Winston Churchill’s Crazy Plan For A BRITISH FEDERATION In 1912

[@davidreichert9392]

England, Scotland, Wales all refer to themselves as "countries" rather than states or provinces (as applied in two former Dominions of the British Empire, which use a federal system). In that context alone it would seem that a federation makes more sense than a unitary state.

[@horatiotodd8723]

Thats just a ploy to make it seem like wales and Scotland are represented, but they’re not as uk is a unitary state

[@lynnrotter8642]

agreed, and I understand they see themselves has "countries" but has a "American" most of our states are like nations, at least the largest ones, like California, Texas, Florida and New York (Due to New York City.) Other States such has georgia, also in my opinion are alot stronger in their regional identity. But to focus back on the United Kingdom, let's face it. All these nations that have made up the British Isles have been under one or more crowns/rulers over the last 2000 years-ish and will go on to be under one or more rulers back and fourth for the rest of time till the world ends. So wouldn't it be better to be in a Federation and stop this break up and get back togather relationship? I know Ireland the Republic wouldn't agree, and that's understandable so wouldn't be part of a Modern Federation, but let the rest of the nations in the United Kingdom, have larger automony, and self rule and make it into a Federation but instead of "States" there still "Nations." Now I know I'm a "American" talking about British Affairs, but I feel for the United Kingdom, and with some ancestors (Not from my main family line) being from England, Ireland and Scotland. I can't help and feel sad, for the UK.

[@tisFrancesfault]

@@horatiotodd8723 Scotland and wales are in fact over-represented; Wales is dramatically over represented.

[@clivejungle6999]

It is a ceremonial title, they are all non-sovereign sub-national regions. Giving Scotland (Population 5 million) equality with England (Population 57 million) would be a gross distortion of fairness and democracy. Either we split, stay as we are or we break up every 'country' into smaller federal regions. No other option would be fair.

[@NathanChick-n8q]

​@lynnrotter8642 scotland is a country not a British state and I'd like is to get our independence once the UK rejoins the EU I wish we got our independence in 2014 that way we'd still be in the EU. Oh and many Scots refuse to identify themselves as British just Scottish. I cringe when I have to say I'm British because I'm Scottish only.

[@sethjm]

A better analogy than the US would have been Canada or Australia - both of our countries are federal, with Westminster parliament systems and the monarchy (though that is increasingly precarious especially in Australia). It wouldn't really be crazy for the UK to have done something similar.

[@stuartgmk]

Yes and much improved as well.👍👍

[@chesterdonnelly1212]

Yes although there is a good reason for Canada and Australia to be governed that way. They're huge.

[@Pelley4560]

Yeah probably Canada would be the best comparison as their upper chamber is appointed and more comparable to the House of Lords. And overall their probably government feels a lot more British than Australia

[@guyh9992]

I was surprised to discover that unlike Australia, Canada only has one legal code whereas each state has their own laws here.

[@rebeccawinter472]

@@guyh9992yes and no. There are Federal Laws. And there are Provincial Offences, for example crimes committed under the Highway Traffic Act in Ontario (driving related offences that don’t fall under the Code). So it depends on the crime. Generally speaking though, most serious crimes fall under the Federal Criminal Code

[@Jim54_]

When talking about Ireland, one thing that needs to be mentioned was how a Protestant Irish Parliament successfully gained independence for Ireland between 1782 and 1800, during which time Catholics got most of their rights back, with most Irish people of different faiths uniting under the ideologies of either constitutionalism or Republicanism, with both in favour of varying degrees of Irish sovereignty/autonomy and increased personal rights. This independence ended when a failed Republican Revolution in 1798 led British prime minister William Pitt to intimidate and bribe the Irish Parliament into merging the Kingdom Ireland into the UK after an initial Union vote failed. Ireland’s Parliament was forced to merge with The British one (though the courts and civil service of Ireland remained separate, but nominally subject to Westminster from now on). People on both sides seem to have completely forgotten this chapter in Irish history, because Protestants and Catholics fighting together for an independent Irish Kingdom doesn’t fit anyone’s narrative, and yet it had a major impact on the island. Unionism, Republicanism and Constitutionalism all originate from the original Irish volunteers that used the opportunity of the American Revolution distracting Britain to revolt in 1782. This heralded the independence and has shaped all aspects of Irish politics ever since.

[@nar2cc]

This is taught in the modern day Junior Cert History curriculum in a chapter of its own, and goes into more detail if you decide to pursue history in the Leaving Cert, it's actually quite an important history chapter and is basically the reason the American Revolution is even included in the History curriculum in the first place, as a pretext for the 1798 chapter. I'm unsure if you're from a different country but maybe this perception is an honest mistake, this is at least true in the Republic of Ireland, I'm not too sure in the UK or Northern Ireland

[@Jim54_]

@@nar2cc its not taught much at all in schools in Ireland. I know because I only finished school a few years ago and the history curriculum is largely the same as it had been since 1992

[@nar2cc]

@@Jim54_ Things have changed then, I only finished my junior in the last 5 years.

