"... the question of England, specifically a political quandary known as the West Lothian Question that has long bedeviled Britain since Scotland, along with Wales and Northern Ireland, began going down a road of decentralization several decades ago. They established their own legislative assemblies and already enjoy varying control over a broad array of domestic policy, including education, transport and environmental matters.
In England however, Scottish, Welsh and Irish members of Parliament still have a say in how England is run, an arrangement that irks many conservatives.
“There's a public concern out there,” said Alan Trench, a constitutional researcher at University College London. “The English think they're being mistreated.” LA Times
A lot of people will find the idea of the English being mistreated to be ironically funny, But, as we say in "the land of the free and the home of the brave," that's history. Not many Americans know any history. That is why we mouth nonsensical, dismissive inanities of that kind. A recent poll indicated that many US citizens cannot name the three co-equal branches of the federal government. Many think that the president is absolutely in control and are therefore puzzled when he/she/it cannot make sweeping changes to reflect their own taste. I have been watching the Kenburnsian revision of history now being screened as "The Roosevelts, an Intimate History." It is an excellent production that reflects Burns' left wing convictions. The series implicitly argues for governance by a disinterested "progressive" elite "to the manor born." I doubt that the people who need to watch this not too subtle exposition do so. I may be wrong. Perhaps they contemplate such matters during the commercial messages broadcast during NFL games.
"Will the UK become a federated state?" It seems inevitable to me considering the renewal of "the '45," Welsh restlessness and the angst of the English, but, then, I know more history than is good for me. A better question might be, why should the UK not become a federated state? What would be lost in such an evolution of form of government? The monarchy would presumably be continued. The English could have regional parliaments somewhat like US state legislatures. In such a system the Scots, Welsh and Ulstermen might be content at least for a while. Perhaps a written constitution arrived at with the sovereign's consent might contain a Bill of Rights that forbade laws like the Official Secrets Act and the methods by which the press is blocked from publication of unpleasant things.
I say that while aware of the sad slide toward federal government supremacy happening in the US. Yesterday a madman climbed over the fence in front of the White House, rushed up to the front door and went in before apprehended. He was lucky that he was not shot before he reached the door. I applaud the restraint of the Secret Service uniformed branch, but today the media are criticising them for not having killed this man. Their adequacy for the job of presidential security is questioned. The thought that a prudent judgment about the threat actually posed by him was a good thing is absent from public commentary. Instead, the questions raised are all about further "hardening" the White House as bunker.
How would England be divided into regions? I do not know enough about the country to have an opinion. Literature, the "Hinterland" series on Welsh TV and an endless required exposure to UK TV at my house are not a sufficient basis for judgment, but I would like to learn what people here think of the question? pl