If a place has its own government, parliament, as well as a unique history, culture and identity, could it one day choose to leave the country it belongs to?
This question has recently once again become a focus of British politics. On September 14, political leaders from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland held a summit and signed a joint memorandum, collectively putting forward demands for self-determination and calling for greater powers for each region to decide its own constitutional future.
These remarks may carry an element of political declaration, but the issue they reflect is not limited to the United Kingdom. When regional governments, parliaments and identities gradually take shape, where should the boundary of power between regions and the central government lie? If self-determination and independence are brought back onto the political agenda across the UK, could an Australian state one day also leave the federation?
Different Histories, Different Identities
To understand why the UK has seen this debate over independence and self-determination, it is first necessary to understand that the UK itself was not a country gradually built around a single nation and a single political centre. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have different histories, cultures and political identities.
Scotland was originally an independent kingdom, with its own legal system, educational traditions and political history. It was not until 1707 that it united with England to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. Wales, meanwhile, was conquered by England and incorporated into its rule at the end of the 13th century, and its language and cultural traditions also came under pressure. Northern Ireland was also occupied by England and experienced a long history of British rule, population movements, religious divisions and political conflict.
For Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, regional identity already has deep historical and cultural roots. Political demands for autonomy or independence have, to some extent, also been built on these existing identities. Regional identity did not suddenly emerge because of political disputes in recent years, but has long existed within society.
In other words, today’s UK is a country formed through the long-term political integration of different historical communities, and these histories themselves have shaped how local societies understand identity, power and central rule. When these identities come into conflict with the power of the central government, cultural policies or national identity, existing regional identities may further develop into political demands for autonomy, self-determination, or even independence.
Devolution
This history also influenced Britain’s later political system. Beginning in the 1990s, the UK introduced “devolution”, establishing regional parliaments and governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and transferring some domestic powers back to the regions. Policies on education, healthcare and transport, among others, can in part be decided by local governments, while foreign affairs, defence and matters concerning the UK’s overall constitutional arrangements remain largely under the control of Westminster.
Devolution was originally intended to give regions greater autonomy, but it also made regional political identities more visible. Once regions had their own parliaments and governments and could handle many policies themselves, demands for further powers, and even political space to discuss independence, also increased. Scotland held an independence referendum in 2014. At the time, 55% of voters supported remaining in the UK, while 45% supported independence, but the issue of independence did not disappear as a result.
In recent years, nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have gained greater political influence, bringing this constitutional debate back into focus. The political objectives of the three regions are not exactly the same. Scotland and Wales mainly debate independence, while Northern Ireland involves Irish reunification. But all three share one common demand: that the central government should further recognise the regions’ right to determine their own constitutional futures.
The Differences Between Local Autonomy in the UK and Australia
Looking back at Australia, we can also see a similar institutional arrangement. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own parliaments and governments, while Australia’s states also have their own state governments and parliaments.
The key difference worth comparing is the position these regional governments occupy within the overall national system. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have gained a certain degree of autonomy within the sovereign state of the UK through devolution. Australia’s six states, by contrast, are themselves important components of the federal system, with the powers of state governments divided and protected by the Australian Constitution. In other words, both sides have regional autonomy, but the historical and constitutional foundations that created this autonomy are different.
What makes Australia particularly distinctive is that, in addition to the federal and state levels, there are also local governments, creating three levels of government: federal, state and local. Each level is responsible for different areas of affairs, allowing political power to be distributed across different levels. For ordinary residents, issues such as education, healthcare and public transport can be handled by state governments, while local roads, planning and community services are handled by local governments. National matters such as defence, foreign affairs and immigration are handled by the federal government.
For an Australian state, moving from a federal system to a sovereign country would not simply mean expanding the powers of the state government slightly further. It would mean crossing an entire set of national-level institutional issues involving law, population, defence, foreign affairs, currency and borders.
Western Australia Once Considered Leaving Too
Compared with the UK, Australia has a shorter history. Before federation was established in 1901, the six states were originally separate British colonies, each with its own government and parliament, before later forming Australia through the federal system. Western Australia, in particular, once sought to leave the Australian Federation because of dissatisfaction with the federal system.
