1. The first article advocates a beefed up version of devolution. I really couldn't get along with it. I found the second far better thought through. Both are attempting to retain the Union in some form. Both left me with the feeling that federalism doesn't work for the UK. https://twitter.com/SgwrsCenedl/status/1295794916883337217

2. The second did touch on the problem of centralisation. It didn't much explore the phenomenon as a cause of the inequalities that abound within the UK. Both continue to support the redistributionist model without addressing the core-periphery inequality it seeks to ameliorate.

3. The elephant in the room is English nationalism. In 2016 and 2019 England voted for an end to sharing sovereignty and a less internationalist government. England itself is showing signs of supporting an end to the UK.

4. How on earth could the English electorate be persuaded to share their sovereignty in a federation with Scotland & Wales whereby the massive differential in numbers would have to be mitigated?

5. Let me frame it in contemporary terms ... could England accept 325 Welsh, Scottish & Northern Irish MP's to their 325 in a total of 650 at Westminster in the name of counterbalancing their political clout on account of their population? Of course not!

6. There is only one solution that I think is viable. That is the UK gives way to three sovereign states and the reunification of a fourth. The three British States form a Council in which common interests and rules are negotiated.

7. Statehood will allow the nations the flexibility to pursue their own course - Scotland may join the EU whilst England stays outside. Would Wales join EFTA? Who would use Sterling? The Euro? Their own currency?

8. Whatever is chosen, cross-border co-operation, freedom to work & travel etc could be established by a British Council. Such an arrangement might even be palatable to a united Ireland. It could participate differently if it felt it was in its interests.

9. That solution is the only one in which each nation can (as far as is possible) pursue its interests without any one systemically dominating by weight of numbers. With a right of veto, nothing could be forced.

That would be the solution that I would support.