Tag Archives: federal UK

Jack Meredith

A better deal for Wales? Why federalism, not independence, is the answer

By Jack Meredith | Sat 25th October 2025 - 8:30 am

On Thursday, 23 October, Plaid Cymru ended nearly a century of Welsh Labour dominance in Caerphilly after having won the by-election triggered by the untimely passing of Welsh Labour MS Hefin David.

The result, which saw a 27% swing from Welsh Labour to Plaid Cymru, must be a wake-up call for liberals that nationalism is on the rise, on both sides of the political aisle. While Plaid won the by-election, Reform UK finished second, ahead of Welsh Labour, indicating that not only is Welsh Labour finally being punished for its complacency, but the void it has left is being filled by parties that wish to tear the UK apart; in one case, culturally, and in another, literally. To be clear: Labour didn’t lose because Wales turned nationalist. They lost because neither Westminster nor Cardiff Bay is doing what’s best for Wales.

This is where the Welsh Liberal Democrats must stake their claim to delivering a better deal for Wales. At a time when Reform’s anti-immigration rhetoric and Plaid’s nationalism are on the rise, the Welsh Liberal Democrats must offer a real alternative; one that champions Welsh identity and pushes for full self-governance, while seeking to redesign and strengthen the United Kingdom to make it a truly union of equals.

We cannot simply talk about stronger devolved powers in abstract terms. It’s time to lay out tangible reforms:

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 16 Comments
Nigel Lindsay

The Supreme Court decision on a Scottish Referendum

By Nigel Lindsay | Thu 24th November 2022 - 8:35 am

The Supreme Court has delivered the judgement everyone expected from it – the obvious statement that, under the law as it stands, the Scottish Parliament does not have powers to call a referendum on Scottish Independence without the consent of the UK parliament. This judgement presents one opportunity and one threat to Liberal Democrats.

The opportunity is the chance to cut through the squabbles between Conservatives and the SNP by pushing our own policy – that of a truly federal UK. A Federal UK has been Liberal policy for over a century and to my mind we do not emphasise it sufficiently often or strongly. Voices in other parties (including respected former ministers such as Malcolm Rifkind and Gordon Brown) have from time to time hinted at support for a watered-down version of federalism, but we are the only party which can authentically present the idea as fully worked out and our own.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 20 Comments
John Shipley

John Shipley writes: A Federal England – what should it mean?

By John Shipley | Thu 18th March 2021 - 10:17 am

Late last year I was asked by the Federal Policy Committee to chair a working group on regional powers in England within a Federal UK. The group was charged with developing policy on powers for the level between local government and the Federal government, taking into account the broader vision set out in conference motion “The Creation of a Federal United Kingdom” (passed at Autumn Conference in 2020). The group was asked to build on existing policy as set out in policy paper 117 Power to the People (2014) and policy paper 130 Power for People and Communities (2018) and consider models from other Federal States such as the Federal Republic of Germany.

A modernised Federal United Kingdom has long been a key priority for Liberal Democrats – encompassing a fair voting system for all elections, reforming the House of Lords into a Senate, and developing a written constitution.

The motion passed in September 2020 represents an important foundation for the creation of an England of the Regions. 

It sets out principles for the UK to become a union of its nations and regions.  In relation to England, it says we believe in a truly federal United Kingdom with an equitable distribution of resources between different parts of the United Kingdom based on their respective needs. It refers to federal and state governments in which subsidiarity applies to the nations and regions of the Union and in which the exercise of public responsibilities is decentralised as much as is reasonably practicable. It says that the Upper House should become representative of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and that there would be a federal Council of Ministers to enable the governments and parliaments of the various parts of the Union to work better, building on the work of joint ministerial committees.

The motion however says nothing about local government. It does not say how many English regions there should be, nor what exact powers they should have. It does not say anything about taxation or how resources would be redistributed. It implies each region can have ministers but not for which departments. Clearly, the detail needs to be filled in – hence the working group.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 34 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Margaret
    It's a few years ago now, but I remember having a problem with a car we had hired in Alaska, and having a long argument with a call-handler somewhere in the 'lo...
  • Caracatus
    The thing is we can have lower taxes (for most) and better public services. The madness of the lost war on drugs which cost billions. Sorting social care, th...
  • paul barker
    Can London build its way out of this crisis ? Londons population has gone up by more than half since the 90s & all the "Plans" are for it to go up more. Lo...
  • Steve Nash
    I agree with KP that the International Aid and diplomatic Budget should increased, to challenge both Immigration and the need for Defence. It may not be the ch...
  • Tom Arms
    @ John Kelly: I certainly didn't mean to imply that Gaza is peaceful. Sadly, civilians continue to die, humanitarian conditions remain appalling and Israel cont...