - the current composition of MPs in the House of Commons represents the number of Conservative Party MPs in English constituencies alone (345) is greater than the number required for a majority in the House (326); the same was true of English Conservative MPs following the 1983 and 1987 general elections, and English Labour MPs following the 1997 general election.
To state that either factor - the short-term confusion over lockdown rules (or difference between laws speaking more broadly), or longer-term tension between any of the four nations, would be eliminated, by the following hypothetical, would be somewhat of a baseless overstatement, but the situation nonetheless provides itself with an interesting theoretical question which has occasionally found its way into the media - what if England had its First Minister and Parliament, an equivalent to Mark Drakeford and the Senedd in Wales or Nicola Sturgeon and Holyrood in Scotland?
This proposition is not a new one; an English parliament or assembly has been proposed as a solution to what's been dubbed the West Lothian question - the question of whether Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs should have a right to vote on matters which affect England only - a question which itself arose in 1977. To give each country its own lawmaking body to conduct home affairs while limiting the Houses of Parliament's remit to issues that affect all four nations equally, such as foreign policy, would, of course, resemble federalism. Thus, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would essentially be state, the First Ministers would be akin to State Governors, and the City of Westminster would be a federal district akin to Washington D.C., outside the remit of any state legislature and ruled directly by the federal government (i.e. the Houses of Parliament).
How Would Federalism Affect the United Kingdom?
Would federalism help the union by easing tensions and allowing for different cultures, or would it prove to be the second step - the first being devolution - towards its breakup? Nationalists and unionists writing for various opinion pieces from the Guardian to the Express to Politico have made these two contrasting arguments; this article will use a series of polls in Wales as a case study for the latter of the two arguments. The BBC has conducted regular annual polling to gauge the desired level of autonomy between Wales and the United Kingdom, asking which of the five options respondents would prefer;
full independence,
giving the Senedd more powers than it currently has,
the status quo (i.e. maintaining the current relationship between the two bodies)
reducing the Senedd's powers, or;
the abolition of the Senedd altogether.
Every year has shown that the plurality of respondents favours the second option - more powers to the Senedd - at between thirty-five and forty per cent, with the status quo, usually remaining the second most popular option, generally fluctuating between twenty-five and thirty per cent. Most significant, however, is the number in favour of independence; although 2021's poll resulted in the highest number of those in favour of independence - fourteen per cent - this number has constantly remained the second-least popular option, behind the Senedd's abolition; showing either an apprehension towards independence or viewing further devolution - something which will only further resemble federalism - as a compromise, or somewhat of a taster of autonomy.
Comparison to Other Nations
Considering the possible success of federalism would be incomplete without discussing its success in other nations. Using Western Europe as an example, two examples of federal countries are Germany and Belgium, both countries which consist of older former states and thus retain distinct history and cultures, and even a language divide in the latter's case; considering the history of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom and the presence of Celtic languages, these characteristics which define the already-federal European states also apply to the United Kingdom as a reason behind the proposal of its implementation. Furthermore, using a nation that hasn't implemented federalism as an example, the performance of federalism has been suggested as a compromise solution to the Catalan secession crisis following the referendum in 2017, as well as before the referendum in an attempt to prevent it, again frequently citing the issue of differing cultures and languages in each region. The same may also be true of the United States; federalism was adopted in the Constitution to replace the failed Articles of Confederation, which had been intended to allow the original Thirteen Colonies to largely self-govern; however, one other factor which would deem federalism necessary in the United States is size; considering the size of the country, as well as other federations such as Russia, Canada, Brazil and Australia, the practical aspect of allowing self-governance in smaller subdivisions of a large territory does not apply to the United Kingdom.
Ultimately, there is no one-size-fits-all system of government. The United Kingdom is unique in many aspects - such as being one of few countries consisting of constituent countries and one of only three democracies without a codified constitution, mainly relying on many acts of Parliament and tradition alone. Spain's dedication to unity is written in its Constitution, for example. The declaration that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland shall come into effect on January the 1st, 1801 "and forever after" exists only in the Act of Parliament - Articles I and VIII of the Union with Ireland Act of 1800 - something much easier to amend or override simply with another Act; the separation of the island of Ireland into two states merely serves to prove this. Thus, in summary, to a country as unique in its composition, systems, and culture as the United Kingdom, any discernible reason for federalism's success - or lack thereof - in any other country may not apply to the United Kingdom.
Commentaires