"Federalism is being presented by many activists as the best option for a future democratic Myanmar – and with good reason. The formal sharing of power between a national government and regional administrations has worked well for some of the world’s most successful democracies, including Germany and Australia. It has also – and perhaps less successfully – been adopted where there is an acute division - religious, linguistic, cultural or ethnic - which needs to be addressed politically for the nation to survive. Belgium, Bosnia and Nigeria could be seen as examples. Britain is not federal, indeed its largest constituent, England, remains one of the most highly centralised of major democracies. But it’s been heading down the devolution path in recent decades, establishing parliaments or assemblies for Scotland and Wales (and also reforming Northern Ireland’s assembly, though for different reasons). Some see that as a drift towards a federal system, which could also eventually encompass more autonomy for the poorer, largely post-industrial, English midlands and north. But a huge row over the rights of people who are trans-gender has put into question just how sincere and effective is Britain’s decentralisation of political power. One of the main purposes of introducing regional decision making is to enable large and complex nations to accommodate diversity and so blunt separatist sentiment. That’s how it has worked in the world’s two major democracies. Indian federalism has been a conspicuous success and an important factor in allowing a geographically, culturally and linguistically hugely diverse nation to prosper. That’s not an endorsement of the way India is governed, but a reflection of the manner in which power is divided between the Centre and the country’s constituent states. Separatist sentiment in the Kashmir Valley and in some parts of India’s north-east has led to insurgencies and brutal security crackdowns, and Delhi has been strongly criticised for failing to seek a political solution particularly in Kashmir. But broadly, federalism has kept India together. The United States is a different story. Its political system is shaped by the legacy of a ruinous civil war in the 1860s to prevent secession by pro-slavery southern states. And it has one signal success: there is no secessionist movement of any political consequence anywhere in the US (except perhaps on the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico, which is US-ruled but whose citizens have no elected representatives in Congress). Britain’s awkward embrace of devolution is more recent. In 1997, when Labour’s Tony Blair headed a reforming national government, the British Parliament agreed there should be referenda in Scotland and Wales to decide on whether to set up devolved assemblies there. Voters in both regions endorsed the idea and a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly (the difference in terms is important – the Welsh elected body was given less power than Scotland’s) were established the following year. The broad political consensus is that, in practical terms, devolution has worked fairly well. Tony Blair’s devolution reforms were in part a response to increased nationalist sentiment in Scotland and Wales, and in part an attempt to forestall the growth of a powerful breakaway movement. In Scotland, that aim has failed. For the past fifteen years, Scotland’s First Minister has been a member of the Scottish National Party (SNP), a constitutional left-wing party which seeks an independent Scotland. The SNP is now by far the most popular political party in Scotland getting almost half the total vote. And it wants a referendum on independence (there was one in 2014, in which the people of Scotland voted by 55% to 45% against breaking away, but the pro-Europe SNP says Britain’s departure from the European Union requires a fresh vote). But there’s a catch. A second referendum can only be authorised by the government and Parliament in Westminster – and there’s no prospect of that. So, there’s an uneasy stalemate between London and the Scottish capital, Edinburgh. The political temperature is now approaching boiling point because of a row about trans rights. The Scottish Parliament has passed legislation – applicable only in Scotland – to make it easier for people who are trans-gender to get formal legal recognition of their new gender identity. The governing Conservative party in London disagrees with these reforms and argues that it conflicts with legislation passed by the Britain-wide Westminster Parliament. And for the first time since devolution was introduced a quarter of a century ago, the British government is using its reserve powers to block Scotland’s new law. The Scottish nationalists argue that failing to respect a decision of the Edinburgh Parliament in an area where it has devolved authority is anti-democratic. The British Conservatives say that far from tearing up the devolution arrangement, London is simply exercising powers it was given under that dispensation. What started as a difference of opinion about trans rights is becoming a big constitutional bust-up. The instinct to decentralise power and ensure that smaller regions enjoy real autonomy feels right. England has ten times the population of Scotland and almost twenty times that of Wales, and that overwhelming dominance made both smaller nations feel marginalised and ignored. But getting the balance right between centre and region is a difficult judgment. And there is the even trickier issue of how to respond when regional sentiment becomes a demand for complete separation. This doesn’t mean that devolving power is wrong – just that it takes a lot of careful planning and even more political wisdom to make it work..."