[@broadsword6650]

As discussed in the video, Churchill's plan is not far off what has happened. The Republic of Ireland is independent, but there are now well established parliaments in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. In England, an increasing number of urban centres (London, Greater Manchester, Teeside, Midlands) have mayors and more are being discussed, while devolution deals are being discussed for other less urban English regions. The difference is that it has happened gradually and haphazardly rather than in one "Big Bang". The balance of power in the UK is very strange and uneven, and needs further work. Maybe in about 90 years it will be complete...

[@metal87power]

Churchill's plan would prevent unnecessary bloodshed during Irish revolution and maybe future gorila war with IRA .

[@christopherkerr1693]

That's how we do things here, gradually

[@turnip5359]

I'll be fucking dead in 90 years so who the hell cares, hell gimme ten and I'll probably be dead

[@rezza_lynsaii]

I think the north east england will get a regional assembly as promised in 2004 in the near future. It depends with the way things are going maybe even sooner. I hope so. Austerity and Regional Inequality plus Brexit is fckin everyone up. The greed and constant divide is getting ridiculous. They need to act instead of waiting.

[@stewy62]

@@rezza_lynsaii Okay it was twenty years ago but in 2004 in an all postal ballot the North East rejected the “promised” regional assembly by 78 % to 22 % on a 48 % “turnout”.

[@PLuMUK54]

I am in favour of federalisation. I would loosely base the English regions on the Saxon Kingdoms: Northumbria (plus most of Strathclyd, which covered Cumbria and Lancashire), Mercia [possibly divided into north and south as it would be very large), Wessex (plus Cornwall), East Anglia, Saxony (Essex, Kent, and Sussex), with London a separate region. Scotland would have two regions: the Highlands and Islands, and the Lowlands. Wales and Ulster would be the remaining self-governing regions. 10 or 11 in total, all sending representatives to a National Senate which dealt with nationwide and international issues. People claim that it adds complexity and an additional layer to the system. I disagree. We already have regional mayors, and they would be replaced by a federal government. The Senate would replace the House of Lords with a more democratic system.

[@tisFrancesfault]

The only issue is the "democratic system" with the HoL. dreadful idea. It should be more a technocratic house, or just abolished.

[@Alex-zs7gw]

Im from Lancashire....but it brings me no shame to say Mercia was BY FAR the most successful kingdom, and should have come out as the dominant power. Yes Bernicia and Deira (Northumbria) had hegemony first....but they repetitively, short-sightedly fucked up time and time again. Wessex only triumphed through pure luck at the right time (i.e. at one of Mercia's few vulnerable moments and because of the development and progression that people forget happened during the "Dark Ages") Before that they were minor... It was Mercia who modernised trade, a sort of proto-federation, and both treated women more fairly and operated foreign diplomacy well. Having said that - today the North / South divide established by the Bastard is much stronger ...Scotland and Wales whilst ran by Westminster at least have some sort of voice. What do we have?

[@mildlydispleased3221]

London has almost twice the population of Scotland, two regions is too many.

[@S.pilgrim]

Population is only one metric

[@Alex-zs7gw]

@@mildlydispleased3221 5.5 million doubled is not 9 million Plus in the 1910s it was 4.7 million Vs 7 million ...cuz you know ...Capitalism gone mad 🙄

[@scottbrick9918]

I think this should still happen in England, I'm from Yorkshire and life here is different from London and many people in the north and west feel that the south east doesn't understand our local issues, meaning that English regional parliaments would be more effective, we have a local mayor system in some places but it's not standardized and only applies to some places

[@thomasedwards9450]

I’m from Bristol, and I 100% agree but I’m not sure I see it happening because London would throw a shit fit if it ever started having to pay for itself. Basically every politician has an economic interest in London.

[@endermasa9451]

I agree, an english parliament would never serve us here in Yorkshire, the only solution is our own devolution deal equivalent to that of wales or Scotland, introducing a Yorkshire parliament and reaching a better settlement with London. Many people in our county dont even feel english, and stick to the Yorkshire identity alone

[@Gabriel-hy8be]

​@@thomasedwards9450 London has the best fiscal balance in the country. The revenue raised in the region is much higher than the public spending it receives. Of the last 20 years, London and South East had a surplus in 19 of them. East of England had 13 years of surplus. All the other regions had 0 years of surplus in the last two decades. So, London is already paying for itself, while most other regions are not.

[@thomasedwards9450]

@@Gabriel-hy8be is that why my Nan living in an ex council house in the 3rd most deprived estates in Bristol pays the same amount of council tax as a billionaire in Chelsea

[@dustgreylynx]

So basically a Germany-style UK. I like it. Spain and France may try it as well

[@rasoirwolf]

Oh, Paris would NEVER allow this lol And Madrid showed Catalunya how they feel about it....the UK? Totally possible.

