When you say “Liege, Namur, Charleroi and Mons were every bit as important as Antwerp, Ghent and Bruges. This is what enabled francophone Wallonia to dominate Belgium until the post war period when the disparity in GDP became too lop-sided to support Walloon preference.” you are completely wrong. The reason why Wallonia dominated Belgium was that the coal & steel was located in the Walloon provinces. This resulted in industrialisation. Flemish industry, historically, was processing English wool. When Elizabeth decided to import those skills to England, she set in train a long-term decline in the great weaving cities (which is why there are so many historic buildings preserved in Bruges & Ghent)

When you write “since Flanders was more industrial, and Wallonia more agrarian. I never suggested that millions had moved in just the past few decades.” you are totally confused. Liege started to industrialise with the early development of it’s coal mines, back in the Elizabethan age. As Flanders lost it’s weaving industry, Wallonia industrialised. It wasn’t until the post-WW2 development of industry around Antwerp (caused because the port was repaired to support the allied armies in WW2) that Flanders re-industrialised. Most Flemish industry is less than 60 years old.

When you write “These days, it is a badge of Flemish pride to refuse to speak French, and they prefer English.” You are partially wrong. Most Flemish refuse to speak French TO A WALLOON IN FLANDERS. They have no problems in speaking French to a foreigner, or to a Walloon, if they are in Wallonia.

Linguistic problems have, indeed, got worse in recent years. Nominally, both communities have to learn the other’s language. However (as I observed during three years work in Belgium), even in officially-bilingual Brussels, you find few Belgians whose native language is French who are capable of speaking simple sentences in Dutch. Most Flemish, however are capable of carrying out complex conversations in French. The Walloon refusal to keep ‘their part of the bargain’ combined with the historical sense of injustice from the preceeding century has been exploited by the Vlaams Blok, and it is now ‘common practise’ in Flanders to refuse to speak French to any Walloon visiting Flanders.

I also disagree with your assessment about Spain. Spain has given the parts of the country that have distinct cultures more autonomy. Although there are regional governments in other parts of the country they have much lesser powers, so I do not see that Prescott’s regions have any validity. Labour proposed one such region, and it turned out that the voters did not see sufficient ‘regional identity’ to justify the extra assembly of politicians.

I disagree with you about the risks of federalism. I believe that the lopsided system that Labour have created, where Scottish representatives can, effectively, tax Englishmen, to Scotland’s benefit (as, for example in their votes on student funding), while English representatives have no say on Scottish spending (except for writing a blank cheque) is far more likely to cause disintegration. A federal system, where each constituent part of the UK taxes, and spends on local issues, and a far more limited UK parliament would defuse the situation, in my opinion.

If I may clarify. I referred to the “fairly equal” distribution when Belgium was first created. I don’t have access to 1830 population statistics as between Flanders and Wallonia, but given that this pre-dated industrialisation, the best proxy for looking at a region’s relative population is the number of historic market towns. Liege, Namur, Charleroi and Mons were every bit as important as Antwerp, Ghent and Bruges. This is what enabled francophone Wallonia to dominate Belgium until the post war period when
the disparity in GDP became too lop-sided to support Walloon preference. The disparity in population today was driven by industrialisation and depletion of rural population – a phenomenon seen across Europe, but more evident in Belgium since Flanders was more industrial, and Wallonia more agrarian. I never suggested that millions had moved in just the past few decades.

As to the linguistic bigotry you mention, this has got much worse in recent decades. Back in the 70s, as a francophone, I was at no disadvantage when visiting Ostende or Courtrai., yet when I returned on business a few years ago I had to grapple with Flemish signs in Kortrijk and locals who preferred to answer me in English. In terms of Flemish willingness to learn French, I think you will find that they were given little choice as this was compulsory in all Belgian schools. These days, it is a badge of Flemish pride to refuse to speak French, and they prefer English.

On your last point, I was merely agreeing with Peter that a federal UK would be unstable, and not commenting on independance. I don’t accept the inevitability of anything. The Spanish example you cite is also flawed since Spain has an existing regional structure and regional identities, hence a federal structure works. It would only work in the UK if we had several English regions (as the EU and Mr Prescott have sought to foist on England) with equal status in the federal UK as Scotland , Wales and Ulster.

However, that leads to two separate problems:
- how do make laws that apply in some, but not all, regions ?
- how do you tell the English that England no longer exists, and they are henceforth East Midlanders, or South-Westerners, or whatever ?

The risk with a Federal UK is not that it puts Scotland or Wales on an inevitable path to separation, but that it feeds a form of militant English nationalism that is destructive of the entire United Kingdom.

Thank you for accepting my points about the economic basis for the tensions in Belgium. However, your assertion that the regions started with the populations were “fairly equal” remains unsupported.

Yes, I know that my rather cynical exaggeration claiming that all the difference was caused by a higher birth rate was ridiculous (and was meant to be so). However, you appear unaware of the linguistic politics of the country. Walloons (as a group) only pay lip-service to learing Dutch (the reverse is not true). Because of historical tensions over language, except in officially bilingual Brussels, a French speaker gets fairly short shrift in Flanders, or a Flemish speaker in Wallonia. What migration there is primarily consists of professional class Walloons getting jobs in Brussels, but choosing to live in one of the ring of communes surrounding Brussels. Altough this migration looms large (for political reasons) in these communes, it hadn’t (in 1996, when I last worked there) changed the balance in any of the communes. Migration depends on the rate immigrants can be absorbed, and to suggest millions have migrated in 40 years is, simly, ludicrous.

Finally, if you are agreeing with Peter Cairns on Federal structures, are you suggesting that eventually the Basque country and Catelonia are on an irreversable path to independence. Surely they are reasonable analogues for Wales & Scoutland within the United Kingdom?

When Belgium was first created (1830) from two very different Hapsburg provinces, the population distribution was not that unequal. However, Wallonia dominated the country, both politically and economically, and this continued until the post-war period when the disparity between Flanders and Wallonia could no longer be ignored.

The federal solution was an attempt to address these tensions, and so keep this somewhat artificial country together. You will no doubt be aware of the claim that the only true Belgian was/is the King himself. I don’t know what the population figures were in 1970, but, as you note, it is not just the number of people that has diverged, but, and far more importantly, GDP per capita.

However, the ongoing tensions arising from the growing disparity between a thriving Flanders and a declining Wallonia have not been resolved by the federal structure. So, it is valid to argue that the Belgian example is a warning to the UK that Federalism is not a panacea. In any case, the key point was that Belgium does not disprove the point made by Peter Cairns that a Federal structure where 85% is in one unit are the remainder distributed among three others is inherently unstable.

Fianlly, I agree entirely that if your neighbour (or even your brother) keeps picking your pocket, you are likely to get fed up.

(PS – population growth is driven more by migration than birth rates, and many Wallonians have moved north/west in search of work, just as many Scots, Welsh or northerners have moved to SE England.)