What sort of federalism would you like for the UK?

I think that the UK is really too small for true federalism. The track record of local authorities is not brilliant, but they are often struggling with under-funding from central government. There might be a case for greater powers of local income generation via taxes (with a reduction in income tax) so that the expenditure can be geared to local needs. Some of the funding formulas are unacceptable. My county has the lowest central government funding allocation for education in the country - I do not know the reasoning for that, but the results are clear.

Switzerland is much much smaller and is a true federal state.

Do you know how it is set up granjura? I am assuming equal size states/assemblies/counties with an overall parliament to look after the things that must be nation wide.

That's about it. Although a lot of work is being done to harmonize the education system to facilitate mobility from C/Kanton to C/K, etc.

A bit like this:

www.ch.ch

Definition

Federalism is a system of government in which power is shared between the central state and several federal regions. The laws of the central authority apply to the whole country, whereas those of the federal states apply only to a specific region of the country. Depending on the country, these federal states enjoy power to a greater or lesser extent.

Apart from Switzerland, other countries with a federal system include Germany, Austria, Belgium, the USA, India, Australia and Brazil.
The Swiss federal state

Switzerland has been a federal state since 1848. Authority is shared between the Confederation (central state), the 26 cantons (federal states) and the 2352 communes (status 1.1.2014). Each of these three levels has legislative powers (to draw up laws and regulations) and executive powers (to implement them). The Confederation and the cantons also have judiciary powers (courts), to ensure that the laws are enforced.
Powers

The Confederation’s authority is restricted to the powers expressly conferred on it by the Federal Constitution. All other tasks (for example education, hospitals and policing) are the responsibility of the cantons, which thus enjoy considerable autonomy.

The communes have tasks which are expressly assigned to them by the Confederation or by the canton to which they belong, but they can also legislate when cantonal law does not specifically refer to issues that affect them directly.

Thank you so much granjura. As you say, a bit along the lines I was thinking but it is good to see it laid out like that.

Lots of European countries are as small as Scotland, and they manage on their own. As Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are capable of running their own affairs, I do not see why the North, the South West, the Midlands, should not be capable.
If Scotland can be given lots of extra powers, the rest of England should be given the same.

The vow that the three parties gave to Scotland was "The UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably across all four nations."
Lots of reports in the North East and the North West show that is not true.
However, I do not want Westminster to wriggle out of its vow to Scotland by Cameron being allowed to say he will only give Scotland what he promised when England and Wales are ready to be given the same "permanent and extensive new powers".

He could promise to dual the A1 for us for a start.

I'm afraid that what I am seeing reported is the old parties yet again trying to manipulate things for their own sake.

I heard this morning that we have counties with bigger populations than some US states; why should they not have more of the running of their own areas. Large cities can almost certainly do better for their population than London can.

Some of the politicians raise the point that, in a vote in the North East for an assembly there was a resounding "no". Yet again many of the old parties politicians were negative, telling everyone that it meant another layer of administration. Does it need to be? Perhaps we could build on the councils. The new level could send a number of MPs, proportional to those voted on to their council/assembly, to the UK parliament (situated out of London) from all the UK. England may decide to have a parliament as Scotland does but do we really need one?

I really hope we are seeing the death of the old parties and a grouping system where a "Yorkshire Right" joins with a "London Right" member and others wanting the same ends (obviously this could be left or any other group they stand for) and so on in a group to get what they want for their county/assembly in a UK parliament, regrouping for different needs.

Probably not in my life-time though

durhamjen have just been visiting family in Berwick and understand what you are saying! Everyone we met is fed up with that bit of the A1.

Think about the appalling costs of this extra government function. More local councilors with expense accounts? The costs of extra elections.

There is something that worries me about this idea.

I would be worried it could lead to local areas getting more extreme social and other policies.
We are a very small island. Here would the costs outweigh the benefits.

Perhaps I am thinking about the different laws in different USA states.
Those teaching creationism, those that still have very racist attitudes. I just feel Concerned about this.u

I mentioined the A1 to someone, as an example of a "main" road into Scotland. I was told that there was always the A74. Ah! yes, lets go from Leeds to Edinburgh via Glasgow.

Perhaps there is a role here for the House of Lords? As a second federal, elected house. And As other posters have said, there are many examples of successful federal systems of various sizes. We don't need to invent something!

Can anyone tell me how local income tax would work? What worries me is that wealthy areas would become more wealthy and poorer areas poorer.

This is what I said on another thread:

I worry that devolving 'power' to the regions would bring a whole host of new problems. How would you divide the regions? Would those on the borders feel they should be in a different region? Would we end up with extra layers of bureaucracy? There would be complaints that all the 'power' was in the large conurbations and so on.

No, I don't have the answers just foresee so many more problems

I think nellie has made some good points. The cost of yet another layer of government would be high, at worst more open to corruption and at best the risk of money being wasted by being diverted into pet projects which could be relentlessly pursued.
I would dispute the fact that it is working well in Wales and so would a lot of its residents. Money is wasted by the Welsh Assembly whilst education and health services get steadily worse.

If we are going to discuss fairness between the countries then one of the first, and simplest, moves would be to remove the tolls from the Severn crossings - tolls on bridges have been removed in Scotland. The cost is a scandal and does nothing to promote Welsh businesses.
It costs £19.20 for a lorry to cross the bridge (due to go up again in January).

You wouldn't put another layer on top of what exists, not if you had any sense, anyway. It's a question of changing the purpose of existing bodies and, I hope, merging others.

I don't want any sort of federalism thank you. Just want Scottish MPs to not be able to vote on England only matters, but how many of those actually come up?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Not at all sure this referendum should ever have been allowed to happen. It's just given rein to anti-English feelings in the lesser intelligent population of Scotland.

I should have said "the lesser intelligent part of the Scottish population.

... or perhaps 'the less intelligent...' I don't recall ever hearing anybody in England bad-mouthing the Jocks they way some Scots go on about 'the bloody English'... The only down-side to the referendum result is that those people will now be able to continue blaming their troubles on us!

Think about the appalling costs of this extra government function. More local councilors with expense accounts? The costs of extra elections. (*Nelliemoser*)

Perhaps there is a role here for the House of Lords? (*Lilygran*)

I would bring these two things together and abolish the House of Lords as a second chamber. The UK Parliament would be that.

If you moved this Parliament to the middle of the UK (York?) you could open the Houses of Parliament to tourists - lots of money to be made there. You could still use if for ceremonial occasions if you really felt the need.

You would have fewer MPs in the UK parliament as the constituents would be represented in their council/assembly with each of these sending one or two to the UK one. We have too many MPs in the Commons, I feel.

I agree with Lilligran. “It's a question of changing the purpose of existing bodies and, I hope, merging others.”

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But many feel it is broke Jinglebellsfrocks. Huge numbers voted UKIP because the feel no one understands their point of view. Everyday you hear people saying that MPs just don't get it. The power is in the hands of the parties not of the people.

Has anyone come across ResPublica? I heard their founder, Philip Bond on one of the news programmes this morning and found what he was saying very interesting.

You can't give in to the idiots who vote UKIP. Just hope and pray that the right thinking people of this country vote the right party in at the next election. I think they will. Just as happened with the referendum.

It can't be an easy job, governing a country. But at least we should allow the best brains in the country to do it.

I'm sure we'd all be happy to do that jingl, if only they'd form a political party!