Western Australia was the last colony at the time to decide to join the federation. The gold rush in the late 19th century drove rapid population and economic growth, but Western Australia was geographically distant from the eastern states, and its economic structure and local interests were also different. The state had abundant mineral resources and vast areas of land. As resource development continued, Western Australia later became an important resource and export base for Australia. Iron ore, gold, natural gas and lithium remain important pillars of Western Australia’s economy today.
However, joining the federation did not eliminate the differences between Western Australia and the eastern states. In 1900, Western Australian voters voted in favour of joining the federation, but after federation was established, disputes over tariffs, resources and economic interests continued. Some Western Australians believed that Western Australia provided large amounts of resources and export revenue to the country, but federal policies did not necessarily adequately reflect local interests. As these grievances accumulated, the idea of leaving the federation regained attention in the 1920s, while the Great Depression further deepened dissatisfaction with the federal system among some Western Australians.
By 1933, this separatist sentiment finally reached the stage of a referendum. Western Australia held a referendum on April 8 on leaving the Australian Federation, with more than two-thirds of voters supporting separation. The Western Australian government subsequently sent a delegation to Britain to seek support, but the British side ultimately considered that Western Australia could not legally leave the federation without the approval of the Australian Parliament. Western Australia ultimately remained part of the Australian Federation.
Could Western Australia Become Independent Today?
Whether Western Australia could become an independent country today can be considered from four aspects: law, population, the economy, and identity.
(1) Law
To discuss whether Western Australia can leave Australia, we can first return to the establishment of the Australian Federation. Before 1901, Australia’s six states were still British colonies, each with its own government, parliament and legal system. They were not a unified country. As there was a need to handle matters such as defence, immigration and trade collectively, the colonies eventually chose to form a federation and establish Australia as a common country under the same system.
Once this federal system was established, whether a state could leave on its own was no longer simply a matter that could be decided within the state. The Australian Constitution does not specify how existing states can leave the federation. Instead, its opening provisions describe the Australian Commonwealth as “indissoluble”, meaning indivisible. In other words, the current Constitution does not provide a legal procedure for a state to independently withdraw from the federation.
If a state were to legally leave Australia, the Constitution would first have to be amended, and constitutional amendment requires a national referendum. In addition to receiving support from more than half of voters across Australia, a majority of voters in a majority of states would also have to support it. This arrangement in fact reflects the way the federation was originally established: since Australia was formed as a federation through the agreement of different colonies, changing the constitutional arrangements of the federation itself cannot be decided unilaterally by just one state.
Therefore, even if Western Australia held its own referendum and obtained majority support, a state-level vote alone would not be enough to complete secession. If Western Australia were genuinely to leave Australia, it would need not only the consent of Western Australians, but also the agreement of the entire federal political community to a change in the constitutional arrangements. Therefore, under the current system, it is not simple for an Australian state to move towards independence.
(2) Population
But assuming that this legal obstacle were genuinely resolved one day, would Western Australia have the basic conditions to become a country?
Population is one important factor. As of March 2026, Western Australia’s population was more than 3 million, while Australia’s total population was approximately 27.92 million. This in itself does not mean that it could not become a country, but the size of the population would directly affect the institutional costs it would have to bear after independence.
Functions currently handled by the federal government, including defence, foreign affairs, borders, immigration and some financial and administrative functions, would all need to be established and maintained by Western Australia itself after independence. Therefore, the real question concerning population is not simply “how many people are there?”, but whether this population size could support the institutions and public services required by a fully sovereign country.
(3) Economy
On the other hand, Western Australia does have a very strong economic foundation. According to the latest data from the Western Australian Government, Western Australia’s gross state product was approximately A$461.7 billion in 2024–25, accounting for around 17% of Australia’s economy. In the year to May 2026, Western Australia’s merchandise exports reached A$237.7 billion, accounting for 44.5% of Australia’s total merchandise exports.
But the question is how much of this economic strength could be directly converted into the capabilities of an independent country.