[@agme8045]

Spain literally is composed of several autonomous regions with their own parliaments and government lol

[@theortheo2401]

No. France is a centralized state I wouldn't want regional government. Im French and we're already divided enough

[@anonymousbob8445]

@@theortheo2401corsica exists

[@anonymousbob8445]

Also we should enact federalization in france that says something as I’m French myself

[@jimmyjohnson1870]

Northern Ireland probably wouldn't have had those borders in this timeline, since the 6 county idea was invented to both give the North enough resources to survive while maintaining a Protestant majority. You'd probably have the whole of Ulster under a single parliament, as was once suggested during the 1914 Buckingham Palace Conference, or even a 4 county solution where demographics are being properly represented but the North is dependent on the South to survive.

[@DampedGull2579]

Well, the six county idea was not just to give the North enough recourses, the heavily protestant areas in the North were the most industrialised part of Ireland, because it’s the only place the British remotely cared about, the six county idea was made based the election results of the 1910 general election, in which many of the Northern provinces supported unionist parties, however many constituencies of the counties of the north voted for the IPP, the British would eventually settle for taking pretty much as much land as they could while maintaining a unionist majority.

[@stanleypines1026]

@@DampedGull2579You blame “the British” yet they were in favour of a smaller NI during the boundary committee. It was the NI government that wanted the current borders.

[@DampedGull2579]

@@stanleypines1026 your kind of right, that was a mistake by me, the British didn’t really care, it made little difference to them, especially because the Liberals were in a coalition with the IPP.

[@jimmyjohnson1870]

@@DampedGull2579 Oh, thanks for the clarification.

[@Corc-Duibhne]

​​@@stanleypines1026There was never any serious British proposal for a smaller Northern Ireland. David Lloyd George did make informal promises that the boundary commission would give land to the Irish Republic, but at the same gave Northern Irish Unionist politicians assurances that the border would stay the same. It was nothing more than a ploy to satisfy Irish negotiators, and it worked. In reality the Boundary Commission largely followed current borders, with a series of minor land swaps.

[@kingace6186]

Most of the major domestic issues faced by the UK over this past century could have been solved or prevented with the adoption of Churchill's idea.

[@ggCA07]

yes. but instead of properly federalizing they are devolving different regions. Brits seem to not know of the world “federalism.” it may just be their saving grace

[@TickleMeChelmno]

Unlikely. All of these regions will be independent anyway

[@kingace6186]

@@ggCA07 Exactly. That's exactly why Scotland wants to leave the union. No matter how many token concession London makes, the UK is still a unitary gov. The country exceedingly NEEDs federalism, but London will never let go of the unitary state.

[@Whocaresfrfrfrim]

Doesn't sound crazy, sounds like a normal government system.

[@Hession0Drasha]

Great Idea, strange border choices 😅

[@anonymoususerinterface]

i was thinking throughout, but icl i am partial to the idea

[@guystrong7218]

Would make a lot more sense to use the NUTS or ITL standard that was used in European elections rather than the map seen in the video

[@Donderu]

How shortsighted they were back then and even now. This plan might have changed history in so many ways

[@TheLukeLambert]

Great video and some really good insight into the times! Also would like to add that the Mayoral system in the UK is starting to be used like regional devolution, which in turn is a kind of start to the federalisation of the system. Thanks for all you do!

[@stuarttunstead6616]

The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the UK. They govern themselves and have created their own laws and legal system. They get protection from the UK as Crown Dependencies, much the same as many others around the world like Gibraltar and Falkland Islands etc.

[@Nathann99]

We all know you like to let us know 😂

[@emizerri]

They're part of the UK as a sovereign state. Plenty of countries have autonomy laws, doesn't mean they're not part of the country.

[@joshuaswart8211]

@@emizerriLegally speaking, this is not correct. It is incorrect to suggest that the Crown Dependencies are parts of the UK that have a lot of autonomy. It would be more accurate to say that they are separate states that share a monarch with the UK, and allow the UK to manage their foreign affairs. Legally, these are very different.

[@domca4617]

​​@@joshuaswart8211And why does it matter if they are de facto part of it? The fact that some irelevant feudalistic surviving technicality says something else hardly even matters.

[@johnkilmartin5101]

I find it hard to believe all London's papers were against this as Lord Beaverbrook was in favour of something similar. As for Imperial Federation there was a push towards it but then the Great Depression occurred and it never came back. The Statute of Westminster had not been passed at the time Churchill gave the speech so the powers of the Dominions were limited.

[@magnusmcgee993]

Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand was said to favour similar plans for the Austro Hungarian Empire

[@zombiedude101z]

It's interesting you mention this now, as the recent decades have seen a movement towards this decentralised model with devolution coming into effect across different parts of the country.

