As I said, why stop at WA?
Every argument advanced so far as to why WA doesn't need the rest of the continent could be applied just as readily to why the Pilbara doesn't need WA.
I fully agree that small democracies are 'more democratic'. This to me is an excellent argument as to why we should abolish the states altogether in favour of local governments. We are currently one of the most overrepresented countries in the world, and in the case of Qld at least, we pay Mayors and councillors dam' near as much money as our Representatives (in some cases, more).
There are many issues which could be much more efficiently and fairly addressed on a local level, than on a federal or even state level. Immigration, for one. There are many regional areas which would welcome immigrants -even boat people- with open arms. Unemployment is another. Banking could be another. We would be far better off with community credit unions instead of institutions 'to big, to be allowed to fail'.
Innovative? The argument so far has been “let's change the name from State of Western Australia to Country of Western Australia, so we don't have to share”.
Yes, that's very innovative.
All over the world, countries with arbitrarily imposed imperial boundaries have been and are breaking up on the basis of culture, language or religion. The European experiment is breaking up largely through the failed naive idea that different cultures could share a common economy.
Are Westralians so different from other Australians? The ever narcissistic Yabby appears to think so, although even he had to admit that the mining industry may have skewed the figures somewhat.
I wonder how many of those 'hard working' sand gropers were the “real thing”? Is it possible many of the hardest working flew in from other states, or even (gasp!) other countries, and will happily return when their pockets are full?
Sadly, I very much doubt that the Westralians' greed and selfishness makes them so culturally different to the rest of us.

A great idea , in fact why not let regional australia secede from urban australia. I always hear how we are draw on the urban community as we, according to the urban peoples, need many subsidy’s, , phone, agriculture, water, electricity, extra health and welfare.
Have a free trade agreement between the two “states” and a tax system that taxes the wealth where it is consumed. This mean urban living people, that work in the regional areas will have to pay income tax on their income before taking it to the urban areas/city’s.
Along with the royalties the regions get to keep, I think any reasonable govt can invest in the future so that when the mines do get mined out, there is some new wealth source to live on.
Investing in agriculture would be a good start, as many overseas investors are already.(we are selling our food security to them, but that’s another debate)
With this happening, regional australia will have great economic warning about the policy of spending all our wealth on subsidised wealth consumption, (as the urban areas are doing)
watching over that “line” as the urban communities struggle with no wealth creation economy will be a are very sober warning indeed..
Bring it on!

This is not about regional areas now wanting to share their wealth. This is about regional’s areas choosing to give some of their wealth to the more needy, less well off.
At the moment the regions feel we are told to give to the “LESS NEEDY AND MORE WELL OFF”

*This to me is an excellent argument as to why we should abolish the states altogether in favour of local governments*

Well perhaps far easier to get rid of the most expendable first,
those who do least, which is Canberra. Let every State run their
own affairs and just get rid of the Federal Govt. We really don't
need Mr Rudd tripping around the world etc.

I agree with your Dunart, its the regions generating wealth to
keep the cities going. Thats perhaps why the royalties for regions
idea caught on in WA and it has made a difference. But now the Federal
Govt wants to ignore the constitution and do the plundering.