I lived in WA for a couple of years in the 1970s, and even then was somewhat bemused at Lang Hancock's "Westralian Secession Movement" and the constant bagging of the "E.S." (Eastern States) in what passed for their daily newspaper. I doubt that WA would be viable as an independent state, but I can see no real reason why they shouldn't if, for example, they could demonstrate 2/3 of the electorate support secession.

Having said that, I've long thought that all Australian states and local councils should be abolished, in favour of a new National structure based around enhanced regional governments, thus abolishing one level of government entirely. Such a system would be less wasteful, would be more representative and would dispense with the main justification for secession in one fell swoop.

*There is an issue in the cities in the east that shows a lack of understanding about the west.*

Country Gal, you are quite correct. I've heard plenty of eastern
disparaging comments about WA, because people simply don't know
anything about the place. Meantime people like yourself would
fit in well here :)

I firmly believe that smaller democracies work better then large
ones. The larger the ivory towers, the less in touch with the
population are the bureaucrats. In America little gets done unless
there is a national disaster. The EU and its adminstration are a
scandal and I would not be surprised if their growing financial
crisis blows them apart.

Belly I know you love your party machine, but frankly bloke, tell
me what they actually do that is useful and could not be better done
at the regional level, where the locals could make their own
decisions.

Yep.

"Federation was a really bad idea"

Discuss.

*find a name other than Australia*

Err Belly, AFAIK since before federation, this place was called
Western Australia. No need to find a name, we have a name.

You don't even notice the arrogant big brother from the East
approach. If WA seceded, the name would be our business, not
your business. Now tell me what your party machine does that
is actually useful and that we could not do better ourselves.

BTW don't even try to justify the 3 planes and a couple of subs
that are commonly broken down as a good reason. For in a war
the West would quickly be abandoned to defend the East, where
all the power junkies live.

WA has every right to complain about being treated as a second
class citizen, just there to me milked

There, there Yabby, the nasty easterners will stop picking on you. Just go and count your sheep, there's a good boy.

Should WA remain one big state?

There are many reasons why that may not be sensible or practical. If we look at examples around the world there are cities, countries, and the state of California in the US with populations equal to or greater than the whole of Australia.

In recent years there have been suggestions made in political circles to eliminate state governments thus eliminating duplication and having one central government in Canberra.

In Melbourne under the Liberal leadership of Kennett an attempt was made to minimise the rule of Municipal Councils by amalgamating them into larger districts with no detrimental effect.

When it comes to funding of states and building of infrastructure, frequently friction arises between state and federal governments with the result that states prefer to concentrate their funding on their centres of government.

Splitting up Western Australia would only accentuate the problem and be of no benefit. We do see states with larger populations being favoured for greater funding and attention but that's only natural because they are states that determine the political outcome.