[@ryandanngetich2524]

Well it kinda came true for Scotland.,wales and ireland

[@horatiotodd8723]

Ireland is independent, north will join soon and maybe Scotland and isle of man

[@papi8659]

Not true for Ireland , Ireland just left and never looked back .......

[@thinkwithaportal]

@@horatiotodd8723 Doubt it, Mr. Pessimist

[@Cledwyn-E]

​​@@horatiotodd8723I want to leave the United kingdom too😭🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

[@robertclive491]

And England denied any kind of autonomy.

[@EdinMike]

Good effort at pronouncing Midlothian I guess. I only jest because it’s the county I live in ! “Mid-low-theyin”

[@oliversherman2414]

Imagine if Churchill was the Prime Minister in 1912 instead of 1940. He'd be famous for leading the country during WW1 instead of WW2

[@barneyhall2753]

Australia was already an independent country at this time. The 6 British Colonies united to form a federation in 1901.

[@thomasbootham2707]

As someone from Lancashire I would strongly support this it’s commonly viewed here that the fat cats in London constantly leave us in the north to rot which has been the case since thatcher and we believe there should be more autonomy given to local governments here since we know more what we need than those in London do I think a federal uk with regional assemblies in England should definitely happen it’s just a shame no party is pushing for this at the minute hopefully that will change and maybe labour may even move us in that direction even if it is only slight

[@FranzBieberkopf]

This was known as Home Rule All Round, a way of making Irish home rule acceptable to Ulster Prods. No joy there

[@craigchampagne7797]

A Federal British and Irish and Colonial Empire could have been something. It was that anyway for years after just with the additional bloodshed.

[@pirukiddingme1908]

Those internal English borders are horrific. Lancashire and Yorkshire, sure, but why are you lumping Birmingham in with the north west? Or Lincolnshire and London in the same area? Why

[@S.pilgrim]

While I agree with your point, I have no idea how one would go about splitting England regionally, in a way that would make sense

[@Fyrdman]

​@@S.pilgrimThe only way i could see it sort of working, is if they did it by the lines of the old heptarchy

[@pirukiddingme1908]

@@S.pilgrim Northumbria, split east and west if necessary, Mercia, east and west if necessary, south west England (basically Wessex), south east, basically Sussex, east Anglia, London, Cornwall

[@Rynewulf]

@@S.pilgrimTraditionally would work fairly well. London, South East/Essex and Surrey and Sussex and Kent (no easy region name sadly lol), West Country/Wessex and Cornwall, East Anglia, Midlands/Mercia, North/Northumbia,

[@MervynPartin]

I wasn't aware of Churchill's plan, and while I am not an admirer of Churchill, this proposal seems quite reasonable, and aligns with many of my own thoughts. A federal parliament in Westminster (no House of Lords at all- that is an expensive waste of space) to cover the UK as a whole. Welsh, Scottish and most definitely, English regional governments with fair allocation of financial resources. I haven't mentioned Northern Ireland because they seem incapable of organising a party in a well known Irish Brewery and may end up joining the ROI (if the ROI even wants it!) Rather than having separate elections and additional MPs for the devolved parliaments, perhaps they should serve a dual role- local and federal. They get paid enough so let them work for it. It should also hopefully reduce any conflict between local and federal policies. What could reinforce the Identity of Britain as a nation? A common federal currency, call it "Bank of Great Britain" for example, but no more "Bank of England". It doesn't help when foreigners keep referring to England as the name of the whole nation. Problems? Both the Scottish and Welsh governments have shown themselves to be dictatorial, riding over the rights and common sense of their populations, but to be fair so has Westminster, which has resulted in Thought Policing.

[@DeclaredAnthems]

Awesome video! 👏

[@rebeccawinter472]

Would be interesting to imagine if Newfoundland could have been included in this. In an alternate timeline. It didn’t join Canada until 1949, of course, so at this point it was a separate semi-autonomous Dominion.

[@noelcahill6707]

It would have delayed the irish republic leaving the union at the time ireland was looking for home rule

[@dylreesYT]

I've been thinking of how a federal UK could look like ever since 2014. When I've come to a final idealised view, I would like to write it up and see it become topic for discussion upon the general public. It can't be as strict as the US model but it needs more freedom, prominence and gentle formation than we currently have. It needs to be beneficial for the people without much control of social spending. It needs to foster a British identity instead of regional independence aspirations- how the US does that is both confounding and potentially dystopian. Regions need to hold somewhat equal power and influence with growth forecasts included to balance each other out. It needs to foster a clear career pathway for developing intelligent, effective and non-corrupt politicians. It needs checks and balances at every level with fullbacks to prevent collapse or disintegration. It's a complex issue, I'd be interested to hear others views on what the outcome needs/should look like.

[@rezza_lynsaii]

I agree. I’m from the north east and I’ve never recovered from the 2004 referendum. We were so close but due to many factors exc. we never got it. I’m really hope that same proposal comes up again and I get to see it. The regional disparities are becoming wider than ever and overall I’m really unhopeful.

