I think *some* of the politicians get it but the big problem are the British themselves not really getting it.

Very likely that a written constitution for a federal UK would include a Westminster-proof route to independence.

Been saying this for years. Thing is, actual proper regional devolution - not this dodgy version - pretty much DEMANDS a written constitution. Ofc supermajority isn't great while we have FPTP. And to get PR, we need the proper version, since it's not very suitable for large populations otherwise.

... the "lack of control" arguments, make me think we can just better go much further, quicker to a proper UK federation. After all, as I said many times, this is like a paradigm shift and such shifts all have one thing in common; afterwards, no one is thinking what it was like before.

Sorry to hijack this post but concerning your very valid critique of proportional representation; the solution is to focus on regional devolution and federal reform. Then we'll get PR pretty much with little drama and it will work as good as it does in Germany.

Option 1: Two state solution (will require a neutral force to secure, manage and deliver guarantees to both sides).

That would give a Scottish citizen 10x the democracy than an English one, so no, not very equal. Unless you mean like the EU Parliament and 10x more English MPs than Scottish - so again, not very equal. As part of the EU, it could work better. But a UK federation is how we would get to that.

The best default are the ones we already use for various purposes. NUTS1 level.

The irony is that Labour are doing most - and are in a position to do much more - to limit and contain the rise of Faragism. That is, to address the lack of control for the English regions.

I have been trying to explain to the Remoaners that it will need to be capped somehow. Given UK kids have to choose then stick to one EU country from 27, maybe it should be one in and one out of the 12 UK nations and regions. Could call it "taking back control", maybe.

Apparently, this is a "devolved" matter so would apply to all of England *at the same time*; which is only 55 million people and zillions of cities, councils and counties. That's the real story here. The lack of control for the English especially. Addressing that is the key to defeating Faragism.

10% of the population in charge of 0.1% of the money... It's a start, I guess! But let's not forget where we are going or stop moaning about how long it's taking to get there:

But that's the point, Mr. Fighty. "Working age" for women has been increased massively.

Beginning to make sense now!

They seem pretty neutral headlines to be fair. Mail on Sunday is a bit more anti-Trump.

For Britain, that means proper regional devolution for the English regions and nations.

Much closer to 50/50 I'm afraid and the most popular option is to stay out of the EU.

I mean, the gulfy bit of the gulf is obviously closer to Mexico.

The problem with UK is the lack of regional devolution. That's why there is extreme regional inequalities.

This isn't Twitter - no need for the silly stuff. The right strategy is to address the fundamental problems that NF weaponises. Ignoring those problems, help his weaponisation. Here's an old cartoon that might explain things:

Another article about the lack of regional devolution in England... that fails to mention the lack of regional devolution in England. www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

No luck required. Evidence is pretty clear. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_...

There was never much possibility of another referendum - but, yes, I understand that the Hard Remainers wanted that. But effectively siding with the ERG was a terrible move.

You are interpreting the poll. It's OK to interpret a poll. That's what polls are for. Here's another recent poll that was asking about joining the single market. Majority was in favour even if it meant FoM. But when it asked about control, it was closer to 50/50.