That’s an interesting way of looking at it, but I think it’s worth pointing out that there are key differences between Australian states/Swiss Cantons/Canadian provinces and the UK’s regions. In a federation (or confederation), the sub-regions are the original basis of power, and they choose to give up some of their powers (chiefly foreign policy) to the federal union. The UK’s regions are much more similar to Chinese provinces, in that the national government holds all the power, and chooses to delegate some responsibility to lower levels at its own will.
This is not meant as a value judgment, by the way. I have long argued against the amount of power states wield in Australian politics, and would prefer more decisionmaking be turned down to the local level. Preferably in a structure that involves more genuine consultation (as opposed to “consultation” as a box-ticking exercise) with local residents, and with much smaller local governments than the mega-council that BCC is. At the same time, some of the other powers that the states currently have would be better off lifted up to the federal government. It’s not about federal governments with the power that states have being better by any means. Just that they’re very clearly different, and that the UK is a unitary state, where the sub-regions are more like Chinese provinces than like Canadian provinces, despite the implication of the name “state” being that they actually sit between Canadian provinces and France on the spectrum. (If the spectrum goes from Chinese provinces, to Canadian provinces, to the country of France, Scotland sits between Chinese and Canadian provinces, closer to the Chinese province, but the name carries the implication that it is close to if not the same as France.)
That’s an interesting way of looking at it, but I think it’s worth pointing out that there are key differences between Australian states/Swiss Cantons/Canadian provinces and the UK’s regions. In a federation (or confederation), the sub-regions are the original basis of power, and they choose to give up some of their powers (chiefly foreign policy) to the federal union. The UK’s regions are much more similar to Chinese provinces, in that the national government holds all the power, and chooses to delegate some responsibility to lower levels at its own will.
This is not meant as a value judgment, by the way. I have long argued against the amount of power states wield in Australian politics, and would prefer more decisionmaking be turned down to the local level. Preferably in a structure that involves more genuine consultation (as opposed to “consultation” as a box-ticking exercise) with local residents, and with much smaller local governments than the mega-council that BCC is. At the same time, some of the other powers that the states currently have would be better off lifted up to the federal government. It’s not about federal governments with the power that states have being better by any means. Just that they’re very clearly different, and that the UK is a unitary state, where the sub-regions are more like Chinese provinces than like Canadian provinces, despite the implication of the name “state” being that they actually sit between Canadian provinces and France on the spectrum. (If the spectrum goes from Chinese provinces, to Canadian provinces, to the country of France, Scotland sits between Chinese and Canadian provinces, closer to the Chinese province, but the name carries the implication that it is close to if not the same as France.)