One of the main sins here is a definitional one, maybe ironic in a lawyer-politician. The notion of "federalism", as such, doesn't mean anything concrete, or commit you to anything concrete. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/scotland-should-have-more-powers-in-move-to-federalism-sir-keir-starmer/

But what it *ought* to mean is the kind of radical reform to the assumed sovereignty of the centre of British politics - of Westminster - which no administration, Labour or Tory, has been prepared to countenance since Tom Nairn first called it out decades ago. Wearying.

So long as MPs belch and guffaw about Westminster being sovereign, and the belching and guffawing has increased, not decreased in the last half decade, no meaningful federalism in these islands is possible. This isn't rocket science.

Quoted umpteen times before. But since I'm here.