The English question, exacerbated by the English resentment of the exclusion of England from the devolution settlement, has offered another opportunity for the advocates of a federal UK to argue their case. It has been argued that an English parliament, the corollary of a federal UK, would solve the English question by ensuring the right to vote on matters affecting England remains the prerogative of English MPs. Nevertheless, this ‘question’ would be solved at too high a price! An English parliament is likely to pose problems which are more complicated than the English question due to its huge representation (85 per cent of the UK’s population), such as creating an unbalanced therefore unstable federal system. Federalism is an invaluable solution to the English question but it is definitely not worth paying so high a price to solve a ‘question’ which has been offered alternative ‘answers’ ,for instance the proposition of ‘English Votes on English Laws’. However fair and balance it may seem for England to derive an equal share of local power from the federal structure, the outcome would suggest otherwise as England can easily assume predominance through its size and its account of more than 80 per cent of the GDP.
The proponents of federalism argue that it is a better option for the UK because a federal system promotes higher level of efficiency and democracy. The claim that a federal UK would be more efficient is attributed to the principle of subsidiarity which provides that local issues can be tackled more effectively by regional governments at a lower level. However, it should be noted that this is equally achievable through devolution. The degree of devolution in the UK, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland, may suggest that a federal system is unlikely to make much difference in term of efficiency. A federal UK is said to have a better claim for democracy as national authorities would be directly elected and this would ‘bring citizens closer to the decisions which most affect their lives’. This tends to be an overstatement of the outcome of federalisation. Whether a federal system offers a greater degree of democracy would, in some way, depend on the willingness of national authorities to embrace democracy in exercising local powers.
The opponents to the idea of a federal UK view a federal system as being too revolutionary for the UK. Considering the necessary characteristics of a federal state proposed by Dicey i.e. the supremacy of the constitution, the distribution of powers among different bodies and the authority of the courts to act as interpreters of the constitution, the opponents argue that the prerequisites of a federal UK i.e. a written constitution and a ‘powerful’ judiciary, are incompatible with the UK constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Federalisation of the UK would involve a ‘constitutional revolution’. However, this may not be entirely true. The fundamental principle which underpins parliamentary sovereignty is democracy (parliament is sovereign because it comprises of representatives of people) and a federal system is not undemocratic, given the structure and the constitutional principles upon which it operates. This means it is not necessary for democracy to take the form of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ and the ingredients of a federal state are not substantially different from what the UK is embracing now.
Contrasting the argument that a federal system can effectively prevent the disintegration of the UK, those who resist the idea of a federal UK maintain that federalisation would deepen the divisions among the member nations of the UK. Dicey believed that ‘[i]n a federation every citizen is influenced by a double allegiance’. The ‘double allegiance’ here refers to national allegiance and local allegiance. Dicey argued that due to this ‘double allegiance’, a conflict of interest between the federal government and the regional governments would cause divisions in the federation unless ‘the national sentiment predominates’. Nonetheless, the areas in which a conflict of interest could happen are limited as the allocation of local power to regional governments has greatly reduced the scope of authority of the federal government. If a federal system would lead to an increasingly divided UK, the current system of devolution is not more successful than the federal system in fostering unity among the member nations.
In conclusion, the idea of federalism may seem ideal if the UK decides to abandon the system of devolution. The idea of a federal UK is likely to be more favourable mainly because the UK is already quasi-federal in nature as a result of the process of devolution and the federal features which have been reconciled with the UK governing system seem to offer an optimistic prospect of the UK adopting a federal system. However, as the devolution system has not completely lost its support in the UK, there is still a likelihood of further devolution. In fact, the UK parliament may respond to the Scottish independence referendum by further devolution or ‘devo-plus’ and this can indeed be perceived as a gradual step of the UK towards the adoption of a federal system.
Brian Barder, ‘The threat of UK disintegration: time for a federal alternative’ (Labour List, 13 September 2009) < > accessed 19 February 2012
Brian Barder, ‘Salmond’s referendum: UK federation beats disintegration’ (Brian Barder’s Blog, 13 October 2011) < > accessed 20 February 2012
Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku, ‘Decentralising the UK: The Federal Argument’ (1999) 3 Edinburgh Law Review 57
Alan Trench, ‘Answer to West Lothian Question is still Unclear’ (UCL Constitution Unit, 18 January 2012) < > accessed 21 February 2012
R. Hazell, ‘The English Question’ (2006) 36 (1) Publius 37
Stuart Parr, ‘Iain Steward MP’s argument against an English Parliament’ (Wonko’s World, 4 August 2011) < > accessed 21 February 2012
‘Federalism’ (Federal Union) < > accessed 21 February 2012
A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution (8th edn, London: Macmillan and Company Ltd 1914)
A. V. Dicey, England’s Case Against Home Rule (The Echo Library 2007)