Western Australia’s current exports, businesses, labour market and financial system do not operate within the framework of an independent country. Large-scale resource exports require international trade arrangements, businesses would need to deal with new tax and regulatory systems, while residents would also have to deal with currency, banking, passports, borders and immigration issues that are currently handled uniformly under the federal system. Even if Western Australia retained the Australian dollar, maintained an open border with Australia, or signed a defence cooperation agreement with Australia, these arrangements would all have to be renegotiated rather than naturally continuing after independence.
(4) Identity
Beyond population and the economy, there is another factor that is more difficult to quantify: identity.
Unlike Scotland and Wales, although Western Australia has its own history, geographical environment and regional identity, this does not mean that Western Australians generally see themselves as a nation separate from Australia. Regional identity and Australian identity can coexist. Therefore, separatist demands that have emerged in Western Australia in the past may not necessarily have been based primarily on cultural or national identity. They can also be understood as dissatisfaction with the federal system, central government policies, and the distribution of interests between the states.
In other words, believing that “leaving Australia” would give Western Australia greater autonomy is different from believing that “Western Australia is a nation separate from Australia”. For a genuinely independent country, in addition to having its own government, economy and territory, there must also be sufficient political will for residents to accept a new national identity.
Western Australia today is not a place lacking the conditions for independence, but neither is it a place that could simply leave the Australian Federation after holding a single referendum. The real key would still require fundamental changes to both Australia’s constitutional system and Western Australia’s own political choices.
Three Levels of Government Provide Space Beyond Independence
Australia’s federal system actually provides a relatively important buffer.
The three-level government system has of course not eliminated conflicts between the central government and the regions, but it means that regions do not necessarily have to choose between “completely obeying the central government” and “leaving the country”. State governments already have certain legislative and policy powers. They can formulate state-level policies according to local needs, manage public services, and represent their states in negotiating fiscal and policy arrangements with the federal government.
For Western Australia or other states, this means that even if a state government believes that the distribution of resources under the federal system is unfair, it can still demand reform within the federal framework. Even if it believes that states should have greater autonomy, it can put forward demands for greater state powers. Local interests do not need to first be transformed into demands for independence in order to have political space for expression.
This is one of the important functions of a federal system: it does not require every region to be exactly the same, but within the same country, it allows different regions to retain a certain degree of autonomy.
The Australian Constitution establishes the basic framework of this system by dividing powers between the federal and state governments. The three levels of government then distribute different areas of public responsibility. This arrangement may not prevent all conflicts between the central government and the regions, but it at least provides different levels of political responses.
Therefore, if regional consciousness in an Australian state were to strengthen further in the future, the question would return to the federal system itself: can Australia’s existing federal system continue to accommodate the interests and demands of different regions, allowing regions the space to seek greater autonomy within the federal framework?
Countries Do Not Remain Unchanged, and Institutions Must Respond to Society
From a broader perspective, the UK’s experience is not only about Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. It also reflects a more universal question: the relationship between the state and society has never been fixed. Population movements, economic development, generational change, rising levels of education, and the gradual formation of regional identities can all change how society understands power, identity and autonomy. These changes do not necessarily lead directly to independence, but they may cause political arrangements that were once taken for granted to gradually come under renewed scrutiny.
This change does not exist only in the UK or federal countries. For other countries, and even centralised states such as China, how the relationship between the centre and the regions, and between the state and society, should be adjusted is also an issue that needs to be addressed. Central power can be very strong, but maintaining a stable community over the long term depends not only on laws and political institutions, but also on whether institutions can respond to the constantly changing needs of different regions and social groups.
Returning to Australia, the issue facing Western Australia today is still mainly about the distribution of power and interests within the federation, rather than the breakup of the country. But Western Australia already held a secession referendum a century ago, while self-determination debates have re-emerged in the UK today. Looking at these two histories together shows that the relationship between regions and the centre is not fixed. The integrity of a country can be established by laws and institutions, but for a community to remain together over the long term, institutions ultimately need to have the ability to respond to changes in society.