[@Joanna-il2ur]

Under Blair they invented regional assemblies, which flopped badly. The plan was to start with a parliament for the North East but when Labour put it to a Referendum it failed to pass and was abandoned m. One regional assembly ran from Oxfordshire to Kent avoiding London . Its capital was Tunbridge Wells. To get a decision about something in Oxford you had to drive a hundred miles and around the M25 to TW. It was all junked by Cameron.

[@EAlyahya]

So they rejected federalism for fear of separatism but then introduced devolution which actually enhances it?

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not parts of the UK but belong to the Monarch as Crown Dependencies. So, there is no difference to now under Churchill's plan.

[@toslaw9615]

Federalization would be better than current devolution. What happens now gets complicated - each part gets different rights, this stuff, and well, England has only the main parliament. Federalization wouldn't be that hard compared to this. You need to explicitly state what's up to the federal government and what's up to the regional governments, that's it. The Americans could do this, the Australians could do it, the Canadians could do this (except they made it overly complicated later) - the British could, too.

[@andrewforster2091]

Australia had answered its own question of federation and became its on country by 1901. Each state had its own parliament to take care of state issues, and the federal government looked after national issues, ala military, diplomacy, etc

[@MrBulky992]

We don't need to wonder what Churchill's plans were for the Channel Islands etc. They weren't part of the UK and already had home rule and their own parliaments. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa likewise, though these became separate realms from the UK in the 1930s.

[@ryandanngetich2524]

I kinda prefer this timeline

[@fitzer1881]

trust me , most Irish people would not prefer this. And we likely would've ended up independent anyway, just in a different manner.

[@lexibroadbent1467]

@@fitzer1881Ireland has like 12 people make the comment or prefers the outcome for the other countries 🙄

[@horatiotodd8723]

@lexibroadbent1467 Speak English, what you said is unintelligible and makes no sense

[@lexibroadbent1467]

@@horatiotodd8723 I think you can work it out.

[@fitzer1881]

@@lexibroadbent1467 *7 million on the island of Ireland

[@gregoryvnicholas]

At the time the great cities of the Midlands and the North (such as Chamberlain's Birmingham) were pretty much autonomous with little intererence from London.

[@lawden210]

Good video!

[@nealjroberts4050]

I once proposed an internal devolution within the Commons itself enabling, for example, Scottish MPs to discuss and vote on purely Scottish legislation with other MPs merely observers or guest speakers. You'd even be able to form these on any regional issue eg Lothian & Northern English, Leinster and Wales, etc etc.

[@MrBulky992]

That's not really devolution: you need not only a legislature (MPs) but also a devolved *government* , as the Scots and Welsh have. The current arrangements for England are similar to what you proposed (the English Grand Committee of MPs meeting to discuss England-specific bills) but there is no English government , only a UK-wide one so the only legislation to be put in front of English MPs is what the *UK* government decide. The same would apply if you further subdivided England.

[@nealjroberts4050]

@@MrBulky992 It's devolving legislation off the entire commons so yes it is technically devolution. Hence my specific phrasing. And it's people like me who suggested the "grand committee" idea in the first place.

[@MrBulky992]

​​​​@@nealjroberts4050You seem to have ignored my point - Scotland and Wales have devolved *government* : England still does not. If the UK had in the future, say, a Labour-led government but England had (after a miraculous recovery) a majority of Conservative MPs, the bills being presented to the English Grand Committee would be Labour-inspired ones, not Conservative. That's not devolution as most people understand it. There is no English "first minister" and no English cabinet. Alao, there is no devolved English civil service departments as tgere are in Scotland and Wales to enact the legislation and policies which, if left to the civil service serving the UK government might result in a UK/England conflict of interest.

[@nealjroberts4050]

@@MrBulky992 You don't seem to understand my point that devolution doesn't require a separate government.

[@MrBulky992]

​​@@nealjroberts4050The Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish and virtually everyone else in the world would disagree with you, I think. Devolution is shorthand to mean "devolved goverment" and you cannot govern without a government. Parliament does not do the actual governing - it merely assents to or dissents from government proposals. The Scottish Grand Committee did meet to discuss Scottish legislation on occasion after the defeat of the Labour Government's devolution proposals in the 1979 referendum. That solution did *not* satisfy aspirations in Scotland and did not prevent the instituting of *proper* devolution in 1999.

[@mcjamesa5149]

What made you choose this map of regions? The account of Churchill's proposed division explicitly separated Lancashire & Midlands (shown partially combined) & Yorkshire distinctly (shown combined with NE)? It feels like clickbait... You've brushed over another point (because it is super boring), but the proposals aren't federations, but devolution. The state/regions don't get self determination, their authority is granted by the central government. It sounds very like Labour's 2002 proposed devolution to English regions, shortly after Scotland, Wales, NI & London assemblies were established. This only stalled because the NE region voted against it in a 2004 referendum. Since 2011, England has opted for sub-regional devolution, where haphazardly some major city regions have got independent mayors, & this has been expanded to multi-county mayors over some less urban areas.

[@TheodricK-y7k]

You should do a video on the Caucasus and the Chechen situation, I am confused about what most Chechens want, personally if I was a Chechen staying in Russia could do well because they might become a dominant ethnic group.

[@kayedal-haddad]

I would be in favour of Federalism (full fiscal autonomy) rather than Federalisation with 10 regions in England with regional assemblies.

[@guystrong7218]

Love this idea, but it would make a lot more sense to use the NUTS or ITL standard that was used in European elections rather than the map seen in the video

[@SeasideDetective2]

Even though I'm not British, I would relish seeing the United Kingdom "devolve." The British Isles have always been ethnically and culturally diverse. The modern-day "native" British people are composed of English, Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, and Manx elements; this list excludes the Bretons, who migrated to northern France and are considered French today, and the Picts, who were completely assimilated into the Scottish nation. You could even argue for splitting the Scots in two along politico-linguistic lines (Scottish Highlanders and Scottish Lowlanders) and the Irish in two along politico-religious lines ("pure" Irish and Ulster Irish). Therefore, a total of at least ten distinct cultural groups have inhabited Britain throughout its history. It's also worth noting that, prior to the formation of the Irish Free State, British Christianity was split roughly equally four ways: Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic branches. My own ethnic heritage includes the English, Scottish (both Highland and Lowland), and Irish (both Republican and Ulster) strains, and all of the above religious sects except for the Methodist.

[@watcherzero5256]

Big omission on English Devolution was the English Government Office Regions and the failed referendums on giving them their own governments where they were roundly rejected by their residents.

[@rezza_lynsaii]

Because of external pressure and outside interference. Otherwise the people themselves would’ve.

[@Sworder116]

Nice

[@edsiles4297]

AlternateHistoryHun, are you listening ?

[@LawpickingLocksmith]

England is getting poorer by the day since they left the EU.

[@MMerlyn91]

You say that because you don't live in the EU, we're getting poorer here as well. Here so-called "climate policies" and abysmal energy policies have closed off entire communities and emptied our pockets. But the EU is much better at propaganda than the UK these days, so you don't hear about it. At this point it's more of a cage than an union, sadly.

[@theninjabird9510]

is the economy not rising?

[@MrAlsachti]

@@MMerlyn91 Oh yeah, reality is just "EU propaganda".EU economy is crashing because of ecology. Sure.

[@sparkieT88]

Because they keep giving it all to the foreign invasion

[@LawpickingLocksmith]

@@MMerlyn91 Queensland Australia has now tent cities sprawling up whilst the government collects money for services they fail to provide.

[@mariajoaoferrazdeabreu150]

Great video. Very interesting subject!

[@PeloquinDavid]

It's a curious American habit to assume that the UK would have seen the US model of federalism as the model to be followed. I seriously doubt that Churchill in particular would have seen the US federal model as anything other than an abomination... By 1912, the Brits had had several decades of federalist experience, playing midwife to federal unions in the "Westminster" context - i.e. among its colonies in Canada (from 1867 onward) and also in Australia (from 1901). It was very much "in the air" of the times among the "British" both in Britain and in the (white) colonies, though I suspect the independence movement in India was busily taking notes at the time as well...

[@wirralnomad]

Churchill was half American with his Mother being American, he was very pro-American which is why he continuously pushed the "Special Relationship" between the two nations.

[@oinkmeistergeneral]

Nowadays we have devolved governments Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own parliaments. Effectively federalised, during the COVID lockdowns they all had different rules depending on if it was the senedd, Westminster or the other respective parliaments in charge.

[@ComedyJakob]

This would not have done anything to keep Ireland or the overseas white colonies. Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa all got home rule through dominion status irl and all continued to push for more and more independence, some faster than others. This would have faced more resistance from Irish Republicans than from British Imperialists. Ireland did not want autonomy, it wanted independence.

[@rwboa22]

Would be something if the the constituent territories of the ancient Heptarchy within England proper were revived (with Metropolitan London being it's own territory). Besides the nations that already have devolved parliaments, Cornwall has been petitioning Westminster for their own devolved parliament and the revival of the Heptarchy (all under personal union of the Crown) could allow England to function with greater autonomy.

[@Inkyminkyzizwoz]

Would this be so crazy though? After all, a lot of people feel that our Government is too London centric, so maybe some form of regional devolution is what's needed

[@imck357]

Scotland must go independent. England is running about after getting its "be careful egst you wish for " moment with it's hard brexit.

[@welshed]

I like the idea of Federalism, but I do think it would inevitably lead to stronger independence movements that would hasten the breakup of the UK. Wales doesn’t have an assembly anymore, we have a Parliament like Scotland and I think devolution is the right way forward. I don’t want the UK to totally break up, but I do want more powers for Wales. The central government in London just doesn’t seem to care about or devote much attention to anywhere outside the “Westminster bubble”.

[@thevis5465]

Scots born in Scotland voted to leave the UK in 2014. I want out and i want nothing to do with England. I can't see why anyone would.

[@Mykaeil]

I think that UK in 1912 was quite bigger than so called "British islands" and Churchill want to federalize all the teritory to maintain global power. In the meaning of British islands it doesnt make sense...😢

[@Hottakeontheworld]

Well I think it's very like how the uk is run now. There are more local councils and directly elected mayor's then ever. Otherwise known as devaluation

[@magnusmcgee993]

Little unfair to call the idea 'crazy' as most of it has actually happened: See Erie, NI, Scotland and Wales

[@jossdeiboss]

I am always in favor for Federalizations of countries, so I think this would benefit the UK as well. Not sure about a full Parliament for each region, but maybe a smaller board or something like that.

[@thevis5465]

UK is not a country and my people voted to leave it in 2014.

[@crazyboris1625]

@@thevis5465 The referendum lost by 11%. Cope.

[@thevis5465]

@@crazyboris1625 those born in Scotland voted yes. English people living in Scotland pushed the vote to a no. We voted to leave.

[@jossdeiboss]

@@thevis5465 UK is a United Kingdom, so it's a union of different countries, so I agree with what you mean by that. However, I meant the single country within the union could benefit. So, splitting England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in smaller regional units (as necessary). That would make the UK a Federal State similar to Germany. There would be the UK Parliament similar to the current one but with less power and more independent and smaller parliaments in the different regions.

[@wftjet]

The UK House of Commons is too large. 650 members is just not necessary.

[@lcem7]

Hi! What are the sources for this video? What was the actual name of the project?

[@Kyoummi]

i say it's not all that crazy in my opnion england needs devolution we have alot of ham fisted stuff coming out of westminster that is more pseudo uk policy than england so i believe a devolved nother and southern england would be of great benefit to the uk so the idea of setting up this system isn't too wild it would need a better frame work than this ofc

[@marlls1989]

Breaking England into multiple states looks like a way to make it keep more control in a federated system. For a federated system to work, each country in the United Kingdom should have their own parliament an above them the national parliament

[@prion42]

Suffrage sounds bad but is actually good

[@HahnJames]

That's an interesting concept. It would take a whole boatload of time, effort and resources to bring into being. It woulld also have to be accepted by the general population. Once enacted, ti would go through a stabilization process where it would either sail or fail. The big question to answer is, would it better serve the needs of the people than maintaining the status quo?

[@Drasai]

If you’re going to federalise the UK, why not unify the entire CANZUK alliance into a federation?

[@wirralnomad]

And include Ireland as a unified land.

[@wirralnomad]

Ok, that would then be either CANZUCKI or ICANZUK, add the USA and it would be either USACANZUCKI or ICANZUKUSA lol.

[@yakadoodledongywongy8718]

Really is no reason to replace the lords with a senate just make sure each state is sending the same amount of lirds to the... lords?

[@oinkmeistergeneral]

Mostly I think the main problem is nothing matters or is funded unless its in london or the south east. What annoys me even more is the wedt country bring lumped in with the Londoners 9 times out of 10

[@crispybacon9917]

"United states of britain doesn't exist, it can't hurt you" United states of britain

[@KimPhilby203]

A far reaching proposal way ahead of time .

[@hellenicculture8169]

εχετε τετοιο σχεδιο του τσωρτσχιλλ? ειναι πολυ καλο μελετηστε προσαρμοστε αποφασιστε εφαρμοστε ειναι αριστη βαση! θα γινει και μια αναβαθμιση του στεματος και χωρα θα γινει ξανα αστερι

[@jackholt2364]

There were many ideas like this, like the Imperial Federation in the 30's. For all you HOI fans out there.

[@oinkmeistergeneral]

West country independence or devolved government wpuld be amazing. Tired of holiday homes for londoners pushing locals out

[@michelnowe7783]

The map you use is not correct. in 1912 Ireland was not divided and a integral part of the United Kingdom

[@wirralnomad]

Also wrong flag too!

[@gumdeo]

One of Churchill's better ideas.

[@lipingrahman6648]

This isn’t such a bad idea, he should have also called for the UK to have a real constitution and bill of rights.

[@conormcauley2934]

how is the ulster banner relevant in this graphic

[@RealUlrichLeland]

5:05 If England was divided into regions they would probably be quite similar to the European Parliament constituencies back when the UK was in the EU, because those all had roughly equal population sizes of 3-9 million. London wouldn't be grouped in with the east and south east of England because that's already the most densely populated region of the country. The east, south east and london regions had a combined population of 24 million in 2019 (the least eu parliament election the UK took part in), which was more than 35% of the UKs population.

[@calccalccalc]

Honestly, would have probably been beneficial, as long as greater London was it's own state, seeing how there is a huge wealth disparity between London and the entire rest of the UK ....but "united states of britain" would sound a bit too american for a lot of brits.

[@RightfulArchon186]

Crazy? I thought it.... Well, worked out for Ireland after their independence.

[@Jay_Kry5hom]

This would make sense Churchill is American and British son of an American Princess( a super rich new money American woman sent to a Brit by a dowery to save the British Aristocracy)

[@krisinsaigon]

That wasn’t a crazy idea. It might have worked, and attempted to address genuine issues with sensible solutions

[@KittyEvalyn]

MIITARY

[@smacwhinnie]

Would have been better than the piecemeal devolution there is now. Need a well designed constitution incl a 10th amendment. Scotland should be 2 districts, Highlands and lowlands.

[@thevis5465]

no, we voted for indty in 2014, we need indy.

[@Syltarius]

8:25 Federalism beeing complex? In Germany everything is simple and it's not pure bureaucracy

[@justanotherhistorybuff5336]

6 seconds, dang

[@pdfarrelly]

I dont think they would have divided ireland under this plan.

[@gerardbryant1445]

Just what the UK needs, more politicians!

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Not necessarily so, the regional assemblies could have replaced the county councils.

[@baronbrummbar8691]

another reason why i think the claim that the german empire was less democratic is laughable

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

And they say Trotsky and Himler were lunny,

[@ByzantineCalvinist]

Federalism was invented and further developed by British ex-colonials. Why not bring it back to the homeland?

[@dairebulson7122]

Actually some pretty interesting regionalism?

[@peterjohnson1091]

England has 85% of the UK's population. That is mot healthy.

[@RichardBrown7k]

Most of Scotland and Wales are mountain ranges

[@YupYupTRP]

why do you say yorkshire correctly but then lancashire as "lanca-shi-yur"

[@user-hl7nt1og7k]

Churchill's vision has been realised, almost. All we're lacking is an English Parliament. There are issues that effect only the Welsh, that only the Welsh can vote on. There are issues that only effect the Scots, that only the Scots can vote on. But issues that effect only England? Well, the Welsh and Scots are given a vote also. This is made worse by the fact that Westminster funding of Scotland is directly related with public spending in England. So, if ever there is an issue in Parliament discussing increased spending in England, the Scots always have a good reason to vote for more spending, even if it's unneccesary, because it means more money for Scotland.

[@rezza_lynsaii]

England will never get a Parliament. It’s too divided. The North East will get a Regional Assembly as predicted in 2004. Londons economy is causing more division than ever. I’m really worried tbh.

[@andrewjgrimm]

He also proposed a union of the UK and France, and lab-grown meat. His role in perpetrating colonialism is shameful but he had many innovative ideas.

[@Fyrdman]

Why is it shameful?

[@nestoreleuteriopaivabendo5415]

​@@Fyrdman Because colonialism impoverished BILLIONS of people around the world so they could be rich. England would be just another poor country without colonialism/imperialism.

[@Fyrdman]

@@nestoreleuteriopaivabendo5415 Leftists propaganda at it again. First of all, you're trying to suggest the places we conquered were already rich, only to be driven into the dirt when we came. That is simply not the case at all. England was already a developed nation by the Medieval period, and a prosperous one by the time of the renaissance. Again, the idea we'd be some 3rd world tin-pot nation without colonialism is completely unfounded and a total fabrication. The Empire didn't cause Britain to become industrialised, either. Our protestant work ethic and high literacy levels did that.

[@foundationgamer9771]

​@@nestoreleuteriopaivabendo5415I wouldn't say it impoverished the countries in colonised, the British Empire provided lots of development to its colonies (even if the motivations (mostly) weren't very altruistic). There's much better ways to go about such things, but it IS a merit to colonialism, and I wouldn't say it necessarily impoverishes it's colonies (although it does depend, for example there differences between British Malaysia and the Belgian Congo 'Free' State couldn't be more night and day)

[@Fyrdman]

@@nestoreleuteriopaivabendo5415 Everything you said is wrong. First of all, you're trying to suggest the places we took were rich when we arrived. That couldn't be any further from the truth. You can't get any lower than living in a mudhut, and that's what most people were living in when we arrived. England was already a developed nation by the time of the Medieval period, and prosperous by the renaissance. Furthermore, Britain's wealth came from Industrialism - which was an internal development based on Britain's high literacy level. The idea Britain would be a poor nation without the Empire is totally unfounded, and something expected from a brainwashed Leftist.

[@shawndemetrios7899]

Why was it crazy?

[@mackemftm74]

The only part of England that has a voice is London and the rest of England doesn’t count

[@trevormillar1576]

Churchill wad jyst wriggling to avoid a revolution which navy thought imminent in the face if r.ising industrial